The Lies, Impossibilities--and Racism--of Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign

For once and for all, let's be clear. This needs to be said. Far too many times in the past and repeatedly now, with Donald Trump running his fateful campaign for the presidency and saying he and we will "send 11 million 'illegal immigrants' back to Mexico'", when, in fact, they come from all over South America, it should also be noted, here's the facts, here's what needs to be said:

Trump and Cruz Want to Deport 

11 Million Immigrants. That's Literally Impossible

You Can't Deport 11 Million People - 

Center for Immigration Studies

And if it were possible? What about the cost? What would that be?

Deporting 11 Million People Could Cost 

$400-600 Billion, Study Finds

And even if it were possible--and it's not--you can't try to deport more than 11 million people AND go on a spending spree at the same time, as he has proposed.

You Can't Deport 11.4 Million People and Simultaneously Grow the Military

And check this out, anyway. Mr. Trump and his Right Wing, racist cohorts are so concerned about what they call "illegals", as we know. What's the status of all of them, anyway? What, if anything are we doing about them lately?  Well, great question. Here's what we're doing.

Obama has deported more immigrants 

than any other president

U.S. deportations of immigrants 

reach record high

And this same title is from only 3 days ago, to be clear.

Obama Has Deported More People 

Than Any Other President

And the fact is, these immigrants to our nation pay far more IN to our country than they take out, besides the fact that most are showing up and working at their jobs.

Study Finds Illegal Immigrants Pay $11.8B in Taxes

Here are the facts:

• It's logistically impossible to deport more than 11 million people
• It would be outrageously expensive, even if it were possible

And then, we have to ask ourselves, is this who we are? Is this who we want to be? Does not the idea of rounding up more than 11 million people in this nation, people that, some, anyway, have lived here for years and plenty who have family here, do we want to be the ones searching these people out and "sending them back where they came from"?

Does that not remind anyone, anyone of the Nazis, rounding up Jews in the 30s in Germany?

And that's who we want to be?

The fact that any, any candidate for the highest office in our nation is running on this platform and, for that matter, the platform of building a wall, too, across our Southern border and that it would be a centerpiece of his candidacy and that he would get as far as he has on all this nonsense is just stunning. Let's be clear on that, too. Building a wall across our Southern border is also impossible.

Trump's Wall: Impractical, Impolitic, Impossible

And again, even if this Southern wall along our border with Mexico WERE possible, the cost of it would be outrageous, even by itself, let alone if one thought they could deport 11+ million people.

This is what Trump's border wall could cost US

An Engineer does the Cost Estimate of Trump's Wall

As an interested civil engineer, I decided to do some number crunching to see how incredibly expensive this particular project will be. Thankfully, engineer Ali F. Rhuzkan already provided material estimates for the wall. I simply took his material estimates, found national average costs, and totaled them up. Let’s break it down step by step. The previous calculations stated that the wall will be built using pre-cast (place and set at indoor facility and transport harden concrete panels to job site) and cast-in-place (wet concrete placed at site) concrete. We will also need to include the steel rebar in the material costs. 

Going off of materials estimate we have… 167,272,000 cubic yards of cast-in-place concrete at $93/cubic yard = $15,556,296,000 1,030,000 segments of 10’ pre-cast panels at $17/panel = $17,510,000 2,500,000 tons of steel rebar at $600/ton = $1,500,000,000 Total Material Cost Estimate: 

$17,073,806,000

That's 17 billion dollars.

Just to keep people out.  Or, rather, just to TRY to keep people out.

Then there would be the cost of maintenance, manning and upkeep. From the same article, above:

The U.S. government would have to pay to maintain the wall, which could cost as much as $750 million a year, according to an analysis conducted by Politico. And then if it wanted to man it with personnel, that would be an additional cost — border patrol has an operating budget of $1.4 billion for 21,000 agents.

And again, a wall?

Does that not remind anyone who knows anything about history of Nazi Germany and their wall?

Finally, here's one last insanity and this is from the last 10 hours, from Mr. Trump's trip yesterday to Mexico.

Donald Trump continues vow to build wall and have Mexico pay for it

Anyone who knows anything about international politics knows that one nation cannot, patently cannot, make another nation pay for anything. Well, nothing except, after the fact, possibly paying for war retributions. And that would have to be decided from an international court, long after the war was over and the losing, aggressor side would have to be found liable for damages.

The fact is, the facts are, the presidency of Donald J. Trump are based on impossibilities, at least, and maybe emotionalism, if not out-and-out misrepresentations, if not lies.

Why are we paying any attention to this man, this Donald Trump?

And why is he seriously being considered for the highest office in our nation?

Link:  The Softening: Trump Appears To Be Getting Away With It

On Tonight's Immigration Speech by Pres. O

On that immigration issue?

The Tea Party, the Right Wing and all that hypocrisy

You don't suppose they'll see their hypocrisy eventually, do you?

Fortunately, there is some good news, too, right now: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/16/the-scandals-are-falling-apart/

On Mitt Romney: Let's stop asking the obvious

Could we please stop asking whether Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper? Please? I mean, come on. Go to YouTube and watch any number of videos, showing him giving his stand at the time it was recorded. We can hear him, time and again, saying he's for this, then later, against it. Let's put that to rest. Either you're for him (mistakenly, I believe) or you're not, that's all there is to it.

California's Dream Act vs. their budget (deficit)

It seems California just passed their own version of the "Dream Act", allowing illegal immigrant students to stay in the state and reap the benefits of the state paying for some of their education.

That has got to drive a whole bunch of people out there crazy.

You see, California still has a budget deficit of at least $10 billion, which isn't chicken feed, for sure, but the legislature passed this legislation which will only add yet more to the state's budget and so, deficit.

Now, you may come down for or against this "Dream Act", allowing illegal immigrant's children to stay in the state and get their education but if you're for it--and I'm for the idea, anyway--it makes it difficult to support the viability and plausibility of making this work and happen if you're that deeply in debt.

Right?

If you're not only broke but deeply, deeply in debt, how is it you "invest" if you don't have any money and the law requires that you balance your books?

This is one tough situation.

Links:  http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/forum/x43955787/Should-voters-get-say-on-tax-extensions
Editorial: Support the state's DREAM Act
DREAM Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=california+dream+act+news&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=bd65c7b8ba23dd6c&biw=1024&bih=653

Quote of the day--on the Mexican/Hispanic immigration issue

"...our family was there when it was Spain, when it was France, when it was Mexico, the Republic of Texas, the United States, the Confederacy.  Our family's always been in the same place;  it was the damn government that kept changing."  --Leticia Van de Putte, A Texas state senator from San Antonio with relatives on both sides of the border;  from The Economist.

Link to original post:  http://www.economist.com/node/16992245?story_id=16992245

For anyone who thinks we can send 12 million Mexicans back, read on

This is what I've said all along to friends or anyone who thinks we--the US--can really send 11 or 12 million "illegal aliens" back to Mexico, check out Rupert Murdoch's quote to Congress yesterday: Billionaire Rupert Murdoch, whose media empire includes the conservative cable channel Fox News, made the case to Congress Thursday that a broad immigration overhaul – with a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants – is critical to “strengthening America’s economy.” His testimony before a House Judiciary Committee immigration panel came as Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Patrick Leahy of Vermont introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a path to legalization, a temporary worker program, workplace and border enforcement measures and the DREAM Act, which failed in the Senate last week. Murdoch, who immigrated to the United States from Australia, told the committee that he supports sealing the U.S. borders to future illegal immigrants but creating a path to citizenship for responsible, law-abiding immigrants already living in the United States. Here's the quote: “It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people,” Murdoch said. “Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive.” Think about it. Logistically, realistically, it's virtually impossible to even locate and round up, let alone send back this many people, even if it is to next door neighbor Mexico. It not only isn't going to happen, it just can't happen. So let's get over it and get on with immigration reform, figure out some way to naturalize these people and then make a system of some kind for any others in Mexico who want to come to the States. If that is to be a tough system then, going into the future, fine, I guess, but that's the only way this is going to happen. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42944.html#ixzz1121CqjxZ

Potential big trouble for Democrats, in threes

First it was Charlie Rangel coming up for ethics charges and that looked problematic enough for him and, of course, for the Democrats. Hey, at least we're doing something about our dirty laundry. He's not likely to get away with this. The bad thing here is not only that he looks pretty dirty, though we're not assuming guilt here yet, but any trial would happen this Fall, just before elections. That's some bad timing, for sure. Then, another shoe droppped this week. California Representative Waters has been accused of some shenanigans that are going to be looked into. More possible ethics violations. And guess when that trial is to come about? You guessed it--this Autumn. All bad stuff for the Democrats. The final "capper" on this, to me, is unrelated to ethics but tells of "The Obama administration, unable to push an immigration overhaul through Congress, is considering ways it could go around lawmakers to let undocumented immigrants stay in the United States, according to an agency memo." I tell you what, if this President does this, and either pushes through--or tries to--ways for undocumented immigrants to stay in this country and going around Congress, I predict holy heck will be raised and will erupt in this country, coast to coast. The Republicans, the Tea Party members and everyone from Florida to Southern California--and a whole lot of others, added in, will go virtually nuclear. If I were advising the President, I'd have to tell him this may be the right thing to do even, but it's wrong for any cohesion, for sure. Have a great weekend, y'all. Link to original stories: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/30/2119380/obama-calls-charges-against-rangel.html; http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/30/2119357/ethics-panel-to-charge-california.html; http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/30/2118108/agency-weighs-skirting-congress.html

Think you can criticize this President?

Before you criticize this President, consider this list of the current priorities and then YOU come up with solutions of things to oversee:

•The Koreas could be edging to war. The South accuses the North of sinking one of its warships.

•Israel’s prime minister visits the White House on Tuesday as Obama presses peace talks with the Palestinians.

•The terror threat isn’t going away, as seen by the recent failed car bombing in New York City.

•A international standoff with Iran over its nuclear program is hardening.

•The economic recovery doesn’t feel like much of one to the millions who are jobless.

•A sweeping overhaul of financial regulation hangs in the balance. The White House hopes Congress can finish it by July.

•The president needs Republican support of two big initiatives, energy and immigration, but has little to show so far.

•Senators begin hearings in late June on his nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan.

•Fall elections are nearing, with Democrats facing losses and in need of campaign help from Obama.

And this is just the biggest of his priorities. There are far more, to be sure.

Link to original post: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/29/1979854/analysis-as-oil-spill-continues.html

Quote of the day

From Michael Gerson, Republican, Conservative and former speech writer for George W. Bush:

Immigration issues are emotional and complex. But this (the new Arizona law and controversey) must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Hispanics now make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.

Be still, my heart.


Enjoy your Sunday, folks.





Link to original post: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/13/1944471/alienation-of-latinos-is-political.html

Travel Arizona, indeed

Arizona's new slogan

Arizona: Come for the racism. Stay for the Fascism.

Arizona and Iran: A lot in common

First it was Arizona legalizing profiling and arrests of Hispanics and Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, in their quest to purify their state. We all heard about that.

Now, Arizonans can see how much they have in common with that beacon of intelligence, open-mindedness and acceptance, Iran, by coincidence, since they may begin arresting women there who are suntanned , since more scantily-clothed women are against fundamentalist Islamic law.

Stay classy, Arizona.

Classy, open-minded, intelligent and accepting.