High-Earning Californians Moving Out

High-Earning Californians Moving Out

By Joe Guzzardi

After decades of dramatic population increases, California’s residency totals have stabilized, although not in the manner that advocates had hoped for. Radical policies embraced in Sacramento, and by other major municipalities including Los Angeles and San Francisco, have accelerated residents’ departure. Those still stuck behind are left to cope with rising crime, homelessness and governance’s indifference to taxpayers’ legitimate grievances.

Under Gov. Gavin Newsom’s woke, misguided leadership, district attorneys disinclined to prosecute have passively looked on as California’s violent crime rate increased by 6 percent, from 2020 to 2021. During the same period, aggravated assaults jumped by 8.9 percent, and homicides and rape increased by 7.7 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively.

Criminals are so fearless and authorities so inert that the media has coined a new phrase to describe hoodlums’ brazen behavior. “Smash-and-grab” refers to mobs of hooded thieves that break into upscale department stores, smash display cases and grab expensive merchandise for resale on street corners or on the Internet. Homelessness, a problem that Newsom, tongue-in-cheek, said he “owns,” is a major headache for California’s big city dwellers.

California was once a prime destination for individuals who wanted to bask in the Golden State’s many advantages – weather, good middle-class jobs and a thriving economy. Today, job-seekers are headed elsewhere. From 1900 through 1990, California’s population increased 38 percent on average per decade. In 1900, California’s population was 1.5 million; in 1990, the total population was 30 million, and just a tick below 40 million in 2023. California’s Department of Finance, the state’s official demographer, noted that in its most recent count, 46 of the state’s 58 counties, including the three most populous – Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange – lost population.

Californians’ exodus to other states marks the beginning of residents’ flight away from what they increasingly view as a dysfunctional place to live. The American Community Survey found that, from 2010 through 2021, about 7.7 million people moved from California to other states, while only 5.8 million people moved to California from other parts of the country. The California Department of Finance estimates that the state has lost residents to other states every year since 2000. Over the past few years, the movement out of the state has accelerated with a record net outflow of 407,000 from July 2021 to July 2022.

In 2021, more than 360,000 people left California to relocate in Texas, Arizona and Washington. Some even moved to Mexico to avoid the 2021 to 2022 inflation surge, as Mexico is more affordable to live in than many U.S. destinations. Between April 2020 and July 2022, the state’s population dropped by more than 500,000 people, a trend demographers refer to as net interstate migration. Among the departing Californians are young adults who have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, a significant trend because historically the Golden State was a destination for aspiring college-educated persons at the outset of their careers. Also abandoning California in large numbers are high-income households, defined as earning incomes of $137,500 or more for a family of four.

If interstate migration patterns continue, California could experience sustained population losses for years to come. Eventually, assuming the migration pattern continues, California will be transformed from vibrant and productive to government benefit-dependent.

Because of the state’s high taxes and complex regulatory environment, businesses also left the state. Between 2020 and 2023, about 65 corporations with 100 or more employees left California. Many companies are household names like McAfeeOracleChevronCharles Schwab and Tesla.

Incoming population – of which the aggregate total offsets the outgoing population – is in large part illegal immigrants, a variable that the open Southwest border has exacerbated. Newsom, in an interview with ABC News, said that in the post-Title 42 era, the Biden administration is sending “more and more” migrants to California which could, in his word, “break” the state.

California is already broke; its $31.5 million budget deficit bodes poorly for residents who depend on the state for child care, transportation and other publicly funded services, areas targeted for deep cuts. The state budget is highly dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners – people who have fled – and is therefore subject to the ebbs and flows of capital gains from investments and the hefty bonuses paid to executives.

Incredibly, against the backdrop of Californians voting with their feet, and exiting in droves, Newsom’s name is bandied about as a possible 2024 presidential candidate should Biden either be forced to retire or be dumped. Other scenarios are possible. Boot Vice President Kamala Harris off the 2024 ticket, replace her with Newsom, and in a smoke-filled backroom prearranged deal, Biden retires shortly after Inauguration Day. In February 2025, Gavin Newsom, having never campaigned or received a single vote, would become the U.S. president.

On the surface, such a bizarre set-up appears farfetched. But in today’s political climate, anything goes – absolutely anything – including elevating to the White House a governor who has spawned California’s deep and potentially irreversible decline.

View Online

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org.

High-Earning Californians Moving Out

High-Earning Californians Moving Out

High-Earning Californians Moving Out

Tiny Homes For Homeless?

Tiny Homes For Homeless?

By Bob Small

In the ’90s when I finished my degree at Neumann (Night School), one of their “causes” was “Books for the Homeless”.  Other groups collected clothes, food, offered donations of haircuts, healthcare, raincoats, shaves, shoes, and etc.

Now, someone has come up with a fairly radical solution, homes for the homeless.

The Tiny Homes Community Collaborative (THCC) Facebook page explains the alternative therapeutic farm at Penny Lane is just one part of the project.  Each tiny home can be produced for $50,000 through a public/private partnership through XDS, inc. and the UNC School of Social Work

Their first goal is 15 tiny homes with five of those prioritized for veterans with chronic health conditions.

The engine behind this is Thava Mahadevan,who is a clinical addiction specialist and director of operations at the UNC center for Excellence in Mental Health. He began his journey as a Tamil in Sri Lanka and then fled to India where he experienced homelessness. Mahadevan expects these houses to rent for $250 per month.

Alaina Money-Garman, the founder and CEO of Garman Homes, says she believes private and public partnership are key to addressing affordable housing challenges.

Not everyone is thrilled with this concept.

“We don’t want this here,” Robert Wilson of Charlotte said.  We don’t think it’s the right place for it here. We feel like it’s going to hurt our property values.”

Tiny Homes For Homeless?

Tiny Home Industry Association is a website dedicated to the latest in tiny homes.

Some of these proposals even include tiny homes on wheels! 

There are even tiny homes TV shows.

Some of these, by the way, are not for persons with mental problems, but for people with tiny incomes.

This is happening throughout the country.

Is Delaware County next?

Tiny Homes For Homeless?

Tiny Homes For Homeless coming?

Fear Of A Dem Pro-Life Candidate

Fear Of A Dem Pro-Life Candidate

By Bob Small

Having been arrested at anti-government demonstrations, I have nothing but respect — never mind the cause — for those willing to be arrested for a belief. 

The would include Terrisa Bukovinac. She is among those seeking the Democratic nomination for president 

Ms. Bukovinac is the founder of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU) which she says is a “liberal pro-life group”.  She says that The Progressive case against abortion “is inconsistent with the noon-violent instincts of feminism to tie the liberation of women to the elimination of any group of human beings”.

The Christian Post notes Ms. Bukovinac’s group includes pro-life activists who have been convicted of federal charges — and face 11 year sentences — in connection with a 2020 lockdown” of a D.C. abortion clinic.

Ms. Bukovinac has been rallying to their defense.

Ms. Bukovinac was also among those outside the federal prosecutor’s office, last October, protesting the persecution of Mark Houck

She talks about the need to bring back the concept of “ rescue”.  Rescue is a PAAU tactic that involves “entering abortion facilities to pass out roses with pregnancy help information attached to abortion-minded patients.”

She has also served on the boards of Democrats for Life of  America and Rehumanize International

The loyal Democrats of Swarthmore had never mentioned either to me.

In this Minimise interview, she simply says “I want to change the way that humanity views unborn life.”

In this CRUX interview, she asks the question, as an atheist, “if we only get one life to live and there’s no God to bring about justice in the end , how could abortion be just?”.

She believes we need “a willingness to disrupt the status quo.”

“No social justice movements are won without critical nonviolent direct action,” she says.

She is a co-leader of Secular Pro Life and serves on the board of Let them Live.

Here is an update regarding the D.C. Abortion Blockade trial.

Most of the updates, for some reason, seem to be from The Christian Post.

My arrests for civil disobedience also had to do with disagreements about US Government Policy.

My time in jail was hours, however, not years.

Fear Of A Dem Pro-Life Candidate
Terrisa Bukovinac supporting Mark Houck, Oct 7., 2022 in Philadelphia

Fear Of A Dem Pro-Life Candidate

The Radical History of Labor Day

The Radical History of Labor Day

By Bob Small

When my wife and I worked as State of Pennsylvania drones, one of us usually marched in the Philly Labor Day parade, to show solidarity with our union, the Pennsylvania Social Services Union a.k.a PSSU.

Exactly how did all this Labor Day marching get started?

Matthew Maguire and Peter Mcguire conspired to create Labor Day, and the first Labor Day parade was held in New York City in 1882.

Theses articles, here and here, point to Matthew Maguire not being granted “Father of Labor Day” status due to his strong socialist leanings, including being the Socialist Party candidate for president in 1896.

Grover Cleveland made Labor Day a federal holiday in 1896, hoping to make amends for sending in the military to squash the Pullman Railway strike.

Grover Cleveland did not become the first president to serve three non-consecutive term However, Grover Cleveland remains the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms. That could change next year.

 Grover Cleveland jailed socialist Eugene Debs, who then ran for president from jail.

Eugene Debs: The Socialist Who Ran for President From Prison – Men

Both of the purported founders of Labor Day are buried in New Jersey. The Peter J. Mcguire Memorial and Gravesite lies in Pennsauken.

The Matthew Maguire gravesite, sans museum, lies in the Holy Sepulchre Cemetery in Totawa.

The Department of Labor was founded on March 4, 1913, by President William Howard Taft, on his last day of office.

For a more philosophical discussion of Labor Day and the new socialism from an Austrian perspective, see this article from the Mises Institute.

 The author proposes that “over the past thirty years, international bureaucracies have played a growing role in making the world a better place for socialism.”

Nowadays, rather than discuss the Pullman strike of 1894, we discuss Labor Day sales and barbecues, and we no longer march. One might say capitalism has won.

The Radical History of Labor Day

The Radical History of Labor Day

DOJ SpaceX Suit Is Labor Day Travesty

DOJ SpaceX Suit Is Labor Day Travesty

By Joe Guzzardi

President Biden’s Justice Department (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against SpaceX, the Elon Musk-founded company. In its 13-page complaint, DOJ alleges that SpaceX “discriminated against asylees and refugees throughout its hiring process, including during recruiting, screening, and selection, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” The case’s outcome will be a landmark in corporate, immigration and labor law.

DOJ contends that from September 2018 to May 2022 the privately owned space company discouraged asylees and refugees from applying for positions “by wrongly stating that SpaceX can only hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.” DOJ further argues that Space X’s illegal hiring policies were “routine, widespread, and longstanding, and harmed asylees and refugees.”

For its part, SpaceX countered that because the company designs, manufacturers and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft, it can only hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, pursuant to U.S. laws and regulations. A complex series of federal laws and regulations govern SpaceX and its competitors. Known as “Export Controls,” the regulations are comprised of the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and EAR (Export Administration Regulations) and collectively administered by the Departments of Commerce, State and Treasury. Export Controls are “designed to prevent the spread of sensitive technologies to foreign actors that could threaten U.S. interests... [These] controlled technologies include defense articles, e.g., missiles, defense services, e.g., integration of a spacecraft onto a launcher, and dual-use items, e.g., commercial spacecraft and components.”

“Foreign actors that could threaten U.S. interests” deserves further analysis. Bona fide asylum seekers who filed an Application for Asylum, Form I-589, but have not received approval within 180 days, qualify for a work permit, and employment despite potentially being in the U.S. illegally. Refugees admitted legally must apply for permanent residency within a year of arrival or are subject to deportation, but are immediately employable.

Through a non-lawyer’s eyes, Musk and his SpaceX legal team appear to have the stronger hand. In Musk’s defense and in support of hiring citizens only, recent asylees and refugees include foreign nationals from Syria, Afghanistan, Russia, Cuba, Iraq, Somalia and Iran, active or potential U.S. enemies. Furthermore, SpaceX contends it can’t hire non-U.S. citizens because it must comply with the above-referenced export control restrictions.

Musk also cited a current Executive Order 11935, and called upon the DOJ to sue itself for its seemingly, in view of its suit against SpaceX, discriminatory hiring practices. As per the EO, “only United States citizens and nationals” can be hired for federal jobs. As an example of the feds discrimination against SpaceX, a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, cited a tweet by economist George Mason University economics professor Alex Tabarrok, who pointed out that the job requirements for the federal Bureau of Prisons specify “U.S. citizenship is required.” Musk concluded, correctly, that DOJ’s action is “yet another case of weaponization of the DOJ for political purposes.”

The most foreboding challenge SpaceX faces is the Biden administration’s contemptible disregard for federal law. The administration is particularly willing and eager to break immigration law. For nearly two years, Biden and his corrupt Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have unconstitutionally sanctioned granting parole, which includes work permission, to thousands of unvetted worldwide migrants.

In 1952, Congress granted the Executive Branch parole authority, which “should be surrounded with strict limitations … in emergency cases, such as the case of an alien who requires immediate medical attention … and a witness or for purposes of prosecution.” Instead of obeying congressionally passed law – the absolute minimum Americans should expect from their president – Biden has paroled en masse unvetted aliens who are inadmissible under any immigration category.

The sad but unsurprising truth is that, given what’s known about Biden and his anti-American agenda, DOJ is suing SpaceX because Musk’s company wants to hire U.S. citizens.

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org.

DOJ SpaceX Suit Is Labor Day Travesty

DOJ SpaceX Suit Is Labor Day Travesty

SpaceX And Immigration Law

SpaceX And Immigration Law

By Hart Celler

On Aug. 24, the Department of Justice announced it was suing Elon Musk’s “Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) for discriminating against asylees and refugees in its hiring practices.” The news took off on X, formerly Twitter, with the ferocity of a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket, and as to be expected on social media, one man’s opinion quickly becomes another man’s fact.

Almost every tweet echoed the same error which was the lawsuit is about Musk/SpaceX not hiring illegal aliens and/or asylum seekers. The truth is, the suit alleges the company’s hiring practices discriminate against refugees (who at no point were “illegal aliens”) and asylees—aliens the U.S. Government has granted asylum, not all of whom were previously “illegal,” and making any prior illegal entry or period of unlawful presence irrelevant. 

A little background is helpful here for our discussion. When the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) became law in 1986, Section 101 made it illegal to hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an “unauthorized alien” illegal.  It required the employer to provide proof of identity and work authorization, which led to the creation of the Employment Eligibility Verification Form, or I-9. It also established a mechanism for filing complaints against lawbreakers, placing the onus on the Executive branch to inspect, investigate, and ensure compliance, and it introduced civil and criminal penalties.

While aliens who are unlawfully here, and generally referred to as “illegal aliens,” are typically not authorized to accept work, this isn’t always the case, and it’s why it’s important for Americans to understand the nuances.

Temporary Protective Status (TPS) beneficiaries, DACA recipients, and bona fide asylum seekers who have filed an Application for Asylum, Form I-589, but have not received a decision after 180 days are all examples of aliens who, despite potentially being in the U.S. illegally (referring to a lack of legal immigration status, not lacking an approved period of lawful presence), after receiving a work permit can accept employment.

While Section 101 of the IRCA bans hiring non-employment-eligible aliens, Section 102 addressed potential unfair immigration-related employment practices, of which two of the four exemptions it raises are relevant in the SpaceX case: 

  • Discrimination related to ‘national origin’ covered by Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Discrimination occurred due to citizenship status when “required [] to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by Federal, State, or local government contract…

The IRCA also introduced the concept of an “Intending Citizen” and limited the ability to file immigration-related discrimination complaints to those individuals who were either U.S. Citizens, whether natural-born or naturalized, and aliens admitted for temporary or permanent residence (better known as Green Card holders), who completed a “declaration of intention to become a citizen.” Also included were aliens admitted as Refugees who, a year after being admitted to the U.S., must apply for permanent residence or are subject to removal, formerly known as “deportation,” and Asylees. In 1990, as part of the Immigration Act (IMMACT) of 1990, “Intending Citizens” was renamed “Protected Individuals,” 8 U.S.C. §1324b(a)(3), and the requirement for non-U.S. Citizens to declare their intention to apply for citizenship was repealed. 

While there’s an expectation that Green Card holders will become naturalized citizens, as the amnesty portion of the IRCA shows, they don’t necessarily. On the other hand, asylum is a discretionary form of immigration relief. An Asylee may apply for a Green Card a year after being granted asylum; however, unlike Refugees, they’re not required to do so. Also, the U.S. Government can strip an Asylee of their protected status and/or resettle them to another country where they won’t be a victim of persecution.

SpaceX, and its competitors are governed by a complex series of Federal laws and regulations known as “Export Controls,” which are comprised of the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and EAR (Export Administration Regulations) and jointly administered by the Departments of Commerce, State, and Treasury. Export Controls are “designed to prevent the spread of sensitive technologies to foreign actors that could threaten U.S. interests … [These] [c]ontrolled technologies include defense articles (e.g., missiles), defense services (e.g., integration of a spacecraft onto a launcher), and dual[-]use items (e.g., commercial spacecraft and components).

SpaceX contends it can’t hire non-U.S. Citizens because it must comply with export control restrictions, and Musk, referencing a current Executive Order calls upon the DOJ to sue themselves for their seemingly discriminatory hiring practices of restricting competitive service Federal positions to U.S. Citizens and Nationals. However, both the ITAR and EAR in 22 CFR § 120.62 and 15 CFR § 760.1, respectively, explicitly exempt “U.S. persons,” the former reference, including protected individuals as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(3).  

It’ll be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out. Recent espionage cases have demonstrated how naturalized U.S. citizens’ loyalty can be co-opted by a potentially adversarial nation. And it’s startling to note that in 2021, the citizens from that adversarial nation alone received approximately 10% of annual asylum grants.

Notwithstanding the legality of SpaceX’s hiring practices, it seems Congress should reevaluate whether aliens with questionably verifiable backgrounds or potential divided loyalties to their native countries should be allowed to work with or around restricted technology like rockets.

View Online

“Hart Celler” is the pen name for a long-career federal employee working in immigration on issues with a nexus to national security. He writes articles for the Institute for Sound Public Policy and can be found on Twitter with the handle @8USC12.

SpaceX And Immigration Law

SpaceX And Immigration Law

SpaceX And Immigration Law

First GOP Debate ZZZZZ

First GOP Debate ZZZZZ

By Joe Guzzardi

Life is short. Our time on Earth is far too brief to waste two hours listening to eight GOP presidential hopefuls give rote answers to puffball questions. But as a journalist on assignment, I toughed out the debate – the wrong word, by the way, forum is more accurate.

Yes, I stayed awake and listened to queries that candidates had been asked and had responded to multiple times before. If I’m giving Fox News, Martha MacCallum, Bret Baier and eight candidates my ear for 120 minutes, I want insight into their opinions on important, but less understood subjects, and not a rehash of what’s been opined on endlessly.

The debate was doomed to fizzle from the get-go. First, the electorate has no idea if the leading GOP presidential candidate, President Donald Trump, will be campaigning from a jail cell. Second, no one knows if the Democratic machine will put the skids to the incumbent, Joe Biden, who has vowed not to debate, and probably won’t campaign. Any candidate who compares the near-loss of his cat and his Corvette in a kitchen flare-up nearly two decades ago to 115 Lahaina dead, including infants, and more than 388 unaccounted for two weeks after the Maui fires, is not a guy Democrats should consider endorsing again. Third, the Iowa caucuses will be held on January 15, 2024, and the Republican National Committee’s convention is set for July 15-18. Both dates are, in the political world, eternities away.

The second primary debate is September 27, plenty of time for the moderators to formulate questions that will make the candidates squirm – put them on the spot! Viewers learned nothing from the first debate. All eight candidates are for stronger borders – big surprise! Every Republican candidate in recent history, including infamously pro-immigration Sen. John McCain, campaigned on enforcement – I’ll “complete the danged fence.”

The public deserves to know more about immigration’s harmful fine print. The moderators should ask about birthright citizenship, a policy abandoned in most Western countries because of its absurdity. Granting priceless U.S. citizenship to a child whose mother entered the U.S. on a fraudulent tourist visa for the sole purpose of having a newborn delivered at a U.S. hospital while being catered to pre-pregnancy and post-delivery at a hotel designed to pamper wealthy, deceitful foreign nationals is ridiculous.

Absurd too is citizenship for children born to illegal alien mothers. Many pregnant foreign nationals have crossed into the U.S. from the Southern border during Biden’s open border era, and will soon be giving birth to brand new American citizens. Congress could and should pass a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to grant citizenship only to a person born in the U.S. to parents, at least one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the U.S.; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

On a related subject, let’s hear the candidates’ opinions about chain migration, a subject too few Americans understand. Every immigrant who enters as part of the chain is chosen by other immigrants, not by the federal government. Chain immigrants come regardless of their skills, or lack of skills, and how they might affect the labor pool or Americans’ wages who compete in the same job categories, and regardless of how they might drive the booming U.S. population growth that government data show is the primary cause of the destruction of natural habitat and farmland annually. A quarter of a million lifetime work permits are given to foreign citizens each year through chain migration that probably doesn’t serve the national interest.

Birthright citizenship and chain migration affect every American. The two policies drive population growth which in turn expands the labor market; adds to overcrowded cities, schools, hospitals and roads; and reduces citizens’ quality of life. If the debate’s purpose were to inform voters, Fox News gets an F. Moderators should ask tougher questions so that the electorate can make informed choices at the polling booth.

View Online

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org 

First GOP Debate ZZZZZ

Clapping For Walter Clapp

Clapping For Walter Clapp

By Bob Small

We couldn’t clap for Walter Clapp last Wednesday (Aug. 23) t as he wasn’t on stage.  Along with the horde of lesser-known GOP presidential candidates — the Dems have just as many — he did not have a place on the stage, nor, truth be told, any chance of getting there.

This is a shame because Walter D. Clapp, a Montana attorney and a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, is also “one of the first Rural Incubator Project for Lawyers to serve middle class Montanans”.

He believes social issues are “best left to the states”.  He also believes “Every day we fight a battle that rages between our ears.  It’s a war between  love and hate, good and evil, truth and untruth. My message is that the Republican Party stands for good, for truth, and yes, for love.”

Clapping For Walter Clapp

Among other projects he plans, that none of the other candidates will do, is “setting out on a cross-country trip driving a team of horses and a wagon this fall.” 

Can’t we see Chris Christie joining him with his New Jersey horses?

He also pledges to “Uncap the House”, “Amend the Constitution” so as to be able to call a convention of the states, and promote exploration in space for “Americans to mine minerals in space”.

Maybe Vivek could be part of that first group in outer space.

For the latest on this aspect, see  A horse-drawn POTUS hopeful hits the road – Montana Free Press 

He’s also involved with Honor Coin Law, which has to do with cryptocurrency, though I found their whole explanation cryptic, as I often do.

See also Walter Clapp – Presidential Candidate – Clapp 2024 | LinkedIn 

Lastly, he’s not the only presidential candidate this cycle from Montana.

Clapping For Walter Clapp

Rich Men North Right Or Left?

Rich Men North Right Or Left?

By Bob Small

Must we see Rich Men North as left or right

The first time Rich Men North of Richmond played on the headphones, there were echoes of Billy Bragg, of Woody Guthrie, in the song written and sung by Oliver Anthony

“I’ve been sellin’ my soul, workin’ all day, overtime hours for bullshit pay”.

The whole song felt very left to me but Rolling Stone tried to disabuse me of that notion.  Yet in this same article, they quoted Oliver Anthony “it seems like both sides serve the same master-and that master is not someone of any good to the people of this country.” 

Tell me how that’s left or right.

Fox and The Seattle Times insist on this opinion.

Bryan Chai of the Western Journal, takes a more nuanced approach saying “Men like Aldean and Anthony are clearly sick of  (Flyover Country) that being a pejorative and want Americans to know that whether you’re suffering in Farmville or Silicon Valley, they hear you and feel you”.

See also

Music sensation Oliver Anthony gets record offer as ‘Rich Men North o 

and from overseas

The protest song that’s taken America by storm hits … – The Guardian 

When Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut dared to say  “I think Progressives should listen to this”iliberals piled on him.

Even after adding “all problems the left has better solutions to than the right,” attacks continued.

As to the “obese milking welfare” lines in the song, that should not be seen as racist, more as frustration about a government system that rarely works as it should.

Here is a recent quote from Anthony that has angered some of those on the right:

“I mean, we are the melting pot of the world, and that’s what makes us strong, is our diversity, and we need to learn to harness that and appreciate it, and not use it as a political tool to keep everyone separate from each other you know?” 

Rich Men North Right Or Left?

Red Carpet For Afghanistan, Cold Shoulder for Maui

Red Carpet For Afghanistan, Cold Shoulder for Maui

By Joe Guzzardi

Survivors of the deadly fires in Maui are being offered a $700-per-household payment by FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) and temporary shelter.

But in Maui, $700 doesn’t go far. Estimated monthly living costs for a family of four are $7,203. The token $700 represents less than 10 percent of a family’s living costs, an insult to the suffering residents who have, in some cases, lost everything that they own. Public outcry over the First Family’s perceived indifference has more or less forced Biden and his wife Jill to visit Maui.

But for Afghanistan and the Ukraine, the Biden administration can’t shell out money fast enough, with no limit to its wasteful ways. In early August, Biden asked Congress for about $40 billion in new spending to support the efforts of the Ukraine to beat back invading Russia. In its letter to lawmakers, the White House Office of Management and Budget asked for $13 billion in new military aid and $8.5 billion in additional economic, humanitarian and security assistance for Ukraine and other war-impacted countries.

The White House’s funding request also includes other forms of assistance for Ukraine, including more than $12 billion for disaster relief and for other emergency domestic funds, like hurricanes, as well as tens of millions of dollars to boost pay for firefighters battling the wildfires that have hit many parts of the country. In Biden’s mind, wildfires in Ukraine are a more urgent concern than the Maui wildfires that destroyed the town of Lahaina and took the lives of 114 people, with 1,000 missing, at the time of this writing.

In total, the U.S. has sent more than $100 billion to Ukraine. Displacing millions of people, the 18-month-old proxy war has left a reported 500,000 dead or injured. And there is no end in sight. Biden said that the U.S. will remain committed for “as long as it takes,” which means that taxpayers will continue to fund a war in which they have no stake.

In Afghanistan, the U.S. is supporting the Taliban-controlled government with more than $2.35 billion since the botched 2021 withdrawal. The Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, John Sopko, admitted in his April report to the House Oversight Committee of Congress that he “cannot assure this committee or the American taxpayer we are not currently funding the Taliban.” Further, he said that the Biden administration has blocked any and all investigative efforts as to whether American dollars sustain the Taliban or “other nefarious groups” like ISIS.

While neglecting the home front, and funding corrupt foreign countries, Biden also has provided for them on U.S. soil. Programs such as “Uniting for Ukraine” and “Operation Allies Welcome” have made available resettlement benefits and parole, an immigration status that includes work permission, to many thousands of foreigners. Additionally, more than 70,000 Ukrainians have not arrived via Biden’s official program but rather have come illegally through the Southwest border. Thousands of Afghans have been successfully resettled since America’s hasty and ill-conceived Afghanistan withdrawal.

Afghan and Ukrainian nationals have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) which officially protects them from removal even though such an action would be unlikely under all but the most extraordinary circumstances. TPS also includes employment authorization. With that, program recipients can compete with citizens or other legal immigrants for jobs.

The Biden administration’s multi-billion-dollar outlay to Ukraine and Afghanistan and its red-carpet acceptance of those countries’ nationals, with minimal vetting, proves that no matter how dire conditions may be for U.S. citizens, e.g., Hawaiians, foreign governments receive priority, despite their crooked backgrounds.

View Online

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org.

Red Carpet For Afghanistan, Cold Shoulder for Maui
%d bloggers like this: