Category Archives: General Education

Information of Value for Citizen Patriots

Why Volunteers Make More of a Difference

Why Volunteers Make More of a Difference Than Government

Commentary By Ed Feulner @EdFeulner
Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas.
“What can we do to help?”
Americans have been asking this question in one form or another from our very founding. For much of our history, the answer has come in the form of individual efforts, not government programs.
Fortunately, even in the age of big government, Americans still feel the urge to help. They ask what they can do. They volunteer.

They do it, of course, in times of tragedy. After Hurricane Katrina, for example, Americans nationwide opened their homes to families who had lost everything. Hundreds of thousands went to the Gulf Coast to clean up and rebuild.

It’s not just when a crisis strikes that Americans help. They do it in ways that may seem small—volunteering at soup kitchens, donating food and clothing, pitching in to assist a neighbor in trouble—but that make a big difference in the lives of the people they help.
I’ve been concentrating on examples here at home, on ways in which we reach out to those living in the United States, but we also help those outside of our borders. Consider the group called Spirit of America. Founded by entrepreneur Jim Hake, Spirit of America has been described by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal (former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan) as a “philanthropic rapid response team.” Its mission is simple: Find out what our troops and diplomats say they need to assist in building bridges to local populations, and then supply it.

Tools. Blankets. Clean water. Job training. The needs are as varied as the locations, but they all have one thing in common: helping people. Take Spirit of America’s work in Syria. The New York Times recently focused on its efforts to supply independent media there with solar-powered radios ($25 each), and activist Raed Fares and Radio Fresh with warning sirens ($700 each) so that innocent civilians can be warned of attacks by the Assad regime and by extremists.

“The price tag wasn’t why the State Department wanted Spirit of America involved,” the newspaper writes. “The organization could do a project more quickly and on a smaller scale than the government could.” What could be more American? Here we have government basically acknowledging that a group founded by a private citizen can do a better job.

Or consider Spirit of America’s work in Vietnam, where many poor and disadvantaged children drop out of school before sixth grade. A quality education is hard to find there. This summer, Spirit of America spoke with the staff of a new school near what used to be the demilitarized zone between north and south: “As we talked through the best way to meet the needs of the children, it became clear that their greatest need was books. Purchasing English-written children’s books within Vietnam is nearly impossible. The freight cost of shipping books from overseas was a prohibitive, time-consuming challenge for the school’s staff.

“However, with the support of our donors, Spirit of America was able to purchase nearly 100 literary classics for the students. The books, written by authors including Jack London, Dr. Seuss and Judy Blume, arrived just in time for the students to discover them on the first day of the new school year.” There are many other examples from around the world, from supplying cookware to Filipino youths, to improving health care in the eastern European country of Georgia for critically wounded veterans of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Hake told The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger, “Some will still ask, why can’t government do it all? That is the wrong question. We should be asking: How do we win?”

Exactly. Hake’s group is well-named because this kind of can-do attitude—this practical optimism, if you will—helps define the American spirit. We don’t wait on government. We see what needs to be done—and we do it.

Originally appeared in the Washington Times.

Sheriff McMahon Was Highest Paid County Politician In California

Sheriff McMahon Was Highest Paid County Politician In California

By Venturi
(December 22) San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon was the highest-paid county elected official in California in 2013, according to state controller John Chiang. During his first full year in office as sheriff, McMahon received a total compensation package of well over half of a million dollars.
According to Chiang, McMahon received $363,986 in total wages in 2013, which included $225,499 in regular pay, a $121,579 lump-sum for cashed-out leave time following his appointment in December 2012, and another $16,908, described as “other pay,” which covered his car allowance and cell phone usage. In addition to his salary, McMahon was provided with another $170,780 in retirement and health benefits, which included a $114,812 defined benefit plan, a $11,215 retirement contribution, $31,804 in deferred compensation and $12,949 provided for health/dental/vision coverage.
McMahon’s total compensation surpassed that of then-Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, the state’s second-highest paid elected county official in 2013, with $347,786 in total wages and more than $140,000 in benefits that pushed his total compensation package to roughly $490,000.
The controlling factor that rocketed McMahon to the top of the field among the state’s elected county officials was the $121,579 lump sum for cashed-out leave time he received. The lump sum was for vacation, holiday and sick time he had accumulated before he assumed the sheriff’s position. As an elected official, a sheriff is not permitted to maintain leave balances.
McMahon fared particularly well in 2013 in that San Bernardino County ranks as 23rd out of the state’s 58 counties in terms of pay and benefits provided to employees. San Bernardino County, which employs 21,985, paid them an average of $48,997 in total wages in 2013 and provided them with another $20,321 in retirement and health benefits on average. The state average on per employee pay was $58,521 and $22,546 in benefits.
District Attorney Mike Ramos was the fifth highest-paid district attorney in the state, bringing down $259,451 in total wages, which does not include benefits.
That was par for the course, as San Bernardino County is the fifth largest county in the state. Four of San Bernardino County’s supervisors, none of whom was identified by name, received salaries that ranged from $168,000 to $173,000, which was more than all other supervisors in California except their counterparts in Los Angeles. A fifth San Bernardino County supervisor earned about $163,000.
McMahon was appointed to the sheriff’s position in late 2012 and, running as an unelected incumbent for sheriff this year, was elected to a four-year term in his own right. While the inflated salary and benefits he received in 2013 was shocking to some, there were many other public employees in California who were paid more. McMahon was the highest paid elected county official, but nine unelected county officials throughout the state earned more. And some state of California employees were extremely well paid.
The UCLA football coach was the highest paid state employee in California at $2,639,609. The UC Berkeley football coach was paid $2.3 million. In addition, the chief investment officer for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System was paid $784,616; the senior investment officer for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System received $598,983; another senior investment officer for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System received $592,887; the president and CEO of the State Compensation Insurance Fund received
$587,675; a senior psychiatrist supervisor with the state earned $580,776; a staff psychiatrist with the state earned $546,116; and another senior investment officer with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System earned $541,540.
Chiang released the update to his database on December 15, 2014, adding the 2013 data.
He said it was his intent to provide “the public with a broader picture of public compensation. California must not only restore public confidence that their governments are responsive and accountable, but provide the necessary information and tools to empower citizen participation in civic decision-making,” Chiang said.

© SBSentinel.

CA Illegal Immigrant at DMV: Nobody’s Passing Written Test !Duh!

CA Illegal Immigrant at DMV: Nobody’s Passing Written Test

by Tony Lee 3 Jan 2015 563
Many illegal immigrants at a Northern California DMV reportedly were failing the written exam when applying for driver’s licenses on Friday.

Under the AB 60 law that Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed in 2013 and took effect at the start of 2015, illegal immigrants were able to apply for driver’s licenses on Friday. And nearly 1.4 illegal immigrants are expected to apply for licenses in California in the next three years.

At a DMV in south Sacramento, Veronica Oropeza, a 28-year-old illegal immigrant who has reportedly been driving without a license for six years, reportedly failed her written exam twice.

“Nobody’s passing,” she told the Sacramento Bee in Spanish.

As the Bee noted, “those who passed the written exam were given a driver’s permit and required to return another day to take the road test.”

When Nevada allowed illegal immigrants to apply for licenses last year, 71% of illegal immigrants in the state reportedly failed the written exam in the first three days. Wanting to avoid what happened in Nevada, immigrant groups like the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) had provided free test prep classes to illegal immigrants in the final months of 2014.

Oropeza had “already spent more than three hours at the DMV,” and “she couldn’t stay to take the exam a third time, she said, because she had to get to work.”

Read More Stories About:

Copyright © 2015 Breitbart

Why Our Founders Required an Oath to Include ‘So Help Me God’


Why Our Founders Required an Oath to Include ‘So Help Me God’

Bill Federer
Why has the tradition in America been for oaths to end with “So Help Me God”?
The military’s oath of enlistment ended with “So Help Me God.”
The commissioned officers’ oath ended with “So Help Me God.”
President’s oath of office ended with “So Help Me God.”
Congressmen and Senators’ oath ended with “So Help Me God.”
Witnesses in Court swore to tell the truth, “So Help Me God.”
Even Lincoln proposed an oath to be a United States citizen which ended with “So Help Me God.”

On DECEMBER 8, 1863, Lincoln announced his plan to accept back into the Union those who had been in the Confederacy with a proposed oath:

“Whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States…Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion … that a full pardon is hereby granted to them…with restoration of all rights of property … upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath … to wit:
“I, ______, do solemnly swear, in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves… and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all proclamations of the President made during the existing rebellion having reference to slaves… SO HELP ME GOD.”

A similar situation was faced by Justice Samuel Chase, who was the Chief Justice of Maryland’s Supreme Court in 1791, and then appointed by George Washington as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1796-1811.
In 1799, a dispute arose over whether an Irish immigrant named Thomas M’Creery had in fact become a naturalized U.S. citizen and thereby able to leave an estate to a relative in Ireland.

The court decided in M’Creery’s favor based on a certificate executed before Justice Samuel Chase, which stated:

“I, Samuel Chase, Chief Judge of the State of Maryland, do hereby certify all whom it may concern, that … personally appeared before me Thomas M’Creery, and did repeat and subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian Religion, and take the oath required by the Act of Assembly of this State, entitled, An Act for Naturalization.”
An oath was meant to call a Higher Power to hold one accountable to perform what they promised. . . . Courts of Justice thought oaths would lose their effectiveness if the public at large lost their fear of the God of the Bible who gave the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

New York Supreme Court Chief Justice Chancellor Kent noted in People v. Ruggles, 1811, that irreverence weakened the effectiveness of oaths:
“Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths.”

George Washington warned of this in his Farewell Address, 1796:

“Let it simply be asked where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts of Justice?”
In August of 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville observed a court case:

“While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul.”
The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say.

The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms: “The court of common pleas of Chester County (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God.”

The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.’” Oaths to hold office had similar acknowledgments.

The Constitution of Mississippi, 1817, stated: “No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.”
The Constitution of Tennessee, 1870, article IX, Section 2, stated:
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.”

The Constitution of Maryland, 1851, required office holders make “[a] declaration of belief in the Christian religion; and if the party shall profess to be a Jew the declaration shall be of his belief in a future state of rewards and punishments.”

In 1864, the Constitution of Maryland required office holders to make “[a] declaration of belief in the Christian religion, or of the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.”

The Constitution of Pennsylvania, 1776, chapter 2, section 10, stated:
“Each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: ‘I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.’”

The Constitution of South Carolina, 1778, article 12, stated: “Every…person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and believes in the future state of rewards and punishments… (is eligible to vote).”
The Constitution of South Carolina, 1790, article 38, stated: “That all persons and religious societies, who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshiped, shall be freely tolerated.”

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court stated in Commonwealth v. Wolf (3 Serg. & R. 48, 50, 1817:

“Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life.”
It was understood that persons in positions of power would have opportunities to do corrupt backroom deals for their own benefit.

But if that person believed that God existed, that He was watching, and that He would hold them accountable in the future, that person would hesitate, thinking “even if I get away with this my whole life, I will still be accountable to God in the next.” This is what is called “a conscience.” But if that person did not believe in God and in a future state of rewards and punishments, then when presented with the temptation to do wrong and not get caught, they would give in.

In fact, if there is no God, and this life is all there is, they would be a fool not to.
This is what President Reagan referred to in 1984: “Without God there is no virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience.”

William Linn, who was unanimously elected as the first U.S. House Chaplain, May 1, 1789, stated: “Let my neighbor once persuade himself that there is no God, and he will soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg but my neck. If there be no God, there is no law, no future account; government then is the ordinance of man only, and we cannot be subject for conscience sake.”

Sir William Blackstone, one of the most quoted authors by America’s founders, wrote in Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1770):
“The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the main attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting.”

When Secretary of State Daniel Webster was asked what the greatest thought was that ever passed through his mind, he replied “My accountability to God.”
Benjamin Franklin wrote to Yale President Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790: “The soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this.” Benjamin Franklin also wrote:

“That there is one God, Father of the Universe… That He loves such of His creatures as love and do good to others: and will reward them either in this world or hereafter, that men’s minds do not die with their bodies, but are made more happy or miserable after this life according to their actions.”

John Adams wrote to Judge F. A. Van der Kemp, January 13, 1815:
“My religion is founded on the love of God and my neighbor; in the hope of pardon for my offenses; upon contrition… In the duty of doing no wrong, but all the good I can, to the creation, of which I am but an infinitesimal part. I believe, too, in a future state of rewards and punishments.”

John Adams wrote again to Judge F. A. Van de Kemp, December 27, 1816:
“Let it once be revealed or demonstrated that there is no future state, and my advice to every man, woman, and child, would be, as our existence would be in our own power, to take opium. For, I am certain there is nothing in this world worth living for but hope, and every hope will fail us, if the last hope, that of a future state, is extinguished.”

John Adams wrote in a Proclamation of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer, March 6, 1799:
“No truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration… than… acknowledgment of… a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and punishments.”

‘American Minute’ is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward, reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement towww.americanminute.com. Bill Federer is available for speaking engagements to large or small groups. Mr. Federer can be reached at wjfederer@gmail.com or by phone: 314-540-1172.

About
#Iimg2#
WILLIAM J. FEDERER is a nationally known speaker, best-selling author, and president of Amerisearch, Inc., a publishing company dedicated to researching America’s heritage. Bill’s AMERICAN MINUTE radio feature is broadcast daily across America and by the Internet. His ‘Faith in History’ television airs on the TCT Network on stations across America and via DirectTV.

© 2014 Freedom Force

It’s not White Privilege, it’s American Privilege!

It’s not White Privilege, it’s American Privilege – Pulling the Mask off of Collectivist Fascism
Tom WiseDecember 27, 2014

I was sitting on my front porch, in a decent wooden rocker, eating sourdough pretzels from a bag, and drinking bottled water. Now, this may not sound like much to you, but just by enjoying these few things in a few moments of relative liberty, I am among the most fortunate people on the face of the Earth.

I don’t know the statistics offhand (and I’m too lazy at the moment to look them up… Google!), but much of the world is always on the brink of starvation. There’s no reason for me to feel guilty about this, even if I do feel sad. First, if I believe in God, which I do, I know that I was born into this place and time without any input from me, for some reason only God knows. Therefore, I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be, and I only have gratitude that where I’m supposed to be is here and now. Second, what good is a resource or product if it’s not enjoyed? My father always used to say, “Money is for spending.” I didn’t know what he meant then, but I think I know now. Money spent gives forth many things, has a life of its own, and can purchase some temporary thing to make us happy, whether food or some other item of value. Naturally, I could write many paragraphs regarding what money is, what happiness is, and whether or not money buys happiness, but I will leave those philosophies off the table right now.

Contrarily, there are many people who believe just the opposite. They do not think that resources and products are to be enjoyed by those who can afford to have them. They do not believe money ought to be handled by the population-at-large. Well, if the population-at-large ought not handle money, how shall they have what they want and need? An here’s where we get to the ideology which to most of us is alien. Most often, that alien ideology says the government should be sole benefactor of the labor of the many, and that resources ought to be distributed “as needed” by such government. This, of course, is Marxism, and its many branches of Socialism, communism, and other collectivism.

Collectivists are completely taken with the notion that whoever has a “privilege” to enjoy something, which someone else cannot enjoy, is a traitor. No, seriously. They believe the world is already collectivist, and that capitalists and individualists run contrary to this supposed global government. In their minds, they believe the yearning of the proletariat is the real government. They believe people with more wealth and power are oppressors, and not only oppressors, but illegal in their every actions, that is, traitors to this illusory world government.

We, of course, know that our God has created a Torah, a set of laws, which protects private property from theft and larceny, from unequal weights and measures, from vandalism and intentional destruction without cause. We also know that our laws in America protect not only life and liberty, but also private property. So it is with great consternation and puzzlement that we hear the crazed anger and sloganeering of the collectivists who tell us that ownership of property is not a real thing, that “you didn’t build that,” that “businesses don’t create jobs,” and thatwhite people are oppressors who subjugate everyone else.

Never mind that the main portion of these sloganeers are white themselves, obviously living without any belief system in Torah or the laws of Magna Carta, Constitution, and “possession is 9/10 of the law.” Never mind that these white sloganeers are themselves, generally speaking, from middle- to upper-class families, who have probably never been hungry a day in their lives, except on so-called hunger strikes to get attention. Never mind that these white spoiled guilt-ridden liberals have technology, know how to use it, and probably have every other advantage as well. No, never mind those things. They are “good” because they denigrate what they have. Weare “bad” because we don’t denigrate what we have, but treasure it, or at least have fun without guilt.

The newest such rallying slogan is that white people enjoy “white privilege,” which as near as I can figure out means that white people can walk or drive down the street without being harassed by the cops. Of course, this is completely untrue on its face. Bad cops harass everyone. Good cops tend not to harass anyone. But, of course, we are supposed to define this for the sloganeers because that’s part of the punishment! “When you can tell me what you’ve done, young man, you can have your dessert!” Well, the problem here is, the sloganeers don’t actually control our desserts! But they want to, don’t they?
Part of being a collectivist sloganeer is desiring to control the natural resources and the weapons. Part of being a collectivist is desiring to be the very fascist you say you despise! However, if you are a collectivist, you have already assumed that the world is just waiting to be rescued into your fascism.

Another idea of “white privilege” is having access to all the “good stuff.” Apparently, white people have the best education system, the best economic system, and so forth. The reason this is supposedly bad is that white people are bad, and don’t deserve it! Let’s examine that, shall we?

White people are bad, but it’s generally white people who are criticizing this “white privilege.” So, aren’t the white people who criticize also bad? No, of course not! Aha! So it is not being white which is bad, it’s being capitalistand individualist which is bad! We, therefore, come to the first truth about the doctrine of “white privilege” and that is that it is not about a person being “white,” but about “privilege.” We know this because it is the collectivists who are sloganeering, throwing rocks, and inciting riots. Oh yes they are!

So, it’s not that white people are bad, because you can be a “good” white person if you are a collectivist. Accordingly, it is “privilege” which is bad. But… these sloganeers are completely privileged. Are they not bad also? No! They are doing the “good work” of sloganeering, so they are exempt. They are better white people!

Furthermore, the goal of these collectivists is to have such privilege, if you will, distributed among those not privileged. So now the underprivileged will be privileged. Doesn’t this mean these newly privileged are now “bad,” by virtue of their new privilege? No! They haven’t had privilege for the same amount of time as those who have had privilege. Get it? No? Me neither. So it is not privilege which is bad, and not white people who are bad, and not privileged white people who are bad, as long as such privileged things are shared only by the underprivileged and the sloganeers. Are we clear?

So let’s say this comes to pass, and privileged white people (who are not sloganeers) lose their power and wealth. Who gets this power and wealth? Why, the underprivileged and the sloganeers, of course! The first getsrevenge. The second gets due reward! And the formerly-privileged white people? Are they not underprivileged now? No! That is a bad thought! They are not underprivileged, but rather “in their right place.” Get it?

You can readily see how absurd these positions of “white privilege” are. For the problem, even according to the sloganeers, is not really with white people (they are white), or privilege (it will merely be redistributed), or even white privilege (the sloganeers deserve theirs).

In reality, these sloganeers are against American privilege. They say the black man doesn’t get a fair shake in America. Really? Out of all the minorities, and there are many, the black man doesn’t get a fair shake? Considering that the black man is in the White House presently, and that Al Sharpton seems to run our social causes now, and that Oprah Winfrey is among the richest in the world, and let’s not forget all the entertainers, sports figures, and businessmen… I’m not buying it. In fact, there’s no reason for me to buy it. In my lifetime, I’ve seen the black man achieve greatly. If the black man hasn’t achieved all he desires, let him work for it, like everyone else. That is American privilege.

Whether or not anyone believes this, in America, the only thing holding you back is you. Black men have achieved in this country. So have Chinese, and Jews, and Irish, and Italians, and a host of others who were first picked on and placed in a ghetto. I’m oversimplifying for the sake of space, and leaving out scads of history and reforms, but the truth is, America is amazing. Tolerant and forgiving to a fault, and still able to be prosperous and safe. Again, I oversimplify, omitting much doctrine and policy, but America is a privileged place to live.

That’s why people want to live here, and risk their lives getting here. Safe haven, and money.

So, if “white privilege” in America means that white people are not frisked as much as black people, it is surely, in this day and age, not due to race, but due to 1) an increasing police state, and 2) and increasing savagery among the citizenry. If white people are less likely to be savage, due to their circumstances or temperament, the sloganeers ought not say that white people would certainly be more savage if they were deprived. Neither should the sloganeers say that black people, if given more privilege, would change their own temperaments. At best, this is wishful thinking, that people change their temperaments because they have money or power. No, people stay who they are. At worst, it is collectivist sloganeering, inciting among the black people an envy of things they lack. It is instigation of social-economic civil war, a radical communist platform.

In fact, if you read Bill Ayers’ Prairie Fire (ca 1971), you will see that he calls himself a communist, and says that one of the key elements of domestic social action of such radical communists is to incite the black man to revolution. This is one reason why I say Bill Ayers is still one of the most dangerous men in America.

These communists are against American Privilege. They don’t like Americans eating until bursting, because it reminds them that their own ideology causes people to literally starve to death by the millions (Mao, Lenin, Stalin). They don’t like Americans carrying guns because it reminds them that their own ideology causes purges and mass executions. It also reminds them that Americans have power, another privilege the communist does not have.

Don’t be fooled. These sloganeers are the same communists from 1856 and 1956, from Prussia to Congo. They provoke the elite with their rash statements, then hide behind the skirt of proletariat anger. In the current American version, they hide behind the black man’s plight, his urban gang problem, which kills thousand every year in inner cities. But these killings are not the result of white privilege, they are the result of drug wars, thug wars, and respect wars. It’s not from lack of opportunity, but rather wealth of opportunity in drugs, guns, and machismo. And nobody forces these young men to sell drugs, wave pistols, and attack random passers-by. That’s on them.

But it’s not only black neighborhoods which are rife with drugs and guns. White people get involved in every form of drug dealing. Latin Americans have their cartels. Orientals have their mafias.

And it’s not just about drugs and guns. It’s about ruling the world. Arabs have their Caliphate-seekers. The New World Order is continually pulling strings around the world. Africans war for supremacy daily. The Chinese increase their game of Risk for minerals. The Russians are always about conquest.

The sloganeers can represent any of these, but the end-game is the same, domination and hegemony. The “white privilege” gambit is a collectivist strategy, because it incites proletariat anger, and black pride. They use “white privilege” as a metaphor for their mortal enemies, Capitalism and Individualism. Don’t be fooled. This is not about awareness or compassion. This is war.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

What America Thinks January 7 Rasmussen Reports

Voters to Mexico: Stop Illegal Immigrants or Lose U.S. Aid

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

Most U.S. voters think the Mexican government doesn’t do enough to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking and favor stopping foreign aid to our southern neighbor until it does more to prevent illegal border crossings.
Just 14% of Likely U.S. Voters think the Mexican government wants to stop its citizens from illegally entering the United States, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty-five percent (55%) say Mexico is not interested in stopping illegal immigration. But 31% are not sure.
These findings have changed little over the past two years. In May 2010, however, just 13% thought Mexico wanted to stop illegal immigration, but 67% disagreed.

U.S. taxpayers gave Mexico $265 million in foreign aid in 2013, the most recent year figures are available for, and 53% of voters in this country think that aid should end until the Mexican government does more to stop Mexicans and others from illegally crossing the U.S. southern border. Only 31% disagree, but 16% are undecided.
Just 10% of voters believe the Mexican government has been aggressive enough in its effort to stop illegal drug traffickers. Seventy-four percent (74%) say Mexico has not been aggressive enough in fighting this problem, up nine points from 65% in February of last year. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.
A plurality (44%) says government corruption in Mexico is most to blame for the drug violence in that country. Twenty-four percent (24%) blame Mexican drug producers, while 21% think the violence is primarily due to drug users in the United States. Four percent (4%) say something else is chiefly to blame.

The national survey of 800 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on January 5-6, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

At a White House meeting yesterday, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto promised to assist President Obama’s plan to protect up to five million illegal immigrants in this country from deportation. In May 2012, 54% of U.S. voters wanted to demand compensation from Mexico to offset the cost to taxpayers in this country from illegal immigration.
Thirty percent (30%) of voters in this country regard Mexico as a U.S. ally, while just seven percent (7%) consider it an enemy. Fifty-four percent (54%) rate Mexico as somewhere in between the two. This is a more critical assessment than Americans expressed a year ago.
Most Republicans and most voters not affiliated with either major party believe the Mexican government does not want to stop illegal immigration and favor cutting U.S. aid until it does more to stop this traffic. Democrats are far more undecided about the Mexican government, and a plurality opposes a cut-off in aid.
But most voters in all three groups agree that the Mexican government has not been aggressive enough in trying to stop illegal drug traffickers. They also tend to blame government corruption in Mexico for the drug violence there.

Voters who are critical of the Mexican government’s immigration and anti-drug efforts are far less likely to consider the country an ally of the United States.
Nearly half (48%) of all voters think Congress should try to find ways to stop the president’s plan to allow several million illegal immigrants to stay in this country legally and apply for jobs. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think the federal government should only do what the president and Congress agree on when it comes to immigration.
Most voters have said for years that stopping illegal immigration is more important than putting those already here illegally on the path to citizenship.
An overwhelming majority of Americans still believe the United States is losing the war on drugs, but they are more divided over whether money is the answer.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters favor the use of the U.S. military to protect American citizens if drug violence escalates along the Mexican border.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

The national survey of 800 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on January 5-6, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.