There Is No ‘Income Inequality’

[PoliticalChic]

2. "..22M invaders..."

There are between 60 and 80 million illegal aliens residing in the USofA.
That's why you must press #1 for English.


3. I agree with your point, as a major contributor.....but poor parenting of American children is higher on the list.

I believe my 22M is closer to the number.....but it's surely not the 11M we've said for years. If it's as high as you say, Hillary would have won California by more than 3M and Cruz wouldn't have beaten Beto in Texas.

1.Here......see what you think:

Imagine the reaction if the media reported daily that this 20 million cohort, supplemented by chain migration and family reunification mandates, would swell to 40 million or 50 million in a decade." How Many Illegal Immigrants Live in the US?



2. There are between 60 million and 80 million illegal aliens living in this country.




3. James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes


"... the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children.


When the states and local governments challenged that number as an undercount, the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase."
How many illegal aliens reside in the United States? | CAIRCO - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform | issues legislation projects research


Increased the totals by 13%!!!

Now....hold on tight....this is gonna involve mathematics:


Soooo....if we apply that same 'adjustment' to the fabled 11 million....over a decade of so....we have almost 40 million.





But wait!!!

There's more!


4. Another way to arrive at the numbers of illegals in the country is to base it on the number of apprehensions and escapes.


"The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year [in 2007]. A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.



Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.


He concludes that:


My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports.





5. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States."
How many illegal aliens reside in the United States? | CAIRCO - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform | issues legislation projects research


....and that number is over a decade old!!!!!!



6. But other Border Patrol agents estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven......which would give a total of nearly 80 million illegals occupying our country.


The number of illegals would be at least.....at least.....60-80 million at this time.....permanently residing right here is this country.



That's why Hussein could take the chance and publicly tell them to go and vote.

 

[lennypartiv]

Bs. For example, back before corporations had the option to move their plants to Mexico, labor could organize and demand a fair wage.

A middle class emerged. But the rich caught back. Slowly from the late 70s to now the rich have been getting richer with their economic policies and the middle class has disappeared

Nafta, invented by bush and fully supported by republicans

Jobs Americans won’t do saved the rich billions and cost the middle class billions

Buying cheap shit from China.

Tax breaks for the rich

Rising healthcare costs

Cuts to social programs.

The rich are doing great. Maga

If you don't like it, move to Cuba.

 

[Dekster]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

The majority doesn't decide. The oligarchy does.

 

[Dekster]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

So you think that doctors should earn the same wage as a ditch digger?

Doctors of archaeology are ditch diggers. They are just really really slow about it.

 

[Dekster]

I make less than Jeff Bezos. Not fair.

The other day somebody said "do you know how hard it is to spend that kind of money?"....Reminded me of the Eddie Murphy movie where he and Dan Akroyd? had 24 hours to spend a fortune and ran out of ideas....

I think you may be confusing that with the Richard Pryor movie where he had to spent a fortune and have nothing to show for it in order to obtain a much larger fortune. The Eddie Murphy Dan Akroyd movie had something to do with bankrupting the two rich white guys who played with their lives for amusement. Think that was Trading Places and the other was something like Brewsters Millions.

 

[Flash]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

The majority doesn't decide. The oligarchy does.

Maybe so but laws are not passed and taxes are not levied without the shitheads elected to government voting on it.

The legislators may very well be owned by the oligarchy. That is even a more compelling reason to have my more robust Bill of Rights protecting us from those that would oppress us and make slaves to the state of us.

We need three things to get this country in order.

1. A new Bill of Rights assuring personal Liberty and minimal government interference in our lives.

2. A real right to keep and bear arms that makes the government weenies fear the people.

3. The will to resist tyrannical government.

The Founding Fathers thoughts they had provided us with the first two but were unsure about the third. When asked what kind of government they gave us Ben Franklin answered "A Republic, if you can keep it".

When you look at this gloated Liberty robbing government we have now you know that we don't have the courage to protect our Liberty. If we did there would be a lot of tar and feathering going on.

 

[Dekster]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

The majority doesn't decide. The oligarchy does.

Maybe so but laws are not passed and taxes are not levied without the shitheads elected to government voting on it.

The legislators may very well be owned by the oligarchy. That is even a more compelling reason to have my more robust Bill of Rights protecting us from those that would oppress us and make slaves to the state of us.

We need three things to get this country in order.

1. A new Bill of Rights assuring personal Liberty and minimal government interference in our lives.

2. A real right to keep and bear arms that makes the government weenies fear the people.

3. The will to resist tyrannical government.

The Founding Fathers thoughts they had provided us with the first two but were unsure about the third. When asked what kind of government they gave us Ben Franklin answered "A Republic, if you can keep it".

When you look at this gloated Liberty robbing government we have now you know that we don't have the courage to protect our Liberty. If we did there would be a lot of tar and feathering going on.

None of that really seems functional to me. I am more practical. For instance, to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals, not giving insurance companies checks to keep perpetuating the same current payola.

 

[Crepitus]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

You Russians come up with the craziest shit.

"There is no income inequality, it's all your parents fault"?

That's some funny shit right there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

You Russians come up with the craziest shit.

"There is no income inequality, it's all your parents fault"?

That's some funny shit right there.

This thread reserved for those who can post without vulgarity.

Please return to the 12-hour All-Cartoon-Network.

 

[Flash]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

The majority doesn't decide. The oligarchy does.

Maybe so but laws are not passed and taxes are not levied without the shitheads elected to government voting on it.

The legislators may very well be owned by the oligarchy. That is even a more compelling reason to have my more robust Bill of Rights protecting us from those that would oppress us and make slaves to the state of us.

We need three things to get this country in order.

1. A new Bill of Rights assuring personal Liberty and minimal government interference in our lives.

2. A real right to keep and bear arms that makes the government weenies fear the people.

3. The will to resist tyrannical government.

The Founding Fathers thoughts they had provided us with the first two but were unsure about the third. When asked what kind of government they gave us Ben Franklin answered "A Republic, if you can keep it".

When you look at this gloated Liberty robbing government we have now you know that we don't have the courage to protect our Liberty. If we did there would be a lot of tar and feathering going on.

None of that really seems functional to me. I am more practical. For instance, to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals, not giving insurance companies checks to keep perpetuating the same current payola.

Or my idea, keep the fucking government from mandating any health care requirements.

You pay for your health care and I'll pay for mine. That is as equitable as it get.

 

[rightwinger]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

The majority doesn't decide. The oligarchy does.

Maybe so but laws are not passed and taxes are not levied without the shitheads elected to government voting on it.

The legislators may very well be owned by the oligarchy. That is even a more compelling reason to have my more robust Bill of Rights protecting us from those that would oppress us and make slaves to the state of us.

We need three things to get this country in order.

1. A new Bill of Rights assuring personal Liberty and minimal government interference in our lives.

2. A real right to keep and bear arms that makes the government weenies fear the people.

3. The will to resist tyrannical government.

The Founding Fathers thoughts they had provided us with the first two but were unsure about the third. When asked what kind of government they gave us Ben Franklin answered "A Republic, if you can keep it".

When you look at this gloated Liberty robbing government we have now you know that we don't have the courage to protect our Liberty. If we did there would be a lot of tar and feathering going on.

None of that really seems functional to me. I am more practical. For instance, to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals, not giving insurance companies checks to keep perpetuating the same current payola.

Or my idea, keep the fucking government from mandating any health care requirements.

You pay for your health care and I'll pay for mine. That is as equitable as it get.

Let em die

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. “… there is the work ethic: if a child does not understand that accomplishment is based on performance, doom is nearby…”




The most succinct statement from the Liberal/Democrat perspective is that of former Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley: “ We try and discourage people from self help."


When Liberalism did away with personal responsibility…..the die was cast.





“The breakup of this 300-year-old consensus on the work ethic began with the cultural protests of the 1960s, which questioned and discarded many traditional American virtues.

By the 1960s, that modernist tendency had evolved into a credo of self-fulfillment in which “nothing is forbidden, all is to be explored,” Bell wrote. Out went the Protestant ethic’s prudence, thrift, temperance, self-discipline, and deferral of gratification. Weakened along with all these virtues that made up the American work ethic was Americans’ belief in the value of work itself. Along with “turning on” and “tuning in,” the sixties protesters also “dropped out.” As the editor of the 1973 American Work Ethic noted, “affluence, hedonism and radicalism” were turning many Americans away from work and the pursuit of career advancement…”
Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic?



Why work at all, or save, for that matter, if government promised to coddle you from cradle to grave????
How could the elimination of the work ethic not result in economic inequality???

 

[Crepitus]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

You Russians come up with the craziest shit.

"There is no income inequality, it's all your parents fault"?

That's some funny shit right there.

This thread reserved for those who can post without vulgarity.

Please return to the 12-hour All-Cartoon-Network.

"12 hour all cartoon Network"?

Do we really need any more proof than that that you are a Russian troll?

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “… the social aspect in America.

Parents failing to teach their kids proper grammar, table manners, polite behavior. Permissive mothers and fathers who allow children to be tattooed and pay for skin-piercings. Does anyone really think those things will lead to more economic opportunity?

Parents who set no boundaries, who embrace crude behavior in the home, who fail to supervise smart phones and computers, are now legion in the USA.


Add all that up and the heavy odds are the neglected child will not become well educated or be able to command much money in the marketplace.




Charlatans like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren tell us that the federal government will provide for children who are mistreated by their parents. That is a false promise. But republicans are misleading the country too, by failing to actively promote good parenting and self-reliance based on smart, disciplined behavior.

When was the last time the GOP put that in their platform? How about never.




It is too risky for politicians to call out bad parents, even though they are the primary source of generational failure. Too many judgements have to be made and, hey, it’s none of our business!


Income inequality will get worse in this country because parenting is getting worse. That is the cold truth that the presidential debates will never reveal. No political system can nurture individuals so they can achieve success if the basics of personal responsibility and education are absent.


And only parents can instill those basics.”
Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive



Can I get an ‘Amen’?

 

[OnePercenter]

Regan started the inequality , Bush Jr, expanded it and now with Tramp the income inequality is even worst than ever.

You forgot Nixon who was the grandfather of income inequality.

 

[francoHFW]

Has no one mentioned to the Democrats that "skill inequality" is largely responsible for "income inequality"?

It seems not judging by their endless whining. Why not?

so keep cutting taxes on the rich and keep cutting services benefits and opportunity for the rest, brainwashed functional moron.

 

[rightwinger]

8. “… the social aspect in America.

Parents failing to teach their kids proper grammar, table manners, polite behavior. Permissive mothers and fathers who allow children to be tattooed and pay for skin-piercings. Does anyone really think those things will lead to more economic opportunity?

Parents who set no boundaries, who embrace crude behavior in the home, who fail to supervise smart phones and computers, are now legion in the USA.


Add all that up and the heavy odds are the neglected child will not become well educated or be able to command much money in the marketplace.




Charlatans like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren tell us that the federal government will provide for children who are mistreated by their parents. That is a false promise. But republicans are misleading the country too, by failing to actively promote good parenting and self-reliance based on smart, disciplined behavior.

When was the last time the GOP put that in their platform? How about never.




It is too risky for politicians to call out bad parents, even though they are the primary source of generational failure. Too many judgements have to be made and, hey, it’s none of our business!


Income inequality will get worse in this country because parenting is getting worse. That is the cold truth that the presidential debates will never reveal. No political system can nurture individuals so they can achieve success if the basics of personal responsibility and education are absent.


And only parents can instill those basics.”
Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive



Can I get an ‘Amen’?

Looks like PCs last date

 

[francoHFW]

7. “… there is the work ethic: if a child does not understand that accomplishment is based on performance, doom is nearby…”




The most succinct statement from the Liberal/Democrat perspective is that of former Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley: “ We try and discourage people from self help."


When Liberalism did away with personal responsibility…..the die was cast.





“The breakup of this 300-year-old consensus on the work ethic began with the cultural protests of the 1960s, which questioned and discarded many traditional American virtues.

By the 1960s, that modernist tendency had evolved into a credo of self-fulfillment in which “nothing is forbidden, all is to be explored,” Bell wrote. Out went the Protestant ethic’s prudence, thrift, temperance, self-discipline, and deferral of gratification. Weakened along with all these virtues that made up the American work ethic was Americans’ belief in the value of work itself. Along with “turning on” and “tuning in,” the sixties protesters also “dropped out.” As the editor of the 1973 American Work Ethic noted, “affluence, hedonism and radicalism” were turning many Americans away from work and the pursuit of career advancement…”
Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic?



Why work at all, or save, for that matter, if government promised to coddle you from cradle to grave????
How could the elimination of the work ethic not result in economic inequality???

Yep people just got lazy. has nothing to do with the GOP cutting taxes on the rich and opportunity for everyone else the last 35 years dumbass Dupe. How's the weather in Russia?

 

[Ernie S.]

I make less than Jeff Bezos. Not fair.

You should learn to spin straw into gold, as I have.

Or own a bar as I do...I have a feeling we both make about the same from our endeavors.

 

[Diver Diva]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

2. "..22M invaders..."

There are between 60 and 80 million illegal aliens residing in the USofA.
That's why you must press #1 for English.


3. I agree with your point, as a major contributor.....but poor parenting of American children is higher on the list.

I believe my 22M is closer to the number.....but it's surely not the 11M we've said for years. If it's as high as you say, Hillary would have won California by more than 3M and Cruz wouldn't have beaten Beto in Texas.

1.Here......see what you think:

Imagine the reaction if the media reported daily that this 20 million cohort, supplemented by chain migration and family reunification mandates, would swell to 40 million or 50 million in a decade." How Many Illegal Immigrants Live in the US?



2. There are between 60 million and 80 million illegal aliens living in this country.




3. James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes


"... the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children.


When the states and local governments challenged that number as an undercount, the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase."
How many illegal aliens reside in the United States? | CAIRCO - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform | issues legislation projects research


Increased the totals by 13%!!!

Now....hold on tight....this is gonna involve mathematics:


Soooo....if we apply that same 'adjustment' to the fabled 11 million....over a decade of so....we have almost 40 million.





But wait!!!

There's more!


4. Another way to arrive at the numbers of illegals in the country is to base it on the number of apprehensions and escapes.


"The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year [in 2007]. A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.



Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.


He concludes that:


My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports.





5. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States."
How many illegal aliens reside in the United States? | CAIRCO - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform | issues legislation projects research


....and that number is over a decade old!!!!!!



6. But other Border Patrol agents estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven......which would give a total of nearly 80 million illegals occupying our country.


The number of illegals would be at least.....at least.....60-80 million at this time.....permanently residing right here is this country.



That's why Hussein could take the chance and publicly tell them to go and vote.

7. “… there is the work ethic: if a child does not understand that accomplishment is based on performance, doom is nearby…”




The most succinct statement from the Liberal/Democrat perspective is that of former Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley: “ We try and discourage people from self help."


When Liberalism did away with personal responsibility…..the die was cast.





“The breakup of this 300-year-old consensus on the work ethic began with the cultural protests of the 1960s, which questioned and discarded many traditional American virtues.

By the 1960s, that modernist tendency had evolved into a credo of self-fulfillment in which “nothing is forbidden, all is to be explored,” Bell wrote. Out went the Protestant ethic’s prudence, thrift, temperance, self-discipline, and deferral of gratification. Weakened along with all these virtues that made up the American work ethic was Americans’ belief in the value of work itself. Along with “turning on” and “tuning in,” the sixties protesters also “dropped out.” As the editor of the 1973 American Work Ethic noted, “affluence, hedonism and radicalism” were turning many Americans away from work and the pursuit of career advancement…”
Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic?



Why work at all, or save, for that matter, if government promised to coddle you from cradle to grave????
How could the elimination of the work ethic not result in economic inequality???

8. “… the social aspect in America.

Parents failing to teach their kids proper grammar, table manners, polite behavior. Permissive mothers and fathers who allow children to be tattooed and pay for skin-piercings. Does anyone really think those things will lead to more economic opportunity?

Parents who set no boundaries, who embrace crude behavior in the home, who fail to supervise smart phones and computers, are now legion in the USA.


Add all that up and the heavy odds are the neglected child will not become well educated or be able to command much money in the marketplace.




Charlatans like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren tell us that the federal government will provide for children who are mistreated by their parents. That is a false promise. But republicans are misleading the country too, by failing to actively promote good parenting and self-reliance based on smart, disciplined behavior.

When was the last time the GOP put that in their platform? How about never.




It is too risky for politicians to call out bad parents, even though they are the primary source of generational failure. Too many judgements have to be made and, hey, it’s none of our business!


Income inequality will get worse in this country because parenting is getting worse. That is the cold truth that the presidential debates will never reveal. No political system can nurture individuals so they can achieve success if the basics of personal responsibility and education are absent.


And only parents can instill those basics.”
Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive



Can I get an ‘Amen’?

Amen, and preach on Sis.

Our Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But it's much easier to be a victim than to blame yourself for being lazy. And this is what the socialists play to.