Refugees vs Veterans: A Cost Analysis

Over 4 million veterans are on disability… They are eligible to receive ‘as much as’ $3000 per month for their disability and medical care – max $36,000 per year. Every year more than 8,000 veterans commit suicide.   They are injured, they are traumatized, and they are left to die in waiting rooms at VA Hospitals that are rife with corruption.

The average cost per household of Middle Eastern refugees is about $258,000 over five years, or $51,600 per year. More than 95% of refugees are on welfare receiving free housing, medical care, food, and a stipend after that five year period.  

Even more absurd. It costs the US 12 times in $$$$ what it would cost to provide the exact same services for the refugee were they to resettle in another Middle Eastern country. That means the cost could be reduced to $4300 per year for a household if we simply let them stay where they speak the same language, have the same customs, share in the same morality, ethics and belief system.

This ludicrous solution that we support is so far removed from logic and reality, no one wants to actually analyze the facts and figures.

A conservative estimate states that the US spends about $1 billion per year on refugees. If we continued to provide for all those refugees, albeit in their own region, we would save about $920million ‘per year’ which could be diverted to our Veterans and no one would notice. Except our veterans…of course.

What these numbers do not reflect are the subjective costs. For example, veterans would not be denied jobs that were allocated to refugees. Veterans would not be so reliant on disability if they could have a worthwhile job that was re-allocated to refugees. Crime costs to society.   Education costs?  The dollar savings amass!

And yet, and still, the press and the media continue to harp about the ‘poor refugees’ and the ‘bad veterans’.   Why?

Because the media has an alternate objective. A refugee portrayed as a victim of our military is more entertainment than a veteran who has given his very life and being. It’s like a shell game.   Find the truth under the shell… but not before we take all your money…

They prey on the innocence of youth. They prey on falsification of facts. They prey on the subversion of facts. And they have an outlet that can reach millions – with partial truths, half truths and even out-right lies.

Hollywood dives for these games because that’s what Hollywood does! They act for money! They pretend. They are driven by one and only one God – Money. And the only reason people buy it is because the actors have become that much more adept – at their craft – pretending!   For $$$$$.

The stage, the play, the act, wasn’t always quite so subversive. While their heritage is “The Court Jester”, a step above the poison testers and a step below the prostitutes, today they seem to have created an elitist persona for themselves elevating their prowess to realms of godlike proportions.

Personally, I still see the Court Jester and marvel how so many Hollywooders are self imposed experts in such industries that would normally require PhD status and decades of experience.   They provide ‘expert testimony’ for such scientific theories that are normally relegated to ‘scientists’, and have opinions about everything that apparently earn them prime time news coverage, prime placement in the media, and commentary sections that utilize their ‘expertise’ to defend an intellectual theory… even if their claim to education fame is a GED High School Diploma!

Sadly, to me, they still remain, The Court Jester.

What’s even more disconcerting is that these people – know they have no education – know they have no expertise – know they have no knowledge or wisdom – and still find great victory in – pretending…

 

 

Comedians Want Free Speech?

Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, and a host of other ‘comedians’ believe they should be given special privileges to offend, malign, and slander. But of course, those privileges should not extend to anyone else. Why? Because they are elitist. They are ‘special’.   Because they ‘deserve’ to be immune. Kathy Griffin came out publically after berating the President, maligning him, and then implying she was ISIS beheading him, and cried because Trump was a bully…

So how would this notion of entitlement play out?

I imagine we would suddenly have a plethora of people claiming they are comedians when charged with lible and slander in court. “It was a joke…” Much like the ‘Twinkie Defense”. The Twinkie made me do it.   Now it would be “Can’t you take a joke?” Everyone jokes a bit, does that mean everyone is really a comedian?

According to various sources, the definition of comedian is: “A person who makes people laugh by telling jokes and acting foolish for an audience.” Charlie Chaplin was an amazing comedian. Then there was Abbott and Costello, Sid Caesar, Dom DeLuise, and thousands more. What made them funny was not how they maligned and slandered other people, but how they made their own character the brunt of comedy.

Comedy was about making fun of one self.

I’m not sure when it became a gun show with everyone else the target, but too often that comes across as simply arrogant and petty.   I have walked out on a few supposed comedians because they were all about pointing a finger, all about look at that stupid person, instead of poking fun at their own errs in life.

It is actually the same in church. When a Preacher starts by pointing a finger and railing on about how sinful the congregation is, people start to shift, lose focus, and their thoughts will typically go to – “Well you are too…”   By contrast, when a Preacher creates his sermon around his own perils and hiccups, people are more likely to relate and take a deeper look into themselves.  It is reflective instead of accusatory.

This bizarre entitlement of speech is highlighted in many liberal newspapers as well. The Washington Post and New York Times went so far as to create tag lines claiming they were the Truth, they were the only source for real Truth. And yet, their Headlines are riddled with defaming our President. That’s not Truth, that is defamatory.  Finding an article that is positive, or unbiased, – ever – is like “Where’s Waldo”. There might be one, but it takes a lot of detailed eyes to find it within the plethora of look-alikes.

Another notable advocate of free speech is Reza Aslan who was recently fired from CNN for his Twitter tirades in which he liberally defamed and cussed various politicians and Trump.

While The Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional right, there are limitations that seem to be ignored, including :

“Libel,  slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security and perjury.”

Fighting Words? The legal definition has morphed since it was first introduced making cuss words permissible. Incitement? I imagine holding a decapitated head of our President is most definitely a form of incitement… I imagine demanding someone be ‘raped’ or ‘shot’ is most definitely a form of incitement and clearly crosses the line of legality – but also ethics and morality.

Bottom line. Many in society seem to have lost the concept of integrity, defined as having strong moral values and honesty. Everyone believes they are honest, but moral values are bit more subjective. So I thought I’d see how the New York Times might see this.

According to an article published in 2015 by The New York Times, morality is subject to relativism and cultural differences. Which basically means that it is completely up for grabs and there are little, or few, absolutes.

In essence, society has broken down into an ‘anything goes’ without boundaries of ethics, moralities or even legal absolutes. And in that mantra, entitlement abounds.  And so we are left with a bizarre concept that comedians be given special rights to malign, slander and incite hatred…, newspapers be allowed to malign and incite hatred, and boundaries are simply a puritan ideology of the past.

Trump Tax Returns… Yawn

This whole tax return fiasco is rather mundane and would be considered a yawn except that Hollywooders feel obligated to contribute, fund and voice their witty opinions with regard to Trump’s tax returns.  

I don’t know, why don’t we just demand that every Hollywood elitist making over a million release their tax returns, and offshore account status? Maybe we should require all tax haven countries to release said data? Because, we’re paying their salaries, so we should have a right to know all their private data – right?

There is NO law that mandates any presidential candidate release their tax return. And it is a fairly nouveau concept that was initiated by of all people – Nixon, but it wasn’t voluntary, it came about as a result of the Watergate debacle as well as Agnew’s mess of bribery and fraud.

Reagan released one year and claimed it was an invasion of privacy. Gerald Ford didn’t release anything. And Bush and Cheney released partial pieces and synopses, although Bush’s showed heavy charitable contributions – upwards of 62%. The Clinton’s were vague, given they had numerous safe havens, the tax returns were not investigated.

However, what has been consistent with the Obama’s and Clinton’s is the vast wealth accumulated just prior, during and after their elections that eludes to the possibility of hidden or havened or manipulated reports of true income and assets. Lest we forget the bemoaning of Hillarygate as she claimed they were broke leaving the White House only to magically buy multi-million dollar properties and lavish in the bourgoise comfort of a sudden massive accumulation of wealth. Of course, we now know much was at the sweet bequest of the Saudi regime.

The major difference is that Trump is coming into the White House with massive wealth and thus his greed factor is considerably less motivated – for him, it is all about ‘legacy’.   Not the monetary legacy that is so prevalent among the mindset of Liberals, but the legacy of change and actually making things ‘better’. The historical legacy. And in that – privacy.

Hollywood should take note and comply with the law.   If they want to change the law, then we can discuss that option, but at this point they are whistling Dixie.   As I recall, Obama was asked to release his transcripts from college, which he adamantly refused to do despite the consensus that he had falsified his admissions, his source of ‘scholarship funding’, and his prowess as a student.

Alas, the Debra’s of the world don’t seem to think that is important. It is important to acknowledge that after Mz. Debra’s fame in the Will and Grace series, she has been ordained within a number of failed campaigns before her current role of sitting on the sidelines.

Bottom line, Messing is allowed her ‘opinion’, but so is everyone else that may or may not agree with her. The difference is that conservatives don’t tend to claim their opinion is the only one – and everyone else is an idiot or deplorable or uneducated or just stupid per the er, Amy Schumer intellectuals.

So while the whole tax return issue is interesting, privacy does prevail. Still, it would be interesting if we had access to all of the Hollywooder’s tax returns so that we could know if they are paying their fair share while we support their livelihood…and if they actually support charity to any extent, and if they are hiding income in offshore accounts because well, they don’t want to actually ‘pay taxes’ they just want to talk about – everyone else.