Here we go again. Francis X. Taylor, under-secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Department of Homeland Security, testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security on Sept. 10 that operatives of the extremist jihadi movement variously known as ISIS, ISIL or the Islamic State have discussed infiltrating the United States through the Mexican border. “There have been Twitter and social-media exchanges among ISIL adherents across the globe speaking about that as a possibility,” Taylor said in response to a question from Sen. John McCain, who wanted to if any ISIS chatter had been intercepted that “would urge infiltration into the United States across our Southwestern border.” But Taylor said he was “satisfied that we have the intelligence and the capability at our border that would prevent that activity.” And when pressed further, he admitted: “At present, DHS is unaware of any specific, credible threat to the US homeland from ISIL.” This weasily flipping gives the media the opportunity to play it however they want. So the liberal Huffington Post headline reads “DHS Doesn’t Think ISIS Is Plotting Attack Through US-Mexico Border,” while the establishmentarian Bloomberg
We’ve been hearing this paranoia for years now — only the names change. Just last year, before ISIS suddenly became the sexy menace du jour, pundits, wonks and yellow journalists were speculating about Hezbollah plotting with Mexican cartels. A few years before that, we were told al-Qaeda was recruiting narco-gangs to infiltrate militants across the border. The Mexican government denied any Islamist militant presence in the country.
This propaganda motif actually goes all the way back to World War I, when there was much fear of a German invasion of the US via Mexico. The basis for this was an intercepted German diplomatic cable — the notorious Zimmerman Telegram — inviting Mexico to join the Central Powers. Nothing came of it; Mexico told the Kaiser to get lost. But the revelation fueled war fever in the US, and actually helped propel Washington into the war. A century later, you’d think the trick would be getting a little stale. Please, don’t believe the hype!
For the first time in American statistical history, the majority of American adults are single. 124 million or 50.2% of Americans are single. Some will get married, but increasing numbers never will.
Demographically a population of single adults means the death of the Republican Party. It eliminates the possibility of libertarian and fiscally conservative policies. It leads inevitably to the welfare state.
Single people are less likely to have a support system that keeps them from becoming a public charge. Children born to single parents perform poorly in school and are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. A nation of single people will inevitably become a welfare state and a police state.
The statistics have always been known and the conclusions to be drawn from them are inescapable.
A lot of attention is being paid to the political consequences of the nation’s changing racial demographics, but it’s not a coincidence that the racial group that Republicans perform worst with is also the least likely to be married. While there are other factors in the mix, Republicans do better with married than unmarried black people.
The same is true of most other racial groups.
The latest Reuters poll shows that 36% of married Hispanics are planning to vote for a Democratic candidate in the upcoming midterm election and 28% are planning to vote for a Republican candidate. Among unmarried Hispanics, those numbers change to 42% Democratic and %15 Republican.
If Republicans want to start getting serious about the Hispanic vote, they might want to spend less time muttering about amnesty and more time thinking about where their strength with married voters lies.
Married white voters lean toward a Republican candidate by 43% to 24%. Among single white voters, Democrats lead 34% to 26%. There are other factors that affect these numbers such as age, race, sexual orientation and religious affiliation. Growing minority demographics have certainly helped make single Americans a statistical majority, but it’s dangerous to ignore the bigger picture of the post-family demographic trend.
If Republicans insist on running against the nanny state, they will have to replace it with something. That something was traditionally the family. Take away the family and something else has to fill its place.
In the West, government has become the new family. The state is father and occasionally mother. The nanny state is literally a nanny. It may be hated, but it is also needed.
That is why married whites oppose ObamaCare 65% to 34% while single whites also oppose it, but by a narrower margin of 53% to 47%.
ObamaCare’s support base among whites is highest among single white men and women. (Despite Julia and Sandra Fluke, the latest poll numbers show that young single white women oppose ObamaCare by a higher margin than young single white men. Pajama Boy with his hot cocoa is more likely to be a fervent proponent of ObamaCare than Julia. But the margins for both sexes remain narrow.)
Continue reading this article HERE.
The issue of gun control divides public opinion – each side has many followers, each having its own respectable arguments. But the modern world of technology adds fuel to the fire, as now everyone, even in countries that forbid guns for their citizens, can have their own firearms – printed on a 3D printing machine. How will the invention tip the balance between society and power? Will it unleash havoc, or bring freedom? And the man who created it – what personal ideals does he hold? Well, we ask him himself. Cody Wilson, the creator of the 3D-printed firearm dubbed “The Liberator” is on Sophie&Co today.
PIGS ARE FLYING SOMEWHERE if Congress actually thinks Obama is going to lift a finger to keep Islamic State (ISIS) jihadists out of the USA
Did you spot the difference?
Despite the administration’s pledges to the contrary, a number of Obamacare exchanges appear to be sending taxpayer dollars to cover insurance plans that provide elective abortions, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.
Taxpayer funding from the Department of Health and Human Services has long been barred for being used directly to fund abortions or to fund insurance plans that cover elective abortions — with the exceptions of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life. Even though this provision, the Hyde Amendment, applies to the Affordable Care Act, many state exchanges may not be living up to its promise.
In five states, each and every plan offered on the Obamacare exchange provides elective abortions. Consumers in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont and Hawaii have no options on the Obamacare exchange that excludes elective abortion.
Another 15 state Obamacare exchanges support some insurance plans that offer elective abortion; but it may be difficult, if not impossible, for customers to tell which plans do.
“The President himself, when he spoke in joint session to Congress on September 9, 2009, said ‘And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions,’” charged Republican Rep. Joe Pitts, chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health. “This is a violation of the commitment they gave us, gave the public.”
Read the full article at The Daily Caller.