Real estate mogul and reality TV star, Donald Trump, announced that he will be running for President in 2016, followed by statements that point to the fact that illegal immigrants are criminals and need to be stopped. Since his comments vilify an arguably significant portion of the Democrats' voting base, Trump has been, of course, labeled a racist. NBC has also cancelled their dealings with Trump, claiming that he doesn't represent their values...I guess they value criminal activity more than economic success. NBC's ridiculous comments can be seen here. Trump's response can be seen here.
I find it disturbing that many in our society will shout down those that dare to point to the truth, just because the truth doesn't fit the politically correct script that the liberal media attempts to feed us. The horde of invaders that pours across our southern border, seemingly unchecked, brings nothing to our nation but disease, crime, and an enormous economic burden. Trump pointed that out when he stated that Mexican immigrants are, "...bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists and some, I assume, are good people." Not an inaccurate statement, and not something that anyone should be shocked by.
I don't fault anyone for wanting to come to America; it's the greatest nation on the planet, despite the best efforts of those on the left. I do fault them for sneaking into our nation illegally, bringing disease and crime with them, and then demanding that we change our culture and rules to suit them. Those that want to come here need to follow the legal process for doing so, learn our language, obey our laws, and become productive Americans.
I applaud Donald Trump for having the fortitude to speak the truth and stand by his comments. What a breath of fresh air in the political arena.
There is heated debate still taking place over proposed increases to the minimum wage at both the state and federal levels. Some are demanding that the minimum wage be increased to an alluring 15 dollars per hour. Those in favor of a minimum wage hike cite the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) claims that raising the minimum wage to over ten dollars an hour would "lift" an estimated 900,000 people "out of poverty." The desire to implement a massive (over 106% if the 15$ folks get their way) increase in the minimum wage revolves around the argument that anybody that holds a job, of any kind, should be able to handily support a family on the wages paid by that job. I enthusiastically disagree with that argument.
If you choose to spend your adult life as an uneducated and unskilled laborer, don't expect to raise a family in comfort. Who, in their right minds, believes that if you have no marketable skills, you should be rewarded with a "living wage?" I'll tell you who, those that expect a handout (something for nothing) and those that rely on that segment of the population for votes. Granted, the politicians that promise those handouts don't honestly believe that every unskilled dolt deserves a handsome salary, but they'll readily force employers to offer it in exchange for the votes of the habitually needy. What would be the result of lowering the bar in such a way?
In the short term, drastically raising the minimum wage would put more money in the pockets of those that hold entry-level positions, should their employers choose to keep them employed full time. I propose that in the long run, employers would cut their employees' hours, further increase automation, and pass on the cost increases to their customers. As a result, those increased costs would offset the increased wages of the unskilled employees, and have an obvious impact on the rest of us. The same CBO report that claims a wage hike would be a magic cure for poverty also reveals what many of us already knew: Raising the minimum wage would cut jobs, an estimated 500,000 of them.
Economists' opinions on the effects of large increases to the minimum wage differ, as one would expect. Let's face it, calling economics consistent is like calling Bruce Jenner a woman. Gather ten economists in one room, ask them all the same question, and you'll most likely get ten different answers.
Should there be regular increases in the minimum wage? Yes, but they must be reasonable, and based on the increases in the cost of living. A 106% increase is not reasonable, no matter how much those in favor of it shout and stomp their feet.
Some people are monsters and we can only wish that they were chosen for deselection. If only Jodi Arias had died of a childhood disease, stepped in front of a bus, or overdosed on drugs, then we wouldn't be hearing about how she brutally murdered her ex-boyfriend, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in court costs.
ABC News reports (click here for article) that Arias' trial has cost taxpayers an estimated 3+ million bucks, while a judge now decides whether or not she should someday be released on parole. Paroled? Really? Some would claim that the reason the court costs are so high is that it was a death penalty trial; they'll follow that up with a rant about how we should abolish the death penalty. Reasons for abolishing the death penalty range from its ineffectiveness as a deterrent to its alleged brutality. I'd like to address both of those points.
I wholeheartedly agree that the death penalty, in its current state, is not an effective deterrent to crime. The reasons for this are simple: The sentences are not carried out swiftly or publicly. The current, much backlogged, system of appeals allows a convicted killer to live on death row for decades, probably dying of old age, after costing taxpayers an extravagant amount of money. Death sentences that are carried out are done so in the dark of night, behind closed doors, with no televising of the event. While there is typically a small group of witnesses at executions, the event is not seen by the general public. Would-be killers don't ever see their peers being put to death, and know that their sentence for killing someone won't be much different than their last stint in prison, with gyms, television, and college degrees at their disposal. What about the alleged cruelty and unusual nature of the death penalty?
For all of recorded history, humans have killed other humans that represented a viable threat to their neighbors, and society in general. In later centuries, we required trials prior to the elimination of the vermin. As we became slightly more civilized, we refined the methods that we've used to kill the monsters in our midst. Recent methods in our nation include electrocution, hanging, firing squads, and inhalation of poisonous gases. Of late, we have mostly chosen to use injections of a lethal combination of drugs. The combinations used for lethal injection executions typically involve a starter drug that ensures the killer's lack of any pain, distress, or discomfort. I cannot fathom why anyone would consider lethal injection to be cruel and unusual punishment, especially when compared to the punishment inflicted upon the killers' victims. Please engage in a wee bit of research as to the methods that death row inmates have used to slaughter their victims, and then compare that to the methods in use to, someday, execute those killers. The claims of execution being brutal, inhumane, or cruel are downright insane.
The death penalty, in our nation, is not currently an effective deterrent to crime, but it could be if we choose to eliminate the obstacles to its effectiveness. Streamline the process, stop the absurd number of appeals allowed, and get it done. Publicize it; put it on television with a parental warning. Make it a real and visible punishment, and it will be a deterrent. Make it harsh; if it involves a modicum of pain and suffering, such as that inflicted on a killer's victim, it will leave a lasting impression on those that view it. Wastes of skin, such as Jodi Arias, might think twice about ruthlessly killing someone, if they know that they would face swift and severe punishment and have some idea of what that punishment entails.
