Email or call Rush Limbaugh to Come Out Swinging Against DREAM Act/DACA

While it may not be his intention, this statement by Rush Limbaugh could be seen as pooh-poohing the idea that Trump voters are opposed to any form of being sold out on the immigration issue.

May I suggest that you mail him, email him (ElRushbo@eibnet.us), or call his show and impress upon him how wrong that is?

For more details of how to get in touch, here is the Contact Page

Here is a pre-written message (or make your own):

Dear Mr. Limbaugh:

Please beware of any polls that suggest that Trump supporters are okay with Trump passing amnesty legislation for the so-called "DREAMers."

Almost all of the polls are deliberately skewed, as this Breitbart piece shows:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/02/daca-polls-conceal-public-opposition-cheap-labor-amnesty/

If you are merely saying that people don't think he really means it with a deal, and is simply playing a game in order to get Chuck and Nancy where he wants them, that's one thing. But please stop implying that an amnesty sell-out would be okay with us!

Sincerely,

[Your name]

That is all.

Are DREAMers Net Contributors?

People often claim that "DREAMers," aka DACA recipients, are a boost to the economy. The Center for American Progress (CAP) says that deporting DACA recipients will cost $433.4 billion over ten years, and CATO says $283 billion.

The problem, however, is the lack of context. What does this actually mean per capita? Well, let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations.

According to Trading Economics, U.S. GDP in 2016 was $18,569.1 billion dollars. We will assume a modest 3% growth rate in the future.
I say this is modest because the average annual growth from 2009 to 2016 was 3.68%. I calculated this by taking the overall growth over 7 years (18569.10 divided by 14418.74 equals 1.2878 or 28.78% growth over 7 years) and taking the 7th root (1.2878^(1/7) = 1.0368 or 3.68% growth per year).

Under this assumption, the GDPs for 2017 will be $19126.17 billion and the GDPs for the next ten years will be:
2018 19699.96
2019 20290.96
2020 20899.69
2021 21526.68
2022 22172.48
2023 22837.65
2024 23522.78
2025 24228.46
2026 24955.32
2027 25703.98
The total GDP for the decade 2018 to 2027 will be $225,837.94 billion, or approximately $226 trillion.

According to Wikipedia, the U.S. Population in 2017 is estimated at 325,365,189. Assuming a growth rate similar to that of 2000-2010, let's say the the population will be 10% bigger in 2027. That would bring it to about 358 million. This includes everyone, children, the elderly, the unemployed.

The number of DACA recipients is estimated at 800,000. The CAP study is based on 741,546 people leaving (645,145 of whom are workers). The Cato study is based on an estimate of 750,000 people. That comes out to between .207 and .2095 percent of the U.S. population. Using the lower number, .207 per cent of the GDP for 2018-2027 is $467.8 billion.

In other words, unless the contributions of DACA recipients are more than $467.8 billion over ten years, they are actually reducing per capita GDP. And remember, this is using the population figure for the end of the period and assuming modest economic growth, both of which would tend to make the per capita GDP smaller and therefore make the DACA recipients' contributions look bigger in comparison. And of course, this is not counting how much collateral population growth letting DACA recipients stay versus deporting them will create - if half of DACA recipients have one kid (who won't be contributing economically at all for at least about fifteen years), that would mean that DREAMers would have to make $701.7 billion to keep per capita GDP flat.

The point is, getting rid of the DACA recipients would reduce the size of the overall U.S. economic pie, but it would reduce the number of people eating the pie by a greater percentage. Most of the discussions of the "economic benefits" or immigration tend to act as if the immigrants simply produce value for the native population without consuming anything.

Now this analysis does not conclusively show that there is no economic benefit to Americans from DACA recipients - that would depend on how much of the recipients' productivity is consumed by the recipients themselves. However, they would have to consume less than the average American for there to be any surplus at all, and perhaps significantly less if the CATO rather than the CAP study is correct. Then there is the issue of how the surplus is distributed, and whether there are winners and losers in the system. And all of this is assuming that economics is the only measure here.

In short, the benefits of allowing DACA recipients to stay are greatly exaggerated and may not exist at all. Don't let economists use half-calculated figures and incomplete statistics to trick you.

That is all.

Pointing out Immigrant Welfare Use Under Our Current System

A few articles to reference when people try to act as if immigration under a permissive system like ours is cost-free:(This is not to say that immigration is bad, per se, but that our current system is not selective enough.

Immigrant households use welfare at a higher rate than natives. Here is a link to the referenced study and here is a more recent study.

In fact, CIS has a whole page on immigrant welfare use.

FAIR report on the burden imposed on taxpayers in each state by illegal immigration.

That is all.

A Thought on How to Deal with Pre-Existing Conditions in the Individual Markets

It occurred to me, if the big issue with health care is how to deal with people with pre-existing conditions, would it not make more sense to develop a subsidy system for insurance and to let insurers do more actuarial pricing?

Note: This is about how to deal with the biggest Obamacare problem, the individual markets that are encountering a huge rise in prices, and is not an attempt to solve other issues that have arisen.
Essentially, what we have now is partial community rating. In real terms, that's like putting a head tax on insurance for healthy people. If we are going to subsidize health insurance for people who are too expensive to insure on the market, would it not make more sense to do it out of income tax revenue?

Put another way, why not subsidize insurance prices at varying rates as percentage of income? For example, you have to pay your premiums up to the first 12% of your income (I choose that figure because it amounts to 1% of annual income a month, the actual numbers could be different), then get, say, a 50% subsidy for the next 12%, an 80% subsidy for the next 12%, 90% for the next 12%, 99% for the next 12%, and 99.9% beyond that?

For someone making an adjusted gross income of $50,000 a year, this is what they would pay out for various monthly premiums:

$ 500.00.......$500.00
$1000.00.......$750.00
$1500.00.......$850.00
$2000.00.......$900.00
$2500.00.......$905.00
$5000.00.......$907.50
$10000.00......$912.50

For someone making an adjusted gross income of $100,000 a year, this is what they would pay out for various monthly premiums:

$ 500.00........$500.00
$1000.00.......$1000.00
$1500.00.......$1250.00
$2000.00.......$1500.00
$2500.00.......$1600.00
$5000.00.......$1810.00
$10000.00......$1815.00

We could avoid the issue of mandated coverage raising prices by allowing insurance companies to set rates actuarially, because then if you truly did not need coverage you would pay very little for it; i.e. a 55-year-old childless woman would still have to get pediatric dental, but due to the fact that very few 55-year-old women would need it, it would only add 25 cents a month to her bill. Without community rating, much of the "coverage I don't need" issue would become moot.

We could also avoid the issue of companies trying to make money off of the subsidies by overcharging (hey, the customer will pay $1000 more a month if he gets $999 back) by giving the full subsidy only to the cheapest plan (if you get a more expensive plan you have to pay, e.g., the greater of your basic subsidy, or your basic subsidy for the cheapest plan plus 20% of the difference between plans. This would encourage price competition.

This could be paid for in a variety or ways, either using existing tax revenue, raising income taxes, or putting on a special income tax (like we have for Medicare).

The advantages are that we would not be taxing health, and the subsidies would be less for those who could most afford not to have them, as opposed to the current system where a person making, say, 5 times the poverty level (i.e. not eligible for official subsidies) could easily be subsidizing a sicker person who is making 10 or 20 times the poverty level. We would get better risk pools if we were able to charge healthy people less.

That is all.

Why Feminists Insist Rape is not About Sex

From a comment at the Anonymous Conservative Blog:

Have you ever wondered why feminists insist that “rape is an act of violence, not sex”, when it most definitely and obviously is an act of sex?

Because feminism is sexual Marxism, the belief that women need, and are therefore entitled to, surplus resources produced by men. The inverse implication, that men need, and are therefore entitled to, sex with women, is avoided by insisting that sex is actually not sex, but violence.

That is all.

Do You Think Jews are White? I Will Guess Your Answer After You Answer These Questions.

(1) Do you generally sympathize with Jews as a group or not?

(2) Do you generally sympathize with whites as a group or not?

If you answered the same to both (1) and (2) then you think Jews are white.

If you answered differently, then you don't.

If your answers are nuanced, the more different your answers to (1) and (2) are, the less you think of Jews as white.

Note: Obviously I am talking about Jews in an ethnic sense here. No one thinks Sammy Davis Jr. is white.

That is all.

The Problem with Rod Dreher

I think Rod Dreher's biggest flaw as a commentator is his earnest desire to be the sort of conservative whom the New York Times ought to find respectable. Not that he is deluded that the left MSM would ever consider him such, but he wants to be able to say "if they were intellectually honest, they would consider me to be a fellow journalist in good standing."

That is all.

Vox Day on the Terror Threat

Here.

That is all.

Vox Day on Conservatives and Reactionaries

"It's really rather remarkable what these self-styled conservatives are willing to give up so that no one will call them, or their society, racist. Is the complete economic collapse of that block in Washington DC really a price worth paying to end segregation?"

That is all.

Why Risk Your Life for a No-Win Scenario? Have a Donut Instead!

In response to a comment on Steve Sailer's blog:

Click on image for better resolution.

Note: I am planning on cleaning up the picture in Photoshop later.

That is all.

The WHERE Community

You've heard of LGBTQ.

I have developed a new acronym.

WHERE:
White Nationalist
Human Biodiversity
Eugenicist
Race Realist
Evo Psych

If you are any one of those, welcome to the WHERE community!

That is all.

I Got a Re-Tweet from Lady Miss Kier

Right here. Yep, it's got the blue checkmark.

Whether that means I have hit the big league, or Deee-Lite's lead singer is slumming it, I'll let you decide.



That is all.

TL; DR of Previous Post

What "Undocumented" is All About

The use of the phrase "undocumented immigrant" vs. "illegal alien" is very revealing. Those using the former phrase believe in (or at least promote a belief in) a universal right to immigrate to the United States, so legal status is merely an issue of whether or not you have filled out the paperwork correctly, hence the term suggesting a minor regulatory violation. Those using the latter term believe that nations have the right to select to whom they wish to give entry, so legal status is much more equivalent to whether or not one has obtained consent before having sex. The debate between the two sides makes much more sense once you understand this fundamental difference in viewpoints.

That is all.

What "Undocumented" is All About

TL; DR version here.

The use of the term "undocumented immigrants" instead of "illegal aliens" reveals something important about the way the left (I will refer to the more restrictive side as the right and the less restrictive side as the left for this post, as that is a good first-order approximation of how the current political situation is aligned) thinks (or wants us to think it thinks) about the immigration issue.

Specifically, it shows that they think of the issue of illegal migration as fundamentally being about nothing more than proper paperwork. That is why they find deportation to be such an unjust overreaction; it is the equivalent of jailing someone for forgetting to include one of the ancillary forms with their tax return.

The right, on the other hand, views the issue more in terms of consent, specifically in terms of the consent of the receiving country being required for a person to immigrate there properly. In other words, we view it in the same way that most people view sex.

This of course stems from the fundamental difference that in general, in the West the left believes that everyone has a right to immigrate to Western nations (how universal this is for non-Western nations is generally not discussed) and that we cannot deny entry to anyone, with only the most extreme criminals (and South African whites) as exceptions. The right, on the other hand, believes that those who make up a country have a right to prevent the immigration of people whom they believe it would not be in their best interests to allow in.

Hence much of the anger of the left over the unfairness of deportations, and much of the misunderstanding about what legal vs. illegal immigrant(alien) means. When someone says that people should only come legally, they say "not everyone can come the legal way." What they ignore is that if you are not able to come legally, perhaps that means we do not want you to come.

This Twitter thread nicely encapsulates the leftist way of thinking about the issue:

(Text of tweets):

Okay. I've been off and on twitter lately, but I have a rant regarding #daywithoutimmigrants. I'm an immigrant. I am now a US citizen.
I get real pissed when other immigrants say "I came over legally, why can't others?" YOU SHOULD KNOW WHY.
It costs a lot of money. Whether you are getting a visa/green card or applying for citizenship, it costs A LOT of money.
It takes a lot of time. Months and even years worth of time. Time that could mean the difference between living or dying.
Both of which are inaccessible to lower income ppl. U can't hire an immigration lawyer if ur struggling to put food on the table
Stop bitching about how u came legally and they should too - and start trying to make the process EASIER, so they don't have to!
I'm so sick of the "I got mine, you get yours" mentality I see among white, well off, english-speaking immigrants.
You're an immigrant. So are they. Carefully filled out paperwork doesn't make you any better than them. Look out for each other.

First, note that the difference between coming here legally and coming here illegally is reduced to nothing more than having the paperwork filled out properly. Second, note that the interests of the receiving country or the desires of those already here count for absolutely nothing. That the process exists because a country wants to select which immigrants it lets in is completely ignored. To see how blatantly offensive this is, consider putting the same thinking into sex. Imagine mens' rights activists creating #daywithoutsex to protest "affirmative consent" laws:

Okay. I've been off and on twitter lately, but I have a rant regarding #daywithoutsex. I am sexually active. I am now married.
I get real pissed when other sexually active people say "I got consent before having sex, why can't others?" YOU SHOULD KNOW WHY.
It costs a lot of money. Whether you are having a one night stand, going out with someone on a regular basis, or considering marriage, getting her to go all the way costs A LOT of money.
It takes a lot of time. Months and even years worth of time. Time that could mean the difference between being sexually active or remaining a virgin one's whole life [NB: the implication in the original tweet that a significant portion of illegal aliens are in mortal danger if we don't let them come here is overblown, so I am not putting some "I'll die if I don't mate" - like issue in here to make it parallel].
Both of which can be inaccessible to lower income men without attractive personalities. U can't take someone out on a date if ur struggling to put food on the table
Stop bitching about how u got consent and they should too - and start trying to make women consent more easily, so they don't have to!
I'm so sick of the "I got mine, you get yours" mentality I see among attractive, well off, feminism-friendly men.
You're sexually active. So are they. Carefully obtained consent doesn't make you any better than them. Look out for each other.

One last point: I am assuming here that the leftist side is arguing in good faith. Obviously many on the left are not. They actively hate the Western country and see immigration not so much in terms of rights but in terms of a weapon to use against the hated West. Nonetheless, the paradigm for thinking about illegal immigration that they are pushing is that everyone has a right to come here and that legal vs. illegal is merely a procedural issue that only gross pedants really think is important.

And that is the basis of the term "undocumented." It is both based on the assumption of an unlimited right to immigrate and designed to promote thinking in those terms. That is why it is so important to call people out for using that terminology; it is not merely there as a euphemism to make illegal migration sound less bad, it is meant to push an entire worldview.

That is all.

How I Use AdBlock

I generally keep ad blocking (I use Opera, and use the included blocking in preferences, not a special app) turned off, because I am willing to endure advertisements in order to support sites and pages I visit.

However, I do turn on blocking at times, only temporarily and usually only for one or two pages.

I turn on blocking when the ads disrupt my use of the page - i.e. if they prevent the page from loading or make it impossible to move the page (or at least make it incredibly slow).

Usually, I try to watch a page without blocking ads before I watch it with ads blocked, so presumably the people are getting ad revenue from me.

In any case, my general philosophy regarding advertisements is: "as long as they don't stop the page from working." Even then, I try to watch them first.

That is all.

Protectionism Meets Luddism

I can't help but notice that we are constantly being told that protectionism is a bad thing. It won't work, and anyway, manufacturing jobs are not coming back because of automation.

Yet - how do they propose that we deal with the loss of so many jobs? Tax robots to pay for sinecures. Presumably the tax itself will slow the pace of automation because it becomes more expensive.

In other words - protectionism against robots.

So maybe protectionism is not so ridiculous after all?

That is all.

Please, More Stories of How People are Being Deported!

It occurs to me that if the media decide to take every halfway-sympathetic deportation case and publicize it, it will do a lot to publicize "you can't get away with being here illegally" to illegal aliens. In other words, if the goal is attrition through enforcement, the media are doing half the job for us!

That is all.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

First of all, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of my readers.

I believe that on Election Day 2016, God gave this country a reprieve. But we do not want to waste it. As a Christian, I believe that we are under judgment, and that this reprieve ought to be viewed as a chance to further spread the gospel and to work to strengthen and edify others who are already saved. If you are a Christian, find a good, Christ-centered, bible-centered church. If you already have one, see what you can do to volunteer to help the church's mission. Also work to help missionaries around the world and in this country, either through your church, or through organizations you trust (Advancing Native Missions and Association of Baptists for World Evangelism are two I use).

Also, on a more secular level, we must continue to support organizations and websites like VDARE, American Renaissance, NumbersUSA, and Gab. We cannot assume that we can rest easy. Our enemies are rebuilding their forces as they did after the humiliating amnesty defeat in 2007. This time, we have to (a) keep building the grassroots that got Trump into office, and (b) go on the offensive.

So that is what we need to do going into the New Year - consolidate the victories we have, stay vigilant, and look to start regaining lost ground in the war to preserve America; keep looking to God for guidance and keep working to do his will. Above all, do not assume we have finished the job by getting Trump elected. The battle is never over in this age. I could go into more detail, I'm sure, but that's enough for now.

That is all.

What is the Significance of Hanukkah for Christians?

As the first day of Hanukkah falls on Christmas Eve at Sundown, one might ask whether Christians have any interest in knowing about Hanukkah, as Hanukkah in the U.S. is largely seen as a Jewish alternative to Christmas rather than having its own history emphasized.

In point of fact, yes, there is a lot that Christians ought to know about Hanukkah.

Having said that, I should point out that celebrating any holiday is optional for Christians, and Christians who are not of a Jewish background probably will not see the same significance to the holiday as Christians of a Jewish background.

Nonetheless, it is important to understand a few reasons why Hanukkah has significance from a Christian point of view.

First, Hanukkah commemorates the rededication of the Temple after the defeat of Antiochus Epiphanes (Antiocuhs IV). In essence, it is commemorating a type of the restoration of the world after the defeat of the Antichrist. In fact, one could argue that Antiochus is the most explicit type of the Antichrist in the Bible.

Secondly, Hanukkah is actually mentioned in the New Testament (the events leading up to Hanukkah are only mentioned in the Old Testament by way of prophecy - or more specifically apocalyptic prophecy - primarily Daniel, unless one counts the apocrypha). John 10:22-39 take place during the "Feast of Dedication," which is Hanukkah. The events that take place, with the people trying to stone Jesus, make much more sense if you understand that his claims to deity reminded them of Antiochus's claims to be a god incarnate. At the same time, Jesus is the true God incarnate, and Antiochus IV was just a pretender. This means that Christians ought to study in order to see the contrasts between God and false gods in behavior and attitude.

That is all.

Trump Suggestions

(1) The biggest goal for Trump politically ought to be to expand his base - the best way to do that is to basically use the veneer of "reaching out" in order to forge alliances with the left on issues where we actually agree - in particular, when the leftist has not been hostile to Trump (Jill Stein) or when they can be used as a slap in the face to Conservatism, Inc.

Trump will have Trade Promotion Authority when he takes office (I think, when does the 2015 TPA expire?) If I were him, I would try to get a House-Senate delegation created to work on any new trade deals (as I understand it, TPA supposedly allows for more legislative input during the actual formulation of the deal). I would work to make certain that Jeff Sessions, Rand Paul, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders were in the Senate delegation (all voted against TPA). The House Delegation could include Louie Gohmert, David Brat, and some well-known pro-labor Democrats.

This would build a sense that Trump wants to work with Democrats while he doesn't actually have to compromise on his priorities, and the inclusion of folks such as Sessions and Gohmert would insure that the Democrats don't try to sneak things into any agreement that would offend Trump's base (e.g. climate change regulations or immigration increases).

(2) Secondly, he needs to work to appease environmentalists with research into alternate energy worked into the Defense and NASA budgets. (Research how to make a solar-powered army base or how to use solar power for space stations or rockets, etc.). Spend a few billion on this, and make Jill Stein an adviser. Again, reach out to the other side without giving up anything on your core issues. Yes, Conservative Inc. will go apoplectic at spending a few billion on green energy, but no one else will care.

(3) Gingrich should get a position in the administration that puts him high up in NASA. Gingrich is a guy who likes big, crazy ideas, and that is what we need in NASA. Researching space bases? Mining asteroids? NASA should have something impressive as its ten-year goal, and Gingrich is the guy for that. Even if it fails utterly, I'm sure we'll get some useful new tech applications out of it.

(4) I think it's time we floated a proposal for a Christian Arab ethnostate in the Levant. We need a Lebanon that can serve as a haven for persecuted Arab Christians. There are a lot of rich Lebanese-heritage Christians (Darrell Issa being the wealthiest Congressman, Carlos Slim being the one-time wealthiest man in the world), and we need to get some Jewish historians who specialize in studying the Zionist Project that led to the creation of modern Israel together with them to talk about how land could be bought for such a project. I think a Trump administration could work on this behind the scenes.

(5) I think there needs to be a push for a national voter registration database (we can bribe states to join) where all citizens can get a voting ID number that can then be used to register, but will also be linked to information such as "any crimes that would deny you the right to vote, and where would you be denied" and "where have you voted in the past year." This number could be obtained at birth, but requires proof of citizenship to get. Free photo voter IDs that states would be required to accept as identification, but that any state or locality could require as proof of identity. Basically, we need to make certain that states can prevent voter fraud while also making the voter registration process more streamlined so as to be able to refute all claims of voter suppression.

That is all for now.