Monday, May 4, 2015

Baltimore Received $1.8 Billion from Obama’s Stimulus Law. Baltimore spends over $15K per year per student and still has a huge dropout problem.

Baltimore Received $1.8 Billion from Obama’s Stimulus Law

City burned despite ‘massive investment’ implemented by president
The city of Baltimore received over $1.8 billion from President Barack Obama’s stimulus law, including $467.1 million to invest in education and $26.5 million for crime prevention.
President Obama claimed last Tuesday that if the Republican-controlled Congress would implement his policies to make “massive investments in urban communities,” they could “make a difference right now” in the city, currently in upheaval following the death of Freddie Gray.
However, a Washington Free Beacon analysis found that the Obama administration and Democratically-controlled Congress did make a “massive” investment into Baltimore, appropriating $1,831,768,487 though the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly known as the stimulus.
According to, one of Baltimore’s central ZIP codes, 21201, received the most stimulus funding in the city, a total of $837,955,866. The amount included funding for 276 awards, and the website reports that the spending had created 290 jobs in the fourth quarter in 2013.
Of this amount, $467.1 million went to education; $206.1 million to the environment; $24 million to “family”; $16.1 million to infrastructure; $15.2 million to transportation; $11.9 million to housing; and $3.1 million to job training.
ZIP code 21202 received $425,170,937, including a $136 million grant to “improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet State academic achievement standards.”
Twenty-nine other ZIP codes listed in Baltimore city received a total of $568,641,684.
The Free Beacon calculated the total amount of stimulus funds disbursed to all ZIP codes in Baltimore City, as reported on the stimulus website The analysis includes the totals of awards to prime recipients in Baltimore, plus sub-recipient awards to Baltimore organizations and companies that conducted stimulus projects located outside the city.
The projects included $26.5 million from the Justice Department (DOJ) to combat gang activity and provide community support for at-risk juveniles.
“The State of MD Governor’s Office of Crime Control & Prevention (GOCCP) goals and objectives of this project are to create and retain jobs to bolster Maryland’s faltering economy, and make resources available to law enforcement and other public safety agencies to help protect Maryland citizens,” the project’s description states.
Among the listed goals are “to curb the growth of criminal gangs in Maryland, and to effectively dismantle existing gangs.”
Funding also went to “Operation Safe Kids,” which sought to “develop and implement an effective community-based supervision model for at-risk juveniles to minimize residential placements without compromising public safety.”
The project also included criminal justice reform, to “identify non-violent substance abusing offenders who may be amenable to treatment, and place them under community-based supervision with intensive drug treatment combined with strong judicial oversight and support.”
The stimulus also gave the city $26 million for the “Healthy Neighborhoods, Inc. Neighborhood Stabilization Program,” to “redevelop residential foreclosed, abandoned, or vacant properties in designated neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland.”
Roughly $9.5 million went towards homelessness prevention.
A total of $5,644,792 of Community Services Block Grants went to Baltimore meant to “promote the economic and social well-being of children, youth, families and communities.”
“The funding is used for activities that contribute to the reduction of poverty, revitalization of low-income communities, and empowerment of low-income families and individuals,” a description of the project said. “These activities include, but are not limited to; emergency services, shelter programs and services, job training and job readiness training, Head Start and Early Head Start programs, nutrition programs, as well as medical assistance programs and services.”
“Working through a network of non-profit community action agencies and other neighborhood-based organizations in rural and urban areas, this wide range of programs and services is implemented to help clients become fully self-sufficient,” it said.
Another $548,100 project, which reported creating 15.41 jobs during its most productive quarter, was devoted to the “preservation of jobs that are threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn.”
Baltimore’s unemployment rate currently is 8.4 percent.
Following the violent riots on Monday evening that resulted in over 235 arrests, 15 torched buildings, 144 destroyed vehicles, and 20 injured police officers, President Obama spoke on the issue.
Obama called for more early education programs, criminal justice reform, and “making investments so that [youth] can get the training they need to find jobs.”
“There’s a bunch of my agenda that would make a difference right now in that,” he said.
The president then proceeded to blame the Republican-controlled Congress for not implementing his agenda.
“I’m under no illusion that under this Congress we’re going to get massive investments in urban communities,” Obama said.
The left-wing comedian Jon Stewart and the ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos made a similar argument on the Daily Show on Tuesday.
“You just wonder sometimes if we’re spending a trillion dollars to rebuild Afghanistan’s schools, like, we can’t build a little taste down Baltimore way,” Stewart said. “Like is that what’s really going on.”
“This is what drives me crazy, you just got applause when you said that line,” Stephanopoulos said. “Any single politician in the country gets applause when they say that line. Yet it doesn’t happen.”
Peter Wehner of Commentary Magazine pointed out that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) only invested $885 million in education projects in Afghanistan over a ten-year period, less than the amount that Baltimore received from the stimulus law.

The UN continues to amaze

The U.N.'s Venezuela Crush Gets Orwellian 

Lunacy: The U.N. will honor — get this — Venezuela as "the country that has fought hunger the most in the world." Given the country's self-induced shortages, this is pure Orwell. And it's contradicted by the U.N.'s own data.
If you thought the United Nations' scaremongering global warming shop was daft, a look at its Food and Agriculture Organization should assure you the rot goes all the way to the bottom.
President Nicolas Maduro announced Thursday that he would be traveling to Italy to receive an award for Venezuela's "food missions," according to El Universal.
If correct, it would not be the first time the U.N. has held Venezuela up to global praise for its handouts.
In June 2013, the FAO honored Venezuela for "making big strides in reducing hunger."
Welfare can temporarily reduce hunger so long as the cash lasts, but it's come at a massive cost — in the creation of mass impoverishment across the country.
Currency controls, expropriations and state corruption have left Venezuelans standing in multiple lines for much of the day just to get access to basic foodstuffs. The last official data, issued two years ago, show supplies of basic foodstuffs are 28% below 2004 levels.
Fights are now commonplace in food lines. Medical shortages are so severe that the country has resorted to fingerprinting to catch thieves, and Maduro blames "hoarders" and "CIA plots" for the failures. With scapegoats aplenty, don't expect him to fix the problems soon.
At last month's Summit of the Americas in Panama, there was open talk from Latin American leaders of sending food-aid caravans to ease the hunger.
"We'll expropriate whatever needs to be expropriated," Maduro told his country last year, threatening to seize farms and food production companies.
He's now in the midst of seizing Polar — Venezuela's largest and best-run food company — in a sign that this was no idle threat. Three years ago, 988 farms and businesses were seized (they've stopped reporting those data since), leaving a gutted food base and massive shortages that will only get worse.
Which brings us to the U.N.'s own data. According to the FAO website, Venezuela's per person food output fell 6.3% from 2007 to 2012. Those data alone are an indictment of Venezuela's failed socialist food policies.
It's a joke that the U.N. should honor Venezuela, the great creator of hunger in the Americas, with anything.

Another example of how Obama and his minions disregard, ignore and trash the rule of law. When ideologues think they are more important then the Constitution.


Lana ShadwickThe Texas Attorney General has accused Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers of committing a “brazen disregard for a legal order” in the case filed against President Obama’s executive amnesty plan. This comes after a judge issued government lawyers a scathing written rebuke and ordered the Federal Government to produce documents showing who was responsible for making misrepresentations to the Court during the litigation.
The rebuke was directed at the representatives of the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Breitbart Texas reported in early April that Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, sternly reprimanded federal government lawyers and the DHS for making misrepresentations during the executive amnesty lawsuit. The judge ordered the federal government to produce documents by April 21st showing who was responsible for making those misrepresentations.
He also warned the government against destroying any evidence of who made the representations.
The government later received an extension of April 30th to comply.
Judge Hanen is the federal district judge who denied the U.S. Government’s request to remove the block of Obama’s amnesty plan after he issued an injunction to stop the President’s executive amnesty program.
In a statement obtained by the Texas Attorney General, Attorney General Ken Paxton stated:
In its most recent filing, not only does the Obama Administration deny the coalition of 26 suing states the opportunity to review documents about how the DOJ misrepresented the early implementation of its executive amnesty program, it also suggests that the judge himself should not review those documents. Regardless, we will continue to fight for the rule of law by asking the district court to carefully review the administration’s withheld documents and hold the DOJ accountable so they provide reliable information about this case, both to the court and to the states.
Texas and 25 other states had filed a motion asking for early discovery and launching accusations that federal lawyers and DHS officials had made misrepresentations to the Court. The misrepresentations related to executive actions by the Obama Administration in extending the period of work permits and quasi-legal status granted to individuals under the President’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). The period was raised from two to three years.
Federal government lawyers filed a “Defendant’s Advisory” on March 3rd updating the judge on the action of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) relative to the granting of DACA applications.
The judge wrote “the Court is extremely troubled by the multiple representations made by the Government’s counsel―both in writing and orally―that no action would be taken pursuant to the 2014 DHS Directive until February 18, 2015.” He stated it was clear “that the States were seeking to enjoin ‘the series of executive actions that were taken on November 20, 2014,’ which would obviously include the revision to DACA increasing DACA’s term from two to three years, effective November 24, 2015 (as expressly provided for in the 2014 DHS Directive).”
He found that “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts.”
Judge Hanen warned the Government writing “This Court expects all parties, including the Government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths.”
The Court cited the professional rules which govern the conduct of lawyers regarding making misrepresentations, half-truths, omissions, and failing to correct misstatements.
The Judge wrote in his 15-page opinion that while the Government’s misconduct could be used to strike the Government’s pleadings, he would refrain to do so.
He reasoned that “the issues at stake here have national significance and deserve to be fully considered on the merits by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, in all probability, the Supreme Court of the United States. … Such a ruling would not only penalize those with an interest in the outcome, but would more importantly penalize the country, which needs and deserves a resolution on the merits.”
Judge Hanen partially granted the State’s requested discovery and ordered the Government to file:
  • any and all drafts of the Advisory;
  • the metadata showing when each draft was written and/or edited or revised;
  • a list of each person who knew about the Advisory, or the DHS activity discussed in the Advisory;
  • anyone who reviewed the Advisory and the date and time individuals were apprised of its contents, or of the DHS activity.
The Judge also warned the Government against destroying or erasing any of this evidence.
Judge Hanen held that any document claimed to be privileged could be reviewed in camera (“in chambers”).
The response to the filing of the DOJ by the Office of the Texas Attorney General is due May 11th.
Lana Shadwick is a contributing writer and legal analyst for Breitbart Texas. Follow her on Twitter @LanaShadwick2


Science proves that beards contain fecal matter

According to a group of microbiologists in New Mexico, the rancid bacteria that beards collect could be putting owners’ health at risk.
Microbiologist John Golobic, of Quest Diagnostics, swabbed a number of beards searching for bacteria for the study and found that some of the bacteria “are the kind of things that you find in feces.”
“I’m usually not surprised, and I was surprised by this,” he said. “There would be a degree of uncleanliness that would be somewhat disturbing.”
Apparently the key to a poo-free beard is to make sure you wash your hands regularly and avoid playing and twirling the hair.
“Try to keep your hands away from your face, as much as possible,” Golobic added.
This article originally appeared on

Islamist attack in Texas

ISIS linked to Mohammed cartoon contest shooting as suspect is identified

An Arizona man was identified as one of two suspected shooters who attacked a “Draw Mohammed” event in Texas, according to a broadcast report on Monday.
Phoenix resident Elton Simpson had previously been the target of a terror probe before trying to shoot his way into the politically charged art show and conference in Garland, Texas, on Sunday night, ABC News reported, citing a senior FBI official.
Police returned fire, killing Simpson and his accomplice.
FBI agents and a bomb squad were at Simpson’s home in an apartment complex in north Phoenix. Agents sent a robot into his apartment to conduct an initial search.
Officials believe Simpson sent several Twitter messages prior to the Sunday attack, the last one including the hashtag #TexasAttack about half an hour before the shooting, ABC reported.
ISIS had been sending messages about the event in Texas for more than a week, calling for attacks. One referenced January’s Charlie Hebdo massacre in France and said it was time for “brothers” in the United States to do their part.
Simpson had been on the FBI’s radar for a decade. Agents even hired an informant at Simpson’s mosque to find if he had any terrorist plans, according to court records.
Simpson was recorded telling the informant he had wanted to travel to Somalia, via South Africa, to join radical fighters, federal agents said.
“People fighting and killing your kids, and dropping bombs on people that have nothing to do with nothing,” Simpson allegedly told the informant. “You got to fight back, you can’t be just sitting down.”
Modal Trigger
FBI agents view the area where the shooting suspects lie behind a blue covering.Photo: Getty Images
Modal Trigger
Photo: Getty Images
Simpson was convicted in 2010 of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Africa, but a judge ruled the government did not adequately prove he was going to join a terror group there.
Simpson was sentenced to three years’ probation.
The FBI is combing through files on Simpson’s known associates in Phoenix and elsewhere, ABC said, but so far there has been no public information on the accomplice’s identity.
Two accounts were tweeting threats prior to the event, according to Fox News Channel.
An account with the name “Shariah is Light” posted a #texasattack message at 6:35 p.m. Central Time, Fox News reported. The account, which has since been deleted, showed a photo of Anwar Awlaki, an American-born cleric killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.
The user wrote, “May Allah accept us as mujahideen,” the Los Angeles Times reported. Just minutes later, two armed men attacked the “Draw Mohammed” event, which was sponsored by Pamela Geller, a New York woman who has crusaded to post anti-Islam ads on subways and buses.
The gunmen jumped out of their vehicle at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland at 7 p.m. and shot a security guard. They were quickly gunned down by cops, who were among a group of 40 security personnel hired to protect the event.
“Shariah is Light” also tweeted an order to follow a second account, called “AbuHussainAlBritani,” which also posted messages about the shooting and appeared to tie it to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, Fox News reported.
“The knives have been sharpened, soon we will come to your streets with death and slaughter!” a message read.
A second tweet said: “Allahu Akbar!!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire at the Prophet Muhammad art exhibition in texas!”
The third message read: “Kill Those That Insult The Prophet,” Fox News reported.
Modal Trigger
Photo: Getty Images
The last tweet from the account, which also has been deleted, read: “They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State.”
Garland city officials wrote on Facebook: “Both males were armed and began shooting at a Garland ISD security officer. Garland police officers engaged the gunmen, who were both shot and killed.”
The injured guard, Bruce Joiner, was shot in the leg and treated at a hospital, where he was released just two hours later, according to WFAA-TV.
The identity and motives of the gunmen were not revealed Sunday night, but organizers of the event called the shooting an attack on free speech.
“This incident shows how much needed our event really was,” Geller said in a message to The Post while on lockdown inside the center. “The freedom of speech is under violent assault here in our nation. The question now before us is — will we stand and defend it, or bow to violence, thuggery and savagery?”
She had earlier tweeted, “This is war on free speech.”
Johnny Roby of Oklahoma City, who was attending the conference, said he was outside when he heard about 20 shots.
No one was allowed to leave the facility for hours. Some businesses in the area were evacuated in case there was any threat to the people inside.
A bomb squad was brought in to inspect the gunmen’s pickup.
While stuck inside the Curtis Culwell Center, Geller — who runs the American Freedom Defense Initiative — and others sang patriotic songs and saluted the American flag.
Because of the sensitive nature of the event — officially called the Mohammed Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest — Geller’s organization was required by the city to hire the large additional security force, which cost $10,000, according to the Dallas Morning News.
Depictions of Muhammad are considered blasphemous by many Muslims. In January, 12 people were killed in Paris when gunmen stormed a satirical newspaper that lampooned Islam’s holiest figure.
To lure participants to the event, Geller’s group offered $10,000 to the person who could present the “best depiction” of the Prophet.
Modal Trigger
Police outside the scene of the shooting.Photo: EPA
Modal Trigger
Pamela Geller speaking at the contest.Photo: Reuters
One speaker at the event, far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders, has been declared “Wanted: Dead or Alive” by al Qaeda’s English-language magazine, Inspire.
Wilders has called for a ban on the Muslim holy book, the Quran, and has been quoted as saying, “I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam.”
Geller appeared on CNN on Monday morning and got into a testy exchange with anchor Alisyn Camerota, who asked if the conference — especially Wilders’ rhetoric — was unnecessarily provocative.
“You’re bringing it up with these silly distractions. No one is saying that there aren’t peaceful Muslims,” Geller said. “But there is a problem in Islam, as illustrated last night, and anyone that addresses it gets attacked in this same way.”
Geller said Sunday night could have easily turned into America’s Charlie Hebdo attack.
“You should be directing your barbs at the enforcers of the Sharia and those that seek to … to destroy and crush freedom of speech the way they did in Paris, and in Copenhagen,” Geller said.
“People need to wake up and we need to take a firm stance of freedom of speech and we will not abridge our freedom so as not to offend savages. And this is really, I think, the battle between freedom and slavery. It is that basic.”
Additional reporting by David K. Li and Sophia Rosenbaum

Iran deal and the administration's fantastical view of Iran. Recently the IAEA complained of Iran's refusal to allow inspections. So, where Kerry's historical evidence for the claim?

Kerry tries to calm Israel

“We will have inspectors in there every single day,” he says of the Iran deal.

Everything else he said was pure propaganda for domestic purposes.

Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under Obamacare

Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under Obamacare

Three-quarters of emergency physicians say they've seen ER patient visits surge since Obamacare took effect — just the opposite of what many Americans expected would happen.
A poll released today by the American College of Emergency Physicians shows that 28% of 2,099 doctors surveyed nationally saw large increases in volume, while 47% saw slight increases. By contrast, fewer than half of doctors reported any increases last year in the early days of the Affordable Care Act.
Such hikes run counter to one of the goals of the health care overhaul, which is to reduce pressure on emergency rooms by getting more people insured through Medicaid or subsidized private coverage and providing better access to primary care.
A major reason that hasn't happened is there simply aren't enough primary care physicians to handle all the newly insured patients, says ACEP President Mike Gerardi, an emergency physician in New Jersey.
"They don't have anywhere to go but the emergency room," he says. "This is what we predicted. We know people come because they have to."
Experts cite many root causes. In addition to the nation's long-standing shortage of primary care doctors — projected by the federal government to exceed 20,000 doctors by 2020 — some physicians won't accept Medicaid because of its low reimbursement rates. That leaves many patients who can't find a primary care doctor to turn to the ER — 56% of doctors in the ACEP poll reported increases in Medicaid patients.
Emergency room usage is bound to increase if there's a shortage of primary care doctors who accept Medicaid patients and "no financial penalty or economic incentive" to move people away from ERs, says Avik Roy, a health care policy expert with the free market Manhattan Institute.
"It goes to the false promise of the ACA," Roy says, that Medicaid recipients are "given a card that says they have health insurance, but they can't have access to physicians."
Complicating matters, low-income patients face many obstacles to care. They often can't take time off from work when most primary care offices are open, while ERs operate around the clock and by law must at least stabilize patients. Waits for appointments at primary care offices can stretch for weeks, while ERs must see patients almost immediately.
"Nobody wants to turn anyone away," says Maggie Gill, CEO of Memorial University Medical Center in Savannah, Ga. "But there's no business in this country that provides resource-intensive anything and can't even ask if you're going to be able to pay."
Some people who have been uninsured for years don't have regular doctors and are accustomed to using ERs, even though they are much more expensive. A 2013 report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation says going to an ER when a primary care visit would suffice costs $580 more for each visit.
Damian Alagia, chief physician executive for KentuckyOne Health, says he's seen the trend play out in his large hospital system. There are more than a half-million people in the state newly insured through Obamacare. Many who put off care in the past now seek it in the place they know — the ER. "We're seeing an uptick pretty much across the system in our ERs," he says, calling the rise "significant" in both urban and rural hospitals.
Gerardi acknowledges that some people come to the ER for problems that would be better handled in a primary or urgent care office. But he says the ER is the right place for patients with vague but potentially life-threatening symptoms, such as chest pain, which could be anything from a heart attack to indigestion.
ER volumes are likely to keep climbing, and hospitals are working to adapt. Alagia says his ERs have care management professionals who connect patients with primary care physicians if they don't already have them. Gill says her Georgia hospital has a "whole staff in the emergency room dedicated to recidivism," who follow up with patients to see whether they've found a primary care doctor, are taking their medications or need help with transportation to get to doctors.
Still, seven in 10 doctors say their emergency departments aren't ready for continuing, and potentially significant, increases in volume. Although the numbers should level off as people get care to keep their illnesses under control, Alagia says, "the patient demand will outstrip the supply of physicians for a while."VdsS8Ws.jpg

"As they have for years, most voters (63%) think gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States." We're living under a regime that rules against the will of the people


Support for More Border Control Hits Four-Year High
Monday, May 04, 2015

A growing number of voters consider illegal immigration a serious problem and believe controlling the border is the most important thing the government can do, even if using the military is necessary.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 77% of Likely U.S. Voters now consider illegal immigration a serious problem in America today, with 51% who say it is Very Serious. Just 19% don’t think it’s a serious problem, and that includes only three percent (3%) who say it’s Not At All Serious. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
While overall concern about illegal immigration is unchanged from January, the number who think it is a Very Serious problem is up from 47%.
As they have for years, most voters (63%) think gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. While that’s up just two points from January, it is the highest level of support for border control since December 2011.  Thirty percent (30%) believe it’s more important to legalize those already living here, the lowest finding in two years.
Most voters (63%) still agree that the U.S. military should be used along the Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration, but that’s up from 57% in January and is the highest finding since December 2012. Just 26% disagree, while 12% are undecided. 
Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe providing a pathway to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally will just encourage more illegal immigration, also up from January. Just 24% disagree, but 19% are not sure.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 29-30, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
More than half of voters remain opposed to Obama’s new plan that will allow nearly five million illegal immigrants to remain in this country legally and apply for jobs. Forty-seven percent (47%) think Congress should try to find ways to stop the president’s plan, while 41% believe Congress should allow this decision to stand.
However, 54% still agree that the goal of immigration policy should be to keep out only national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system, in line with findings since 2010. Twenty-nine percent (29%) disagree, and 17% are not sure.
But while most voters still have a favorable opinion of those who move to this country to work hard, support their family and pursue the American Dream, barely half believe most immigrants are like that these days.
Most voters in nearly every demographic category rate illegal immigration a serious problem and think border control is the most important step to take to combat it.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans and 65% of voters not affiliated with either major political party think securing the border is more important than legalizing the status of current illegal immigrants. Democrats by a narrow 48% to 42% margin disagree and put legalizing those who are already here first.
But then 72% of GOP voters and 63% of unaffiliateds believe that providing a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally just encourages more illegal immigration. Only 40% of Democrats agree. Republicans and unaffiliated voters also feel more strongly that the U.S. military should be used along the border.
Voters under 40 are less likely than their elders are to view illegal immigration as a Very Serious problem but are only slightly more likely to support legalizing the status of those already living here.
Black voters are less likely than white and other minority voters to think offering a pathway to citizenship encourages more illegal immigration. Other minorities are slightly less supportive of using the U.S. military along the border.
Most also think the Mexican government doesn’t do enough to stop illegal immigrationand drug trafficking and favor stopping foreign aid to our southern neighbor until it does more to prevent illegal border crossings.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only. 
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.