theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Revealed: Iran's secret nuke deal with China, N. Korea

Collaboration aims for warheads capable of striking U.S.
Reza Kahlili

Iran is well launched on two programs with North Korean and Chinese help to develop nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems with the goal of having both ready in less than a year, according to an intelligence officer in the Revolutionary Guards.
The first program, code-named “Green Chariot,” a joint Iran-North Korea effort begun in 2008, seeks to complete the Islamic regime’s nuclear bomb program, said the source, who cannot be named for security reasons. The secret agreement, which would confront perceived threats from America and Israel, expanded collaboration on developing uranium nuclear warheads, producing and assembling centrifuges for enrichment, establishing underground facilities and working on mobile enrichment facilities.
The second program, code-named “Silk Cocoon,” expands the first program by developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could be armed with nuclear warheads and with a capability to strike at the United States, England and France; other ballistic missiles could target Israel.
This collaboration, agreed to by North Korea and elements in the Chinese military, exported parts and new technology to Iran along with anti-missile batteries and surface-to-air batteries.
The agreement was signed by a “Mr. K.Y-N” of North Korea and by a “Maj. Gen. Z.C.” of China and witnessed by Iranian officials as investors in the project. Only nine individuals were involved in the agreement. Trusted contacts have been used through various international commercial and banking channels without knowledge of the agreement’s details.
Become a part of the investigative reporting team uncovering the truths about Iran, and get author Reza Kahlili’s “A Time to Betray” about his life as a double agent inside Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
Three North Korean officials, including former premier Choe Yong-rim, and three Chinese officials, including a former chief of China National Nuclear Corp., joined these three Iranian officials in signing the agreement:
• Ahmad Vahid Dastjerdi, a Revolutionary Guard commander and major general and head of the protection of intelligence unit in the supreme leader’s office.
• Ahmad Vahidi, a former commander of the Quds Forces and current defense minister. He is wanted by Interpol for his involvement in the Jewish Community Center bombing of Buenos Aires in 1994.
• Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, the father of the Iranian nuclear bomb program.
The cost of the programs, which consist of three phases, has been estimated at $3.8 billion with 68 percent of the budget going to exports of technology and equipment from China and 32 percent for North Korean assistance. The first two phases were completed respectively in 2010 and 2012, according to the source.
One Chinese official, as the representative for the Chinese general, received $97 million in five transactions from Iran through banking channels in Malaysia; other transactions took place with collaboration of the Islamic Investments Bank. Another part of the financial transactions took place openly in 2010 through oil and drilling contracts with the Iranian company Hava Kish, located and registered on the Persian Gulf’s Kish Island, with Chinese petroleum companies. Part of that payment ensured the transfer of plans for miniaturizing nuclear bombs and in building nuclear warheads with guarantees on accuracy and the capability to arm such warheads on the Iranian Shahab 3 and North Korean No-Dong ballistic missiles. The nuclear program consisted of three phases:
Phase 1: Completion of infrastructure for uranium enrichment facilities and equipment, production of parts and then the assembly for newer cascades to enrich uranium both in Iran and North Korea. The intention was to have the capacity to produce up to 75,000 centrifuges. An Iranian official then invested $640 million in four companies related to the Chinese nuclear industry.
Phase 2: Transfer of Chinese plans, equipment, material and technology for forming, placing and making operational facilities to build uranium nuclear warheads, which was done through North Korea beginning in 2010 with construction work started by the Iranians at three secret locations.
Phase 3: This phase, already well underway, would develop nuclear warheads and marry them up with missiles and, according to the source, is scheduled to be completed by January 2014 to coincide with the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution and the Decade of Fajr.
The source said two Pakistani technicians and members of the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science entered Iran several months ago to help with uranium 235 pushers, graphite shock absorbers, electrical detonators and molding and placement of uranium 235.
Phase 3 calls for Iran and North Korea to conduct uranium nuclear bomb tests in the 50-kiloton range while Iran showcases its intercontinental ballistic missiles. The plan calls for making at least 10 nuclear warheads per year.
Bill Gertz of the Washington Beacon reported on June 28 that U.S. intelligence agencies had recently detected Iranian tests of a large rocket motor. One U.S. official said, “This engine could be used for an ICBM.”
Despite the Islamic regime being under crippling U.N., U.S. and EU sanctions, it has refused to stop its illicit nuclear program. Over a decade of negotiations with talks as recent as April with the 5+1 world powers have failed.
Iran’s nuclear energy chief, Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, speaking to journalists in Russia on June 28, stated that nuclear fuel enrichment would “continue in line with our declared goals” and “the enrichment linked to fuel production will also not change.” Iran has declared that its nuclear activity is for peaceful purposes only.
A March WND exclusive revealed Iran’s latest secret nuclear site, named Quds (Jerusalem), which consists of 380 missile depots and facilities for regime scientists to work on nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles.
A U.S. nuclear weapons-effects test expert, who could not be named but who served at the U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency and who inspected more than 200 tunnel structures of Russian nuclear test sites as well as Russian operational facilities and silos, viewed the imagery of Iran’s new secret facility.
“The site is similar to a common approach by several other nuclear-capable countries which have used advanced design in hardening these types of tunnels or garages for a quick deployable system,” he said. “I understand exactly what Iran has at the site … the overheads indicate there are many apparent tunnel portals designed to hold a weapon and/or an operational controlling element (support system) for the weapons, an indication of an advanced design for a quick deployable nuclear weapons system capable of surviving retaliation. … This layout is very scary because it is … ready for the operational weapon systems to be installed, and then they are ready to take on the world.”


Obama pledges $7 billion to upgrade power in Africa


Watch this video

By Faith Karimi and Matt Smith

U.S. President Barack Obama pledged $7 billion Sunday to help combat frequent power blackouts in sub-Saharan Africa.
Funds from the initiative, dubbed Power Africa, will be distributed over the next five years. Obama made the announcement during his trip to South Africa, the continent's biggest economy.
"Access to electricity is fundamental to opportunity in this age. It's the light that children study by, the energy that allows an idea to be transformed into a real business. It's the lifeline for families to meet their most basic needs, and it's the connection that's needed to plug Africa into the grid of the global economy," he said.
Two-thirds of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lacks access to electricity, including more than 85% of those living in rural areas, the White House said.
"A light where currently there is darkness -- the energy to lift people out of poverty -- that's what opportunity looks like," Obama told students at Cape Town University. "So this is America's vision: a partnership with Africa for growth, and the potential for every citizen, not just a few at the top."
The program includes $1.5 billion from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation and $5 billion from the Export-Import Bank, the White House said. Sub-Saharan Africa will need more than $300 billion to achieve universal electricity access by 2030, it said.
The preliminary setup will include Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Mozambique.

"These countries have set ambitious goals in electric power generation, and are making the utility and energy sector reforms to pave the way for investment and growth," a White House statement said.
Obama's three-nation African trip started in Senegal and will end in Tanzania this week. The visit aims to bolster U.S. investment opportunities, address development issues such as food security and health, and promote democracy.
It comes as China aggressively engages the continent, pouring billions of dollars into it and replacing the United States as Africa's largest trading partner.
Obama applauded China's investment in Africa, saying he is "not threatened by it."
Africa's greater integration into the global economy will benefit everyone with the potential creation of new jobs and opportunities, he said.
"I'm here because I think the United States needs to engage with a continent full of promise and possibility," Obama said. "It's good for the United States. I welcome the attention that Africa is receiving from China, Brazil, India and Turkey."
However, he urged African officials to ensure that those who invest in the continent and its natural resources benefit Africans in terms of jobs and other assets.
Obama also visited Robben Island, where anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela spent a majority of his 27-year imprisonment, on Sunday. And he spoke at Cape Town University, the site of a famous speech by Robert F. Kennedy at the height of apartheid in 1966.
Obama heads next to Tanzania, where he is scheduled to attend events until Tuesday.

Pentagon buying Russian copters for Afghans

who aren't ready to fly them!


The Pentagon is spending $771 million on 30 Russian helicopters and 18 Swiss planes for Afghan special forces charged with stopping terrorism and opium production even though the force only has a quarter of the personnel needed to fly and maintain the equipment, according to a new audit.
In his latest critical analysis of U.S. spending in Afghanistan, John F. Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, called on the Pentagon to immediately suspend the purchases and he raised questions about the $553 million contract to the Russian firm.
Sopko also revealed in his audit provided to Secrets that the Afghan forces are not ready to handle maintenance and operation of the aircraft. "Without an effective support structure, U.S.-funded [special forces] aircraft could be left sitting on runways in Afghanistan, rather than supporting critical missions, resulting in waste of U.S. funds," said the audit.
 The audit is Sopko's latest to draw attention the problems likely in Afghanistan once U.S. troops leave under President Obama's orders. His latests focuses on the air wing of the country's special forces. Overall, U.S. taxpayers will are expected to pay over $1 billion to supply the aircraft and fund maintenance.
Under the current plan, the Pentagon is replacing the air wing's aging force with 30 modified Russian Mi-17 helicopters and 18 Swiss-made PC-12 fixed wing aircraft. The bulk of that contract, $553 million, is going to Russian firm Rosoboronexport. The contract to Rosoboronexport--the sole Russian government agency selling Russian-made defense items and military hardware--had been delayed because of political considerations associated with U.S. transactions with it.
Despite the purchases, the audit said that the Afghan force isn't close to being ready to operate it. It has only 180 of the 806 the team needed to fly and maintain the aircraft. For example, it currently has 42 pilots, but will need 188.
In addition the force is having trouble finding forces who can speak English, in part because other jobs pay better to those who can speak English.
"We question the wisdom of moving ahead with the provision of 30 new Mi-17s and 18 PC-12s unless these issues are properly addressed," said the audit.
In response, the Pentagon rejected the recommendations, claiming a delay would slow the development of the special operations forces.

Supreme Court Got it Wrong on Gay Marriage

By Ryan T. Anderson

The Supreme Court on Wednesday announced disturbing decisions on two important cases regarding marriage law, but the high court refused to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
In striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the court declared that the federal government can't define marriage as the union of one man and one woman for its own policies and laws but must accept whatever the states decide about marriage. The court's ruling, though, doesn't affect Section 2, which provides that no state is required to give effect to another state's recognition of same-sex marriages.
The court got it wrong with DOMA. The justices ignored the votes of large, bipartisan majorities in Congress in 1996. It is absurd for the court to suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes that Congress itself enacts. This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government. We must work to reverse it -- and to defend the rights of all Americans to make marriage policy.
In its ruling on California's Proposition 8 (which defined marriage in that state as the union of one man and one woman), the Supreme Court declared that the citizen group that sponsored the initiative didn't have standing to defend the state constitutional amendment that millions of Californians voted to pass.
The only reason this jurisdiction question was an issue is because the governor and attorney general of California decided to not defend a law passed by the people. Although the government of California through inaction tried to silence the voices of Californians, the court didn't create a right to redefine marriage.
Marriage laws in the states that tell the truth about marriage -- that it is a union of one man and one woman to provide children with a mom and a dad -- were not struck down. We must now work to protect marriage laws in 37 other states.

Where's the special prosecutor?

The IRS scandal demands an independent investigation

Rally outside IRS building in Washington, DC
Tea Party supporters rally in front of the IRS building May 21, 2013 in Washington, D.C., to protest the abuse of power from the
IRS in targeting tea party and grassroots organizations for harassment. (Olivier Douliery / May 17, 2013)

"It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives. ... I'll do everything in my power to make sure nothing like this happens again by holding the responsible parties accountable ...."
— President Barack Obama condemning "misconduct" at the Internal Revenue Service, May 15, 2013
All of us understand that IRS misconduct, right? And we know which parties Obama needs to hold accountable. It's obvious, right? End of story:
We learned at the get-go of this scandal that, during a long run-up to the 2012 presidential election, IRS officials extensively hassled conservative groups that had applied for tax-exempt status. Congressional Republicans pounced on this as an attempt to hijack the election.
But wait. Early last week we read that the agency used keywords such as "progressive" to target left-leaning groups, too, for extra scrutiny. "New IRS chief: Lists targeted more than tea partyers," said the Chicago Tribune. "Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet," said The New York Times. Congressional Democrats pounced on the suggestion that the agency had treated conservatives and liberals with equal indignity.
But wait some more. On Wednesday a Treasury Department inspector general undercut the equal-abuse argument: From May 2010 to May 2012, the IRS had flagged for added scrutiny six of the 20 applicant groups with words such as "progressive" in their titles. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the (292) tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases" — that is, groups possibly too political to merit tax-exempt status. "While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria," wrote Inspector General J. Russell George, "including employee interviews, emails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political-campaign intervention."
Translation: The IRS was overwhelmingly one-sided in scrutinizing applications. And the agency evidently was completely one-sided in subjecting only conservative groups to long processing delays and lengthy, often peculiar requests. Example: The IRS asked an Iowa anti-abortion group "how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3) ...."
So that's where things stand — until fresh reporting, a document leak or perhaps a confession sends the story in some new direction. But seven weeks into this scandal, the fact most Americans know best is that ... they still don't know much that's definitive. The murky intrigue over who provoked what at this agency has become a playpen for politicians. Three among many crucial questions still scream for answers:
•Did someone nudge IRS employees to hassle certain groups or did agency officials spontaneously decide to do that?
•Inspector General George has testified that in June 2012, five months before the election, he told top Treasury Department officials of his probe into IRS targeting. Did his news, with its potential to rock the presidential campaign, stop atop Treasury — or did it make its way even higher in the administration?
•At multiple points in 2012, why did top IRS officials repeatedly mislead Congress by not disclosing — in response to highly specific questions — that the agency was targeting conservative groups?
We can only speculate on which tools will unlock the grimy secrets of this egregious misuse of government authority. An ongoing self-examination by the IRS is laughably untrustworthy. The U.S. Department of Justice also is on the case.
But as we wrote May 23, many Americans won't be much interested in what one arm of the Obama administration concludes about the conduct of other arms — the IRS, the Treasury and possibly the White House. There are times when only a special prosecutor has the independence and credibility to resolve such a politically fraught matter.
Why hasn't Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor? The White House, too, should be clamoring for one: The feds are only three months from enrolling Americans in Obamacare, a program that relies on citizens' willingness to have the IRS even more involved in the financial details of their lives.
We applauded when Obama said he would make sure there will be no such future scandal. But lofty pledges aren't enough. The president and his underlings ought to be instructing a special prosecutor to unravel the still mysterious scandal that confronts them today.


Biden: 'President and I' Saved Economy

On Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden spoke at a major Virginia fundraiser, pushing himself as a possible 2016 presidential contender. “With virtually zero support from the Republicans, the president and I have moved the country from the worst recession since the Great Depression to 38 months of private-sector growth,” said Biden. Biden then launched an assault on Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, the state’s attorney general, whom he said was “at odds with the value set of Virginians.”

He said that the GOP was now in danger of being controlled by the Tea Party. “They are so afraid of a challenge by the tea party that they vote against what is the right vote,” said Biden. “Imagine what they will do to Barack and me if Terry McAuliffe loses.” 

Lessons in basic statistics needed for climate alarmists

Sierra Rayne

During the summer of 2012 in the heat of the climate hysteria over the US drought, Seth Borenstein -- apparently the "Associated Press science writer covering astronomy, climate, & disasters" and an instructor at "NYU's DC campus" -- sent out the following tweet:
rayne.jpgIt read as follows: "Globally, July was 329th straight month hotter than norm. Flip coin for 329 heads in row. Odds it's random: 1 in 1.1 followed by 99 zeros."
See any basic statistical problems with analogizing coin flipping to climate patterns? There is a major one: independent vs. dependent events.
Let us quote some relevant text from a university website on the topic at hand:
"People often misunderstand the notion of independent events. This is a probability term meaning that past events have no influence on future outcomes. For example, when flipping a coin four consecutive times, the probability of getting four heads is: (1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)=1/16.
This is because the probability of flipping a head if you flip a coin once is 1/2. Flipping a coin is an example of an independent event. When flipping a coin, the probability of getting a head does not change no matter how many times you flip the coin. When the coin is flipped and the first three flips are heads, the fourth flip still has the probability of 1/2. However, many people misunderstand that the first three flips somehow influence the fourth flip, but they do not. The probability is still the same, as if the first three flips had never occurred.
Gambling card games are not necessarily independent events. If the cards are not replaced into the deck, then probabilities change depending on which cards have been dealt. For example, the probability of being dealt an ace from a standard deck of 52 cards is 4/52 or 1/13. However, if the first person is dealt an ace, the probability that the second person will also be dealt an ace is now 3/51, if the first ace is not replaced into the deck. This applies to all card games, particularly Poker."
Here's a novel concept for climate alarmists and journalists (and particularly the combination thereof). The odds of any one month being hotter or cooler than 'normal' (nevermind a rigorous discussion of what a 'normal' climate really is) is not an independent event. It is a dependent event, and it depends on the previous months, because the planet (and all its climate sub-regions) goes through cycles (having various lengths, magnitudes, areal extents, etc.) of warm and cool periods. That is basic science and statistics.
Consequently, any probability analogies between flipping a coin and obtaining a certain number of equivalent results in a row and obtaining a certain number of warmer/cooler or wetter/dryer climate events in a row are nonsense.

Read more:

Atheists unveil monument next to plaque listing the Ten Commandments

Rick Moran

These sorts of idiots give atheism a bad name.
A group of atheists unveiled a monument to their nonbelief in God on Saturday to sit alongside a granite slab that lists the Ten Commandments in front of the Bradford County courthouse.
As a small group of protesters blasted Christian country music and waved "Honk for Jesus" signs, the atheists celebrated what they believe is the first atheist monument allowed on government property in the United States.
"When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has a function. Atheists are about the real and the physical, so we selected to place this monument in the form of a bench," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.
It also serves another function -- a counter to the religious monument that the New Jersey-based group wanted removed. It's a case of if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
American Atheists sued to try to have the stone slab with the Ten Commandments taken away from the courthouse lawn in this rural, conservative north Florida town best known for the prison that confines death row inmates. The Community Men's Fellowship erected the monument in what's described as a free speech zone. During mediation on the case, the atheist group was told it could have its own monument, too.
"We're not going to let them do it without a counterpoint," Silverman said. "If we do it without a counterpoint, it's going to appear very strongly that the government actually endorses one religion over another, or -- I should say -- religion in general over non-religion."
About 200 people attended the unveiling. Most were supportive, though there were protesters, including a group from Florida League of the South that had signs that said "Yankees Go Home."
Too often, people who call themeselves atheists appear to get a lot of satisfaction over tweaking the sensibilties of believers. This is childish and unnecessary - as is this monument, which could have been placed elsewhere with absolutely no trouble at all.
What's the difference between Christians proselytizing and atheists proselytizing? That's exactly what the atheists are doing when they say "We're not going to let them do it without a counterpoint."What "counterpoiint?" What's the point of deliberately upsetting people? Are they that hard up for attention?
People should be free to believe what they want without being ridiculed or criticized. It's nobody's business what you believe or if you believe anything at all. That's the bottom line in a free society and in this case, the atheists appear to have forgotten that.

Read more:

Obama Compares Nelson Mandela to George Washington

U.S. President Barack Obama and South African President Jacob Zuma, not pictured, address a press conference following their meeting at Union Building in Pretoria, South Africa, Saturday June 29, 2013.


Although President Obama will not get a chance to see Nelson Mandela on his trip to South Africa, he is using his historic visit to pay tribute to the man he calls a hero to the world and will meet today with the Mandela family.
At a joint press conference with South African President Jacob Zuma this morning, President Obama spoke extensively about Mandela's legacy.
"Our thoughts and those of Americans and people all around the world are with Nelson Mandela and his family and all of South Africans," Obama said. "The struggle here for freedom, Madiba's moral courage, this country's historic transition to a free nation has been a personal inspiration to me, an inspiration to the world, and it continues to be."  
Obama's two-day visit to South Africa -- and his entire week-long visit to the continent -- has been dominated by the Mandela vigil, giving Obama to speak about what Mandela means to Africa and the rest of the world.
"The outpouring of love that we've seen in recent days shows that the triumph of Mandela and this nation speaks to something very deep in the human spirit," Obama said. "That's what Mandela represents, that's what South Africa can represent to the world and what brought me back here."
Later, when asked about his policy toward Africa, Obama again returned to Mandela.
"Mandela shows what was possible when a priority is placed on human dignity, respect for law, that all people are treated equally," Obama said.
"And what Nelson Mandela also stood for is that the well-being of the country is more important than the interests of any one person," Obama continued. "George Washington is admired because after two terms he said enough, I'm going back to being a citizen. There were no term limits, but he said I'm a citizen. I served my time. And it's time for the next person, because that's what democracy is about. And Mandela similarly was able to recognize that, despite how revered he was, that part of this transition process was greater than one person."
At the joint press conference, President Zuma offered an update on Mandela's health -- saying there has been no change in his health but that he hopes he will be able to leave the hospital soon.
"The position of former president Mandela, he remains critical but stable," Zuma said. "Nothing has changed so far. We are hoping that he is going to improve. With all the prayers and good wishes that have been made, everyone is wishing Mandela well. The doctors who are tending to him are doing everything -- these are excellent doctors. We hope that very soon, he will be out of hospital."
Visiting with Mandela's Family
Obama will not visit the hospital to meet Mandela "out of deference to Nelson Mandela's peace and comfort and the family's wishes, [the president and first lady] will not be visiting the hospital," the White House said.
The president and first lady will, however, meet privately with members of the Mandela family "to offer their thoughts and prayers at this difficult time."
Obama spent about 25 minutes meeting with the Mandela family at the Nelson Mandela Center of Memory in Johannesburg.
He also spoke, via telephone, with Mandela's wife Graca Machel, who is with her husband at the hospital.

  • 1

Next up in America, polygamy?

'As consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose' 


Bob Unruh

The movement to legalize multi-partner marriage got a huge boost with this week’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal government must give benefits to same-sex married partners, according to advocates of polygamy.
“We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,” Anita Wagner Illig told U.S. News and World Report.
“I would absolutely want to seek multi-partner marriage — it would eliminate a common challenge polyamorists face when two are legally married and others in their group relationships aren’t part of that marriage,” she said.
Illig, head of the group Practical Polyamory, argued it’s a matter of equality – the concept cited by the U.S. court in its decision.
“A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage, because the opposition cannot argue lack of precedent for legalizing marriage for other forms of non-traditional relationships,” she said.
The comments come on the heels of the left-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court deciding that the federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman failed the Constitution’s equality requirement.
Talk show host Glenn Beck immediately forecast that polygamy “wouldn’t be far behind.”
“If you change one variable – man and a woman to man and man, woman and woman, you cannot then tell me that you cannot logically … change the other variable, one man, three women. One woman, four men,” he said.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., made a similar suggestion, saying he was “very concerned” that the court’s ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act as well as California’s Proposition 8 case could lead to legalized polygamy.
He later explained his point was that there soon could be state recognition of marriage without definition.
Earlier, former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey predicted exactly what appears to be developing.
The London Daily Mail reported Carey told Prime Minister David Cameron that an “equal marriage” proposal would have further consequences.
Carey pointed out some British lawmakers are recognizing that if they permit same-sex marriage, there would be no reason to bar two sisters from being married or multiple-partner arrangements.
A California Supreme Court justice, Marvin Baxter, issued a similar warning when his court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2008.
Voters later that year overruled the decision, adopted a state constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, that defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. But a homosexual federal judge, Vaughn Walker, struck down Proposition 8 in 2010.
Baxter dissented from the majority 2008 opinion that created same-sex “marriage” for a short time in the state, arguing the consequences of the decision were not thought out.
He wrote: “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.
“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”
His warning?
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”
Carey’s warning was nearly the same.
“Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, they why stop there?” he said. “If it is about love and commitment, then it is entirely logical to extend marriage to two sisters bringing up children together. If it is merely about love and commitment, then there is nothing illogical about multiple relationships, such as two women and one man.”
It was not even a year ago when Brazil, which started out by expanding marriage to same-sex duos nearly a decade ago, allowed three people in a polygamous relationship to have a civil union.
The man and two women had been living together for several years. Public notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues allowed the trio’s relationship to be formalized.
Polyamorists in Canada, which is ahead of the United States by several years in expanding the definition of marriage, are demanding formal recognition.
The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association said this month it wants to see polyamoras relationships treated on the same legal footing as others.
Director Zoe Duff said she wants to see “households where our spouses are equal under the law, and moving forward in terms of pensions, and inheritances and property division.”
After this week’s U.S. Supreme Court decisions, conservative radio talk show host Bryan Fischer said it was just a “matter of time” before polygamy and other sexual alternatives are normalized.
Anne Wilde of the polygamy-advocacy organization “Principle Voices,” told Buzzfeed Wednesday, “I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”



Same-sex marriage: Pride before a fall

Star Parker: Children suffer most when man makes his own rules

The book of Proverbs, part of biblical canon, once a vital part of American culture, tells us: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”
It’s this haughty spirit, this pride that precedes destruction, that lies behind the Supreme Court’s decision this week to bury the Defense of Marriage Act.
DOMA defined marriage, for purposes of federal law, as traditional marriage – the union of man and woman.
This decision did not come out of nowhere. It did not happen in a vacuum. It is but the latest in a long process of the unraveling of American culture driven by pride – the sense that we answer to no higher authority. That the two-legged animal man is master of the universe and decides, invents right and wrong, true and false.
There have been many stops on the way to this Supreme Court decision relegating marriage, as we have known and understood it for millennia, to a casual fiction that could come out of Hollywood.
One stop we might note was the Supreme Court’s decision in 1980, Stone v. Graham, that said that posting the Ten Commandments in a public school is unconstitutional.
A free society must start with a foundation of rules. If our biblical tradition is not the source of these rules, what rules do define how we live, and where do these rules come from?
The preamble of our Constitution tells us that its purpose is to secure the “blessings of liberty.”
What is a blessing? The first definition in my Webster’s New World Dictionary says that a blessing is “a statement of divine favor.”
How can we secure divine favor in a nation for which the divine is unconstitutional? A prideful nation by definition must be a nation that rejects the idea of a blessing.
In the pride that precedes destruction in America 2013, we reject that there are truths that don’t come out of a laboratory. We reject that that there are truths that parents get from their parents and pass on to their children.
We reject that there are truths that, when children learn them from their parents, and embrace them and become responsible for them, they become adults.
So now we live in society in which there is nothing that distinguishes a child from an adult, that distinguishes responsible from irresponsible.
Who suffers the most?
First and foremost, children. Because they are deprived of learning and taking seriously the very rules of life’s road that are critical to live successfully.
Even more so, children from minority families.
Sixty seven percent of black children are raised in single-parent households. The collapse of black family life reflects this very welfare-state materialism, bestowed to blacks by elitist white liberals, that defines the culture that now rejects the sanctity of traditional marriage.
Can there be any doubt that the grandparents and great grandparents of the five Supreme Court justices who just voted to delegitimize the sanctity of traditional marriage in America would be appalled by the decisions of their offspring?
Can there be any doubt that if the ancestors of these same Supreme Court justices had the values their offspring are selling today that that these judges would most likely not be who they are and sitting where they sit?
America is a free country. You can do what you want in private.
But when values of meaninglessness become sanctioned as part of our public and official culture we should know that this is the “pride” that “goes before destruction.”
Let there be no doubt that same-sex marriage is about much more than marriage. It is a deliberate and conscious assault on religion and all traditional values.
We have only two options. Turn back to where we belong or watch the continuing collapse of our country.


Truth is now Hate Speech in Cameron’s Britain

“In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”— George Orwell

Sharia UK 250pxBritish Home Secretary Theresa May’s ban on civil rights activists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller entering Britain is yet another example of our ruling elite’s total capitulation to Islam, a political and cultural/religious ideology which shares its core beliefs with Nazism.

I wasn’t intending to write on this subject; it has already been covered by various authors, but the following email I received from a Canadian WWII soldier changed my mind. Lance Bombardier Richard Field served in the Royal Canadian Artillery Regiment and fought for his country and the West as a young man in Europe in WWII. He is now fighting against resurgent Islam, which he correctly identifies as a threat greater even than that of Hitler’s Nazis. Mr Field wrote the following:

“As a Canadian who went to England during WWII as a 19 year old soldier and went into combat in North West Europe to defend our freedoms. The bile rises in my throat at the pitiful behavior of David Cameron and the policies of Britain in regard to anyone from anywhere in the Free Western world being told they cannot come and tell the truth about Islam and the end of our civilization if the political theocracy of that evil is allowed to prevail. I have heard Pamela Geller speak. She not only describes Islam’s theocratic plans to dominate all counties on earth but teaches us how to fight the battle peacefully. Cameron and the British government are cowards, frightened that the Islamists will react violently.

This government must be replaced with men and women of the Churchillian and Thatcher courage of steel and purpose. In the meantime the English Defense League and Liberty GB will have to man the barricades until Cameron and his ilk are hung drawn and quartered for treasonous behavior.”

Mr. Field is quite correct that Cameron and company are behaving in a treacherous manner, although perhaps — just perhaps — hanging, drawing and quartering is taking it a step too far… I think a public trial based on Nuremberg is very much needed, though, and if found guilty, banishment to Islamabad or Timbuktu would be quite an adequate punishment for their cowardly appeasement and betrayal of free speech and democracy — both of which exist today only because of the blood and sacrifice of millions of brave, patriotic and decent men like Mr. Field.
Mr. Cameron’s ideological allies in this shameful travesty include the usual assortment of far-left extremists such as Nick Lowles of Hope not Hate, an organisation devoted to silencing any criticism of Islam, but which “puzzlingly” never talks at all about Islamic atrocities committed both in Britain and abroad. Mr Lowles, of course, comes from a Communist background and therefore supports the mass slaughter of millions in the name of his ideology, so we should not be surprised that he is currently allied with Islam, which continues to satisfy Lowles’ blood lust as its adherents rape, murder, torture and bomb their way around the world. Allahu Akhbar!
Lowles is “delighted” that he has managed to close down free speech in Britain (Stalin would have been proud of him), but Lowles was embarrassingly unable to answer Robert Spencer in a recent radio interview, when Spencer asked him to name just one example of anything he ever said in millions of words which could be labeled as “Islamophobic.” Lowles could not, of course, because he and his violent and extreme left-wing ilk don’t argue with facts and reality. “Racist and fascist” is their main point of attack as they studiously avoid the real racists and fascists in their midst — who possess both the correct skin colour and a bitter hatred for traditional Britain, which combination makes Islam the number one ideological ally of the quisling Left.
After the toe-curling failure of Lowles to defame Spencer, worse was to come for the Islamo-leftist alliance. Were the matter not so serious, the following exchange between imam Dadwallah and Robert Spencer would be comedy gold in its exposure of the pig-ignorant and evasive imam and the thoroughly biased BBC, which sought desperately to expose Spencer as a bigoted “Islamophobe.” The BBC interviewer allowed Robert to quote a small number of Koranic verses which smear Jews and Christians as unclean, along with a couple of fairly typical jihadist kill-all-the-non-Muslims sort of stuff:
“How would you counter these quotes?” asked the BBC man, whereupon the imam instantly refused to argue against the unarguable and instead said the following:
“The Home Secretary needs to decide whether she should allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to come to this country, especially on armed forces day. Is it going to be respectful, is it going to be distasteful for these individuals to come and honour the memory of Drummer Lee Rigby?”
Memo to imam Dadwallah: Respectful to attend a memorial for a murdered British soldier? Emphatically yes. Distasteful? No! Do you have any idea what you said? This terrible statement should have been picked up by the BBC interviewer, but alas went clean over his head, presumably because the prevailing opinion at the BBC is not too dissimilar to that of the cuddly imam.
After a tad more typical taqiyyah, the real comedy gold started when the interviewer finally lost patience with the discombobulating Dadwallah:
“But imam, imam, with all due respect, I’m sorry, but so often on this show we are asked by our Muslim listeners why haven’t we got an imam on to counter some of the things put out there…you cannot evade that…he (Robert Spencer) put the quotes out there, please explain the context!”
Imam Dadwallah had been caught out with his admission that Jews and Christians were “spiritually unclean” which he then tried to backtrack on. The interviewer then asked him if he could identify a single verse in the Koran which states that they (Jews and Christians) are equal to Muslims. The imam replies:
“Not off the top of my head, I wasn’t asked to be prepared for…”
“But you’re an imam!”
“I understand that, but Robert Spencer…”
“But he isn’t an imam!”
“But this is his field…”
“But Islam is your field surely?!”
If anyone thinks the interviewer was against the imam, they would be very much mistaken. The interviewer was just frustrated that he was unable to use his pet imam to debunk Robert and expose him as an “Islamophobe.” The interviewer went on to say:
The reason that I wanted you on the show was to counter the kind of accusations [actually, just quotes from the Koran — Ed.] that we hear from Tommy Robinson and Robert Spencer.”
And so the penny dropped. The BBC was out to discredit Spencer, but failed utterly to do so. The Communist Lowles failed utterly, and the imam failed utterly. Robert Spencer’s supposed “Islamophobia” consisted only of quoting the Koran. The inability to counter these quotes simply confirms that the Koran is a Hate Book, driven by supremacism, bigotry and anti-anything not Islamic. Robert Spencer was not banned because he twists the Koran; he was banned for exposing the hatred within the Koran. In Britain… by a Conservative government…
So when these thoroughly dreadful Conservative politicians are not banning truthful civil rights activists, what sort of delightful coves do they let into the country? Well, there are countless examples of war-mongering jihadists allowed into Britain; in fact we even have our own resident Bangladeshi war criminal who has been indicted for genocide back home in the East. But here is the most recent example of Cameronian culpability: one Mohammed al-Arefe, who bimbled over from Saudi just last week to partake of tea and a chat with his followers in Britain. One of his historical chats went like this:
“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”
Hmmm. And he’s not the only one like this whom Theresa May’s Home Office considers fit for entry and fit for spreading words conducive to the “public good.” In May, 2013, Kuwaiti Sheikh Yasser Al-Habib came to Britain to incite hatred against those pesky Sunni Muslims (Al-Habib is very much a Shiite) and has already served time for inciting religious hatred. Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, a Sunni Muslim, raised this issue with Theresa May’s Home Office:
“These preachers are purely here to promote themselves and create divisions where none need to exist. Neither he (Al-Arefe) or Al-Habib should be allowed to do this. And the Home Office must take action on this issue. This is just another branch of hatred, and it’s bizarre the Home Office doesn’t listen to people who are concerned about this…the Home Office has a duty to examine this.
But the Home office did nothing. Absolutely nothing. Wrong colour, wrong religion, old boy. It is hard to put into mere words the sheer revulsion one feels towards David Cameron at this point. We do have actual laws that prohibit genuine hate preachers, such as the amiable imams above, from coming here. But those laws are ignored when the haters emanate from petro-dollar rich Saudi and Kuwait. Those hundreds-of-billions sure have some clout, hey, Dave?
But why let in skull-smashing Saudis whilst banning peaceful civil rights activists? As far as Theresa May is concerned, the mere presence of Geller and Spencer “would not be conducive to the public good” which is a pretty Orwellian and far-ranging totalitarian statement, assuming it is even legal.
What Ms May really means is that Muslim and far-left extremist groups will cause trouble if people advocating free speech are allowed entry to Britain in order to politely explain to baffled imams what their holy book really means when it commands them to slay the infidels. In order to appease the Muslim “community” Cameron and his government would rather betray their country, and the reason for this is based purely on the fact that the British parliament (within those hallowed halls where once strode Winston Churchill) is just downright frightened — nay, terrified — of Islam.
And this terror of Islam is because Islam uses terror. And quite clearly uses it very well. After the Muslim sex-slavery, rape and torture cases came before the public eye, there was a public tut-tutting, but little else. There is an ongoing scandal and a third enquiry into the awful murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence and the subsequent police bungling of the operation, but there is no call for an enquiry into the fact that thousands of vulnerable native British girls were abused by hundreds of Pakistani “British” Muslims in full view of David Cameron, the police, the media and the social services, all of whom knew what was going on, but chose to do nothing about it. The blood of those children is on their hands, and I include David Cameron in that.
“Let’s just pretend it never happened” seems to be the official response. Racially motivated? Religiously motivated? Good Lord, no! If we admitted that, then we would have to use the hate laws to prosecute the perpetrators, and they are all the wrong colour and the wrong religion! Surely everybody is aware these laws were introduced to prosecute white Christians only! Anything else would be discriminatory!
So here we are then. A Prime Minister who thinks we have a lot to learn from Islam. A Prime Minister who is a founding signatory of Unite Against Fascism, which is a Communist thug organisation with a Muslim fascist, Azad Ali, sitting as its vice-chair. A Prime Minister who said nary a word about Muslim gang rapists, and the only words used by him about the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby served to absolve Islam of any blame.
Britain is a country which allowed Muslim girls to attack white girls whilst screaming “kill the white bitch”, who were then absolved of a race crime. Britain promotes policemen to top positions who then publicly state on television that the 7/7 London transport bombings had nothing to do with Islam. Britain is a country that allowed any number of Muslim imams filmed by undercover C4 journalists to just carry on their hatred, even after their rants were aired on prime time TV. Let’s not prosecute them our Crown Prosecution Service said — they are the wrong colour and the wrong religion. Old boy.
Britain is a country that allowed its principal broadcasting outlet, the BBC, to disproportionately fill its studios with Muslims after 9/11 and to then blame America to loud applause from the audience, even as the U.S. Ambassador was reduced to tears by the sheer hatred and lack of human decency exhibited by the hating left and the hating Muslims.
Britain is a country that has clearly placed the interests of the followers of a savage, backward, violent, misogynistic, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian ideology both political and religious, stratospherically above the interests of its own native citizens. Britain is a country where Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery, Islam is Peace and Resistance to Islam is Evil.
Britain is lost.
Britain is a country that does prosecute you if you dare to mention that Islam indulges in a spot of gang-rape, and tells us it wants to blow us up. Britain is a country that threatens to prosecute T-Shirt vendors for inciting racial hatred if they wish to sell clothing bearing a logo saying “Respect our Culture, Respect our Laws or Get out of our Country”. Britain is a country that refuses to prosecute Muslims for hate crimes when they desecrate our war memorials, and Britain is a country that allows Jew-hating politicians like Keith Vaz to help decide just who should or should not be allowed entry to Britain.
And finally, Britain is a country that bans scholarly civil rights activists from entry, despite the fact they have never called for violence, cannot be exposed as being “Islamophobic” by Communists such as Nick Lowles and cannot be refuted by idiotic imams after directly quoting the Koran. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been denied entry to Britain for two reasons. The first is that they speak the truth. The second is that they have sufficient knowledge to make sure the truth cannot be twisted.
The British patriot and philosopher Roger Scruton once said that if words no longer had the desired effect, then words would be replaced by deeds. By denying free speech, by denying words from Geller and Spencer, David Cameron is helping to ensure that deeds will be forced to replace words, because our own government no longer allows us to use words.
The deeds will be violent. No race or culture submits quietly to their disinheritance, but for traitors like Cameron these deeds will not affect him personally. Islam is growing nine times faster than any other demographic and young Muslim males are becoming increasingly radicalised at Saudi-funded mosques. This can only lead to future civil war, and Cameron has shunted this war onto the shoulders of his own children, and the shoulders of every innocent child in Britain who has no power to influence the future. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Cameron who does have the power to actually do something about it, but only uses it to clamp down on people he thinks are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of good.
But it is you, Mr Cameron, who is on the wrong side. One day I very much hope you will explain to a court of law just why, given the choice of backing good or evil, you chose evil. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are clearly good, but you barred them. The skull-crushing jihadi enthusiast Mohammed al-Arefe is clearly evil, yet here he is Britain. This is not Pakistan, yet you seem intent on enforcing sharia-compliant blasphemy laws as though your office were in Islamabad, not London.
Why? Why have you labeled truth and facts to be “hate?” This is not the action of a democratic government; it is the action of a genuine dictatorship, and your totalitarian behavior is being carried out on behalf of a foreign religion and a foreign people who wish us only harm.
I said earlier that no words can describe the sheer revulsion good and moral people feel about your recent action Mr Cameron. The civilised world is now talking about it in horrified tones. You have publicly shamed Britain on the international stage, but, hey, don’t worry, Dave, just chillax. Leave the mess you have helped cause for your children — for all our children — to physically and militarily deal with, if indeed they can. For them, for our children, it will be a quite literal fight to the death.
Your abject cowardice in the face of potential Islamic aggression makes you a traitor to your country. Your dictatorial dismissal of free speech in barring Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller makes you a disgrace to decency and democracy, and an insult to every soldier like Lance Bombardier Richard Field who sacrificed so much to defend that democracy. You will never, ever, be forgiven and one day you will be held to account.

Saturday, June 29, 2013

22 million 'sign anti-Morsi petition' in Egypt

A crossed-out picture of Mohammed Morsi at a protest in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Saturday. More than 22 million people have signed a petition in Egypt demanding the departure of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi and a snap election, the opposition Tamarod (Arabic for rebellion) group said on Saturday.
A crossed-out picture of Mohammed Morsi at a protest in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Saturday. More than 22 million people have signed a petition in Egypt demanding the departure of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi and a snap election, the opposition Tamarod (Arabic for rebellion) group said on Saturday.
Opposition supporters gather for a protest against President Mohamed Morsi in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Saturday. Egypt's opposition Tamarod group says 22,134,465 people have signed its petition for Morsi to step down.
Opposition supporters gather for a protest against President Mohamed Morsi in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Saturday. Egypt's opposition Tamarod group says 22,134,465 people have signed its petition for Morsi to step down.
AFP - More than 22 million people have signed a petition in Egypt demanding the departure of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi and a snap election, the opposition Tamarod (Arabic for rebellion) group said on Saturday.
"Our petition has gathered 22,134,465 signatures," Tamarod spokesman Mahmud Badr told journalists on the eve of Sunday's first anniversary of Morsi's inauguration when it has called for nationwide protests.
This figure is higher than the number of people who voted for Morsi in last year's presidential election -- 13.23 million, or 51.7 percent of the ballots cast.
Previously, Tamarod said 15 million people in Egypt had signed the petition demanding that the president step aside.
Morsi supporters have dismissed the petition as invalid, insisting that only elections can decide whether a head of state stays or goes. His term of office is due to end in 2016.
The country was bracing on Saturday for the protests marking the first anniversary of Morsi's term in office amid violence in which several people have been killed, including a young American.
Opposition protests have sparked counter-demonstrations by the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies that have triggered often bloody clashes across the country.
Morsi, 62, stands accused by his critics of failing the 2011 revolution that brought him to power and of ignoring nearly half of the electorate of around 50 million who did not vote for him last year.

Chris Christie slams President Obama

Chris Christie and Barack Obama are pictured. | AP Photos
Christie slammed the president at a town hall meeting on Friday. | AP Photos


So much for the Chris Christie-President Obama bromance.
The New Jersey governor, distrusted by conservatives after his hug of Obama following Hurricane Sandy, slammed the president at a town hall meeting on Friday as “more concerned about being right than he is concerned about getting things done.”
He also repeatedly described himself as a “conservative” leader.
The moment, which the Democratic Governors Association gleefully emailed around, was written up by the Newark Star-Ledger.
The episode illustrates the delicate dance Christie faces as he tries to rack up a wide reelection margin in Democratic-tilting New Jersey, without further inflaming conservatives in key presidential primary states.

Read more:

The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants

The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer

By Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, Ph.D.

Executive Summary
Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:
  • Direct benefits. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
  • Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
  • Public education. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
  • Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.
The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.
The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households.
Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing. For example, in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113.
The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Half of unlawful immigrant households are headed by an individual with less than a high school degree, and another 25 percent of household heads have only a high school degree.
Some argue that the deficit figures for poorly educated households in the general population are not relevant for immigrants. Many believe, for example, that lawful immigrants use little welfare. In reality, lawful immigrant households receive significantly more welfare, on average, than U.S.-born households. Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.
In contrast to lawful immigrants, unlawful immigrants at present do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare. This does not mean, however, that they do not receive government benefits and services. Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be “congestion” effects that lead to a decline in service quality.
In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.
If enacted, amnesty would be implemented in phases. During the first or interim phase (which is likely to last 13 years), unlawful immigrants would be given lawful status but would be denied access to means-tested welfare and Obamacare. Most analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work “off the books” and therefore do not pay income or FICA taxes. During the interim phase, these “off the books” workers would have a strong incentive to move to “on the books” employment. In addition, their wages would likely go up as they sought jobs in a more open environment. As a result, during the interim period, tax payments would rise and the average fiscal deficit among former unlawful immigrant households would fall.
After 13 years, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and Obamacare. At that point or shortly thereafter, former unlawful immigrant households would likely begin to receive government benefits at the same rate as lawful immigrant households of the same education level. As a result, government spending and fiscal deficits would increase dramatically.
The final phase of amnesty is retirement. Unlawful immigrants are not currently eligible for Social Security and Medicare, but under amnesty they would become so. The cost of this change would be very large indeed. (Continued)