The New York Times does not do puff pieces on Republicans unless they have a specific ulterior motive. And in the case of this weekend’s New York Times profile of Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), that ulterior motive is clear: completely change the accurate perception of Vice President Kamala Harris as an open borders ideologue into a tough-as-nails border hawk.

And Lankford played along perfectly. At every step in the interview, he let the New York Times absurd characterizations of the border crisis go unchallenged and completely failed to articulate a conservative plan for border security.

By playing along with the New York Times’s effort to boost Harris’s campaign, Lankford has truly turned himself into the Democrats’ useful idiot.

The centerpiece of the Harris campaign’s effort to rehabilitate her open-borders image is the immigration bill Lankford negotiated with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Harris, and the New York Times, wants this bill to appear to be as tough as possible, hence the New York Times’s assertion, “You seem to have won every concession from Democrats that Republicans wanted.”

This is of course not even close to being true. The very first bill that Republicans passed in 2023 when they took control of the House was the Secure the Border Act. Literally nothing in that legislation made it into the Lankford-Mayorkas immigration bill. Nothing. Lankford got nothing that Republicans wanted from Democrats.

What the Lankford-Mayorkas bill does do is codify President Joe Biden’s catch-and-release border policies. 

Under current law, when a migrant is arrested by Border Patrol for illegally crossing the southern border, the government is required either to detain that migrant in custody or return the migrant across the border, where the migrant can wait until his or her asylum claim is heard by an immigration judge.

Since 2014, migrants have figured out that by crossing in large numbers they could overwhelm the Border Patrol detention capacity. Then-President Donald Trump solved the 2019 border crisis by creating the “Remain in Mexico” program, which chose the latter option, forcing migrants to wait in Mexico until an immigration judge could hear their claims.

But Biden ended the Remain in Mexico program on his first day in office. Instead of detaining migrants or returning them to Mexico, Biden simply released them into the United States using his “parole” power. As reformed in 1996, the parole power was never meant to be a third alternative to detention or return. But that is how Biden used it. The result was an ever-deepening border crisis as more and more immigrants came from around the world to be caught and released into the U.S. by the Biden administration.

The Lankford-Mayorkas bill “solved” this detention problem by creating a third legal option: the “noncustodial removal proceeding.” Under this new “noncustodial removal proceeding,” any migrant arrested after illegally crossing the border who expressed “an intention to apply for a protection determination” would be placed in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “alternative to detention” program in which an asylum officer, not an immigration judge, would adjudicate the case within 90 days.

Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Instead of waiting years to have their asylum cases adjudicated by an immigration judge, migrants would have their cases heard in just 90 days.

But here is the problem: The Lankford-Mayorkas bill mandates the release of all migrants processed through the “noncustodial removal” process. Physical detention of the migrants isn’t even an option. They must be placed in ICE’s “alternative to detention” program. 

The problem is ICE’s “alternative to detention” program is the exact same program ICE was using to process migrants when Biden was giving them parole!

All “alternative to detention” means is the migrant is given either an ankle bracelet or a cellphone and told to stay in touch with ICE. The vast majority of migrants do not comply with the program through the end of their case. And when migrants cut off their ankle bracelets, ICE does nothing to find them.

This is exactly what happened to Diego Ibarra, the brother of the illegal immigrant who was arrested on charges of killing Laken Riley. Ibarra was caught illegally crossing the southern border on April 30, 2023. He was then paroled into the country by Biden and enrolled in ICE’s alternative to detention program, just as he would be under the Lankford-Mayorkas bill. Then, two weeks later, ICE removed Ibarra from the program because they determined he had cut off the ankle bracelet, which had stopped moving.

Did ICE then go after Ibarra? Of course not! It is Biden administration policy not to go after migrants whose only crime is illegally crossing the border. Nothing in the Lankford-Mayorkas bill changed this policy.

ICE still did not go after Ibarra even after he was arrested first for drunken driving and then shoplifting. Only when Ibarra’s brother was charged with killing Riley, while he was living with Ibarra, did ICE bother to detain him.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

The Lankford-Mayorkas bill would not have prevented Riley’s death, nor would it have solved the border crisis. All it would have done is make it easier for Biden to defend his catch-and-release policies in court.

And now this failed legislation is being used by Harris and her media allies to defeat Trump. All thanks to the Democrats’ useful border idiot.

2024-08-13 18:36:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3119920%2Fjames-lankford-the-democrats-useful-border-idiot%2F?w=600&h=450, The New York Times does not do puff pieces on Republicans unless they have a specific ulterior motive. And in the case of this weekend’s New York Times profile of Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), that ulterior motive is clear: completely change the accurate perception of Vice President Kamala Harris as an open borders ideologue into,

The New York Times does not do puff pieces on Republicans unless they have a specific ulterior motive. And in the case of this weekend’s New York Times profile of Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), that ulterior motive is clear: completely change the accurate perception of Vice President Kamala Harris as an open borders ideologue into a tough-as-nails border hawk.

And Lankford played along perfectly. At every step in the interview, he let the New York Times absurd characterizations of the border crisis go unchallenged and completely failed to articulate a conservative plan for border security.

By playing along with the New York Times’s effort to boost Harris’s campaign, Lankford has truly turned himself into the Democrats’ useful idiot.

The centerpiece of the Harris campaign’s effort to rehabilitate her open-borders image is the immigration bill Lankford negotiated with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Harris, and the New York Times, wants this bill to appear to be as tough as possible, hence the New York Times’s assertion, “You seem to have won every concession from Democrats that Republicans wanted.”

This is of course not even close to being true. The very first bill that Republicans passed in 2023 when they took control of the House was the Secure the Border Act. Literally nothing in that legislation made it into the Lankford-Mayorkas immigration bill. Nothing. Lankford got nothing that Republicans wanted from Democrats.

What the Lankford-Mayorkas bill does do is codify President Joe Biden’s catch-and-release border policies. 

Under current law, when a migrant is arrested by Border Patrol for illegally crossing the southern border, the government is required either to detain that migrant in custody or return the migrant across the border, where the migrant can wait until his or her asylum claim is heard by an immigration judge.

Since 2014, migrants have figured out that by crossing in large numbers they could overwhelm the Border Patrol detention capacity. Then-President Donald Trump solved the 2019 border crisis by creating the “Remain in Mexico” program, which chose the latter option, forcing migrants to wait in Mexico until an immigration judge could hear their claims.

But Biden ended the Remain in Mexico program on his first day in office. Instead of detaining migrants or returning them to Mexico, Biden simply released them into the United States using his “parole” power. As reformed in 1996, the parole power was never meant to be a third alternative to detention or return. But that is how Biden used it. The result was an ever-deepening border crisis as more and more immigrants came from around the world to be caught and released into the U.S. by the Biden administration.

The Lankford-Mayorkas bill “solved” this detention problem by creating a third legal option: the “noncustodial removal proceeding.” Under this new “noncustodial removal proceeding,” any migrant arrested after illegally crossing the border who expressed “an intention to apply for a protection determination” would be placed in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “alternative to detention” program in which an asylum officer, not an immigration judge, would adjudicate the case within 90 days.

Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Instead of waiting years to have their asylum cases adjudicated by an immigration judge, migrants would have their cases heard in just 90 days.

But here is the problem: The Lankford-Mayorkas bill mandates the release of all migrants processed through the “noncustodial removal” process. Physical detention of the migrants isn’t even an option. They must be placed in ICE’s “alternative to detention” program. 

The problem is ICE’s “alternative to detention” program is the exact same program ICE was using to process migrants when Biden was giving them parole!

All “alternative to detention” means is the migrant is given either an ankle bracelet or a cellphone and told to stay in touch with ICE. The vast majority of migrants do not comply with the program through the end of their case. And when migrants cut off their ankle bracelets, ICE does nothing to find them.

This is exactly what happened to Diego Ibarra, the brother of the illegal immigrant who was arrested on charges of killing Laken Riley. Ibarra was caught illegally crossing the southern border on April 30, 2023. He was then paroled into the country by Biden and enrolled in ICE’s alternative to detention program, just as he would be under the Lankford-Mayorkas bill. Then, two weeks later, ICE removed Ibarra from the program because they determined he had cut off the ankle bracelet, which had stopped moving.

Did ICE then go after Ibarra? Of course not! It is Biden administration policy not to go after migrants whose only crime is illegally crossing the border. Nothing in the Lankford-Mayorkas bill changed this policy.

ICE still did not go after Ibarra even after he was arrested first for drunken driving and then shoplifting. Only when Ibarra’s brother was charged with killing Riley, while he was living with Ibarra, did ICE bother to detain him.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

The Lankford-Mayorkas bill would not have prevented Riley’s death, nor would it have solved the border crisis. All it would have done is make it easier for Biden to defend his catch-and-release policies in court.

And now this failed legislation is being used by Harris and her media allies to defeat Trump. All thanks to the Democrats’ useful border idiot.

, The New York Times does not do puff pieces on Republicans unless they have a specific ulterior motive. And in the case of this weekend’s New York Times profile of Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), that ulterior motive is clear: completely change the accurate perception of Vice President Kamala Harris as an open borders ideologue into a tough-as-nails border hawk. And Lankford played along perfectly. At every step in the interview, he let the New York Times absurd characterizations of the border crisis go unchallenged and completely failed to articulate a conservative plan for border security. By playing along with the New York Times’s effort to boost Harris’s campaign, Lankford has truly turned himself into the Democrats’ useful idiot. The centerpiece of the Harris campaign’s effort to rehabilitate her open-borders image is the immigration bill Lankford negotiated with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Harris, and the New York Times, wants this bill to appear to be as tough as possible, hence the New York Times’s assertion, “You seem to have won every concession from Democrats that Republicans wanted.” This is of course not even close to being true. The very first bill that Republicans passed in 2023 when they took control of the House was the Secure the Border Act. Literally nothing in that legislation made it into the Lankford-Mayorkas immigration bill. Nothing. Lankford got nothing that Republicans wanted from Democrats. What the Lankford-Mayorkas bill does do is codify President Joe Biden’s catch-and-release border policies.  Under current law, when a migrant is arrested by Border Patrol for illegally crossing the southern border, the government is required either to detain that migrant in custody or return the migrant across the border, where the migrant can wait until his or her asylum claim is heard by an immigration judge. Since 2014, migrants have figured out that by crossing in large numbers they could overwhelm the Border Patrol detention capacity. Then-President Donald Trump solved the 2019 border crisis by creating the “Remain in Mexico” program, which chose the latter option, forcing migrants to wait in Mexico until an immigration judge could hear their claims. But Biden ended the Remain in Mexico program on his first day in office. Instead of detaining migrants or returning them to Mexico, Biden simply released them into the United States using his “parole” power. As reformed in 1996, the parole power was never meant to be a third alternative to detention or return. But that is how Biden used it. The result was an ever-deepening border crisis as more and more immigrants came from around the world to be caught and released into the U.S. by the Biden administration. The Lankford-Mayorkas bill “solved” this detention problem by creating a third legal option: the “noncustodial removal proceeding.” Under this new “noncustodial removal proceeding,” any migrant arrested after illegally crossing the border who expressed “an intention to apply for a protection determination” would be placed in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “alternative to detention” program in which an asylum officer, not an immigration judge, would adjudicate the case within 90 days. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Instead of waiting years to have their asylum cases adjudicated by an immigration judge, migrants would have their cases heard in just 90 days. But here is the problem: The Lankford-Mayorkas bill mandates the release of all migrants processed through the “noncustodial removal” process. Physical detention of the migrants isn’t even an option. They must be placed in ICE’s “alternative to detention” program.  The problem is ICE’s “alternative to detention” program is the exact same program ICE was using to process migrants when Biden was giving them parole! All “alternative to detention” means is the migrant is given either an ankle bracelet or a cellphone and told to stay in touch with ICE. The vast majority of migrants do not comply with the program through the end of their case. And when migrants cut off their ankle bracelets, ICE does nothing to find them. This is exactly what happened to Diego Ibarra, the brother of the illegal immigrant who was arrested on charges of killing Laken Riley. Ibarra was caught illegally crossing the southern border on April 30, 2023. He was then paroled into the country by Biden and enrolled in ICE’s alternative to detention program, just as he would be under the Lankford-Mayorkas bill. Then, two weeks later, ICE removed Ibarra from the program because they determined he had cut off the ankle bracelet, which had stopped moving. Did ICE then go after Ibarra? Of course not! It is Biden administration policy not to go after migrants whose only crime is illegally crossing the border. Nothing in the Lankford-Mayorkas bill changed this policy. ICE still did not go after Ibarra even after he was arrested first for drunken driving and then shoplifting. Only when Ibarra’s brother was charged with killing Riley, while he was living with Ibarra, did ICE bother to detain him. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   The Lankford-Mayorkas bill would not have prevented Riley’s death, nor would it have solved the border crisis. All it would have done is make it easier for Biden to defend his catch-and-release policies in court. And now this failed legislation is being used by Harris and her media allies to defeat Trump. All thanks to the Democrats’ useful border idiot., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AP24025728756090.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Conn Carroll,

Team USA is well on its way to securing its fourth straight gold medal crown at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games on Aug. 11, an honor it has secured every four years since China won at the Beijing Games in 2008.

As impressive as Team USA’s performance was, however, trouble looms on the horizon. And not necessarily from a foreign country.

Since the 1970s, when Olympic officials recognized they needed to develop a pipeline of talent to compete with Eastern Bloc countries that were investing heavily in young athletes, Team USA has turned to the existing NCAA infrastructure to help train and develop future medal winners.

As of this writing, Stanford and Cal have 23 and 14 medals, with more on the way. The Atlantic Coast Conference overall has 58 medals, which, if the ACC were a country, would put it in second behind only Team USA.

Of course, the only reason the ACC is winning the medal count among other conferences is conference realignment. Cal and Stanford are founding members of the Pac-8, which became the Pac-10 in 1978, which became the Pac-12 in 2011, which ceased existing just this year. This is the first Olympics ever that Cal and Stanford are in the ACC.

The death of the Pac-10 and the Big East and the Big Eight before is due entirely to greed and college football television dollars. To maximize revenues, ESPN has pushed the most lucrative college brands to shed their less marketable conference counterparts and form super conferences that have no geographic or historic coherence.

When conferences had some geographic element, the riches produced by college football completely subsidized Olympic sports like swimming, track and field, water polo, and beach volleyball. But now that ESPN and college football athletes are capturing more of that revenue, and now that conferences have no geographic constraints, many schools are being forced to stop funding Olympic sports.

The University of Southern California and the University of California, Los Angeles, have world-class beach volleyball teams that competed in the Pac-12. But it just makes no sense to send a beach volleyball team, or water polo team, from Los Angeles to Piscataway, New Jersey, to play the Rutgers beach volleyball team, especially since Rutgers doesn’t even have one.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Enter something called the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation. Founded in 1992, the MPSF provides a league structure for Olympic sports like track, gymnastics, and water polo that are being increasingly abandoned by conferences due to college football-driven conference realignment. Even before adding the USC and UCLA beach volleyball programs for the 2024-2025 academic year, the MPSF had already sent more than 100 athletes to the Paris Games.

Maybe the MPSF will be enough to save enough Olympic programs from the chopping block created by college football realignment. Maybe not. But schools across the country are cutting athletic programs, all for greed, and that is a huge loss to millions of college athletes.

2024-08-09 09:55:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fmagazine-your-land%2F3113933%2Fcollege-football-threat-team-usa%2F?w=600&h=450, Team USA is well on its way to securing its fourth straight gold medal crown at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games on Aug. 11, an honor it has secured every four years since China won at the Beijing Games in 2008. As impressive as Team USA’s performance was, however, trouble looms on the horizon. And,

Team USA is well on its way to securing its fourth straight gold medal crown at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games on Aug. 11, an honor it has secured every four years since China won at the Beijing Games in 2008.

As impressive as Team USA’s performance was, however, trouble looms on the horizon. And not necessarily from a foreign country.

Since the 1970s, when Olympic officials recognized they needed to develop a pipeline of talent to compete with Eastern Bloc countries that were investing heavily in young athletes, Team USA has turned to the existing NCAA infrastructure to help train and develop future medal winners.

As of this writing, Stanford and Cal have 23 and 14 medals, with more on the way. The Atlantic Coast Conference overall has 58 medals, which, if the ACC were a country, would put it in second behind only Team USA.

Of course, the only reason the ACC is winning the medal count among other conferences is conference realignment. Cal and Stanford are founding members of the Pac-8, which became the Pac-10 in 1978, which became the Pac-12 in 2011, which ceased existing just this year. This is the first Olympics ever that Cal and Stanford are in the ACC.

The death of the Pac-10 and the Big East and the Big Eight before is due entirely to greed and college football television dollars. To maximize revenues, ESPN has pushed the most lucrative college brands to shed their less marketable conference counterparts and form super conferences that have no geographic or historic coherence.

When conferences had some geographic element, the riches produced by college football completely subsidized Olympic sports like swimming, track and field, water polo, and beach volleyball. But now that ESPN and college football athletes are capturing more of that revenue, and now that conferences have no geographic constraints, many schools are being forced to stop funding Olympic sports.

The University of Southern California and the University of California, Los Angeles, have world-class beach volleyball teams that competed in the Pac-12. But it just makes no sense to send a beach volleyball team, or water polo team, from Los Angeles to Piscataway, New Jersey, to play the Rutgers beach volleyball team, especially since Rutgers doesn’t even have one.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Enter something called the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation. Founded in 1992, the MPSF provides a league structure for Olympic sports like track, gymnastics, and water polo that are being increasingly abandoned by conferences due to college football-driven conference realignment. Even before adding the USC and UCLA beach volleyball programs for the 2024-2025 academic year, the MPSF had already sent more than 100 athletes to the Paris Games.

Maybe the MPSF will be enough to save enough Olympic programs from the chopping block created by college football realignment. Maybe not. But schools across the country are cutting athletic programs, all for greed, and that is a huge loss to millions of college athletes.

, Team USA is well on its way to securing its fourth straight gold medal crown at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games on Aug. 11, an honor it has secured every four years since China won at the Beijing Games in 2008. As impressive as Team USA’s performance was, however, trouble looms on the horizon. And not necessarily from a foreign country. Since the 1970s, when Olympic officials recognized they needed to develop a pipeline of talent to compete with Eastern Bloc countries that were investing heavily in young athletes, Team USA has turned to the existing NCAA infrastructure to help train and develop future medal winners. As of this writing, Stanford and Cal have 23 and 14 medals, with more on the way. The Atlantic Coast Conference overall has 58 medals, which, if the ACC were a country, would put it in second behind only Team USA. Of course, the only reason the ACC is winning the medal count among other conferences is conference realignment. Cal and Stanford are founding members of the Pac-8, which became the Pac-10 in 1978, which became the Pac-12 in 2011, which ceased existing just this year. This is the first Olympics ever that Cal and Stanford are in the ACC. The death of the Pac-10 and the Big East and the Big Eight before is due entirely to greed and college football television dollars. To maximize revenues, ESPN has pushed the most lucrative college brands to shed their less marketable conference counterparts and form super conferences that have no geographic or historic coherence. When conferences had some geographic element, the riches produced by college football completely subsidized Olympic sports like swimming, track and field, water polo, and beach volleyball. But now that ESPN and college football athletes are capturing more of that revenue, and now that conferences have no geographic constraints, many schools are being forced to stop funding Olympic sports. Delaynie Maple #23 of the USC Trojans hits a kill against Lexy Denaburg #25 of the UCLA Bruins during the Division I Women’s Beach Volleyball Championship held at Gulf Shores Public Beach on May 5, 2024 in Gulf Shores, Alabama. (Jamie Schwaberow/NCAA Photos via Getty Images) The University of Southern California and the University of California, Los Angeles, have world-class beach volleyball teams that competed in the Pac-12. But it just makes no sense to send a beach volleyball team, or water polo team, from Los Angeles to Piscataway, New Jersey, to play the Rutgers beach volleyball team, especially since Rutgers doesn’t even have one. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Enter something called the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation. Founded in 1992, the MPSF provides a league structure for Olympic sports like track, gymnastics, and water polo that are being increasingly abandoned by conferences due to college football-driven conference realignment. Even before adding the USC and UCLA beach volleyball programs for the 2024-2025 academic year, the MPSF had already sent more than 100 athletes to the Paris Games. Maybe the MPSF will be enough to save enough Olympic programs from the chopping block created by college football realignment. Maybe not. But schools across the country are cutting athletic programs, all for greed, and that is a huge loss to millions of college athletes., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/YL.CollegeFootballThreat.081424.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Conn Carroll,

When most people think about marriage in a political context, they think of it as a moral issue like abortion, assisted suicide, or the death penalty. For Republicans, marriage is ordained by God, it is the best environment for raising children, and it is the fundamental building block of civil society. For Democrats, marriage is just one lifestyle option among many, but it is an option that should be equally available to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

To the extent that marriage is thought of as an economic issue, it is usually in the context of how marriage can benefit a person. Married people have a built-in roommate so they can save money on housing. In addition to saving on rent, married couples are often offered lower mortgage rates making it easier for them to buy a house and build wealth. 

When it comes to how marriage affects the economy more broadly, a case can be made that marriage is bad. More unmarried people means more money spent on rent. Single people are less likely to cook for themselves and more likely to eat out. They are also more likely to pay someone else to clean their house and do their laundry. 

All of these paid services add to our nation’s gross domestic product. And since none of these services pay for themselves, more single people means more people with full-time jobs and fewer parents at home or working just part time. This means more jobs and a higher labor force participation rate, all things that most economists believe to be good for growth.

Lower GDP, fewer jobs, fewer people in the workforce — sounds like marriage is pretty bad for the economy. Maybe it is a good thing that our nation’s social safety net programs make it harder for low-income couples to get and stay married. 

But what if the way we measure the economy is all wrong? What if a father cooking for his children is just as valuable as when he orders Uber Eats? What if a mother caring for her children at home is just as valuable as when she pays someone else to look after them?

What if, in fact, the services provided by parents to each other and to their children are actually more valuable than the ones provided by strangers?

There is, after all, ample empirical evidence that married parents are more likely to produce economically successful children than unmarried parents. Children from married homes are less likely to get in trouble at school, more likely to graduate high school, more likely to go to college, and more likely to be employed than children raised by unmarried parents.

The economic benefits of marriage even extend beyond the home. Researchers from Harvard University have found that poor neighborhoods with a higher percentage of fathers in the home have higher rates of economic mobility for all children in the neighborhood. More than education, more than race, more than income — marriage was the biggest factor in determining which neighborhoods had the highest percentage of children moving up the economic ladder. The results were particularly strong for boys, who the researchers suggested benefitted from seeing the other fathers in the neighborhood as role models.

There is also evidence that marriage enriches couples. A recent Federal Reserve study found that single adults between the ages of 25 and 34 have a median net worth of $7,341 and that cohabitating couples had a median net worth almost double that at $17,372. This makes sense since doubling the number of people in a household should double the net worth of the household.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

But for married couples between ages 25 and 34, the median net worth was $68,210. That’s a $50,000 marriage premium. There appears to be real economic value in two people coming together to plan a life together.

There are plenty of noneconomic reasons to get married. Married people are happier, healthier, and more active in their communities than single people. But there are real economic benefits, too, and lawmakers who want a stronger economy should do everything they can to help young couples get and stay married.

2024-07-28 11:45:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Frestoring-america%2F3073287%2Fwhy-married-families-are-the-best-engine-for-economic-growth%2F?w=600&h=450, When most people think about marriage in a political context, they think of it as a moral issue like abortion, assisted suicide, or the death penalty. For Republicans, marriage is ordained by God, it is the best environment for raising children, and it is the fundamental building block of civil society. For Democrats, marriage is,

When most people think about marriage in a political context, they think of it as a moral issue like abortion, assisted suicide, or the death penalty. For Republicans, marriage is ordained by God, it is the best environment for raising children, and it is the fundamental building block of civil society. For Democrats, marriage is just one lifestyle option among many, but it is an option that should be equally available to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

To the extent that marriage is thought of as an economic issue, it is usually in the context of how marriage can benefit a person. Married people have a built-in roommate so they can save money on housing. In addition to saving on rent, married couples are often offered lower mortgage rates making it easier for them to buy a house and build wealth. 

When it comes to how marriage affects the economy more broadly, a case can be made that marriage is bad. More unmarried people means more money spent on rent. Single people are less likely to cook for themselves and more likely to eat out. They are also more likely to pay someone else to clean their house and do their laundry. 

All of these paid services add to our nation’s gross domestic product. And since none of these services pay for themselves, more single people means more people with full-time jobs and fewer parents at home or working just part time. This means more jobs and a higher labor force participation rate, all things that most economists believe to be good for growth.

Lower GDP, fewer jobs, fewer people in the workforce — sounds like marriage is pretty bad for the economy. Maybe it is a good thing that our nation’s social safety net programs make it harder for low-income couples to get and stay married. 

But what if the way we measure the economy is all wrong? What if a father cooking for his children is just as valuable as when he orders Uber Eats? What if a mother caring for her children at home is just as valuable as when she pays someone else to look after them?

What if, in fact, the services provided by parents to each other and to their children are actually more valuable than the ones provided by strangers?

There is, after all, ample empirical evidence that married parents are more likely to produce economically successful children than unmarried parents. Children from married homes are less likely to get in trouble at school, more likely to graduate high school, more likely to go to college, and more likely to be employed than children raised by unmarried parents.

The economic benefits of marriage even extend beyond the home. Researchers from Harvard University have found that poor neighborhoods with a higher percentage of fathers in the home have higher rates of economic mobility for all children in the neighborhood. More than education, more than race, more than income — marriage was the biggest factor in determining which neighborhoods had the highest percentage of children moving up the economic ladder. The results were particularly strong for boys, who the researchers suggested benefitted from seeing the other fathers in the neighborhood as role models.

There is also evidence that marriage enriches couples. A recent Federal Reserve study found that single adults between the ages of 25 and 34 have a median net worth of $7,341 and that cohabitating couples had a median net worth almost double that at $17,372. This makes sense since doubling the number of people in a household should double the net worth of the household.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

But for married couples between ages 25 and 34, the median net worth was $68,210. That’s a $50,000 marriage premium. There appears to be real economic value in two people coming together to plan a life together.

There are plenty of noneconomic reasons to get married. Married people are happier, healthier, and more active in their communities than single people. But there are real economic benefits, too, and lawmakers who want a stronger economy should do everything they can to help young couples get and stay married.

, When most people think about marriage in a political context, they think of it as a moral issue like abortion, assisted suicide, or the death penalty. For Republicans, marriage is ordained by God, it is the best environment for raising children, and it is the fundamental building block of civil society. For Democrats, marriage is just one lifestyle option among many, but it is an option that should be equally available to all, regardless of sexual orientation. To the extent that marriage is thought of as an economic issue, it is usually in the context of how marriage can benefit a person. Married people have a built-in roommate so they can save money on housing. In addition to saving on rent, married couples are often offered lower mortgage rates making it easier for them to buy a house and build wealth.  When it comes to how marriage affects the economy more broadly, a case can be made that marriage is bad. More unmarried people means more money spent on rent. Single people are less likely to cook for themselves and more likely to eat out. They are also more likely to pay someone else to clean their house and do their laundry.  All of these paid services add to our nation’s gross domestic product. And since none of these services pay for themselves, more single people means more people with full-time jobs and fewer parents at home or working just part time. This means more jobs and a higher labor force participation rate, all things that most economists believe to be good for growth. Lower GDP, fewer jobs, fewer people in the workforce — sounds like marriage is pretty bad for the economy. Maybe it is a good thing that our nation’s social safety net programs make it harder for low-income couples to get and stay married.  But what if the way we measure the economy is all wrong? What if a father cooking for his children is just as valuable as when he orders Uber Eats? What if a mother caring for her children at home is just as valuable as when she pays someone else to look after them? What if, in fact, the services provided by parents to each other and to their children are actually more valuable than the ones provided by strangers? There is, after all, ample empirical evidence that married parents are more likely to produce economically successful children than unmarried parents. Children from married homes are less likely to get in trouble at school, more likely to graduate high school, more likely to go to college, and more likely to be employed than children raised by unmarried parents. The economic benefits of marriage even extend beyond the home. Researchers from Harvard University have found that poor neighborhoods with a higher percentage of fathers in the home have higher rates of economic mobility for all children in the neighborhood. More than education, more than race, more than income — marriage was the biggest factor in determining which neighborhoods had the highest percentage of children moving up the economic ladder. The results were particularly strong for boys, who the researchers suggested benefitted from seeing the other fathers in the neighborhood as role models. There is also evidence that marriage enriches couples. A recent Federal Reserve study found that single adults between the ages of 25 and 34 have a median net worth of $7,341 and that cohabitating couples had a median net worth almost double that at $17,372. This makes sense since doubling the number of people in a household should double the net worth of the household. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA But for married couples between ages 25 and 34, the median net worth was $68,210. That’s a $50,000 marriage premium. There appears to be real economic value in two people coming together to plan a life together. There are plenty of noneconomic reasons to get married. Married people are happier, healthier, and more active in their communities than single people. But there are real economic benefits, too, and lawmakers who want a stronger economy should do everything they can to help young couples get and stay married., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/family-finances.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Conn Carroll,

We don’t yet know why Thomas Matthew Crooks tried to assassinate former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday, but here are some tweets from the Progressive Turnout Project, a super PAC created to “get Democrats to the polls.” It has been confirmed that Crooks gave money to this group.

Each of these tweets directly quotes President Joe Biden calling Trump a threat to Democracy.

“Donald Trump will destroy our democracy.”

“Trump’s assault on democracy isn’t just part of his past … It’s what he is promising for the future.”

“This election, your freedom, your democracy, America itself is at stake now, folks.”

If one more Trump victory is all that stands between us and the end of democracy, might more than voting be called for?

As Biden said earlier this week,  “We’re done talking about the debate. It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.”

And Biden is not the only Democrat that has been using this inflammatory rhetoric.

“Donald Trump wants to turn our democracy into a dictatorship,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in Nevada this week.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The press has been just as bad, with the Washington Post, the New Republic, and Salon all comparing Trump to Hitler. 

Now that a shooter has, in Biden’s own words, “put Trump in a bullseye,” will Democrats change their hysterical rhetoric?

Facts are still being confirmed, but President Donald Trump appears to have been shot during a rally Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania. Video shows Trump touching his ear as he goes down, but he then was lifted by Secret Service agents back up, blood on his face, before pumping his fist to the crowd, signaling to his supporters that he survived.

At that moment, Evan Vucci of the Associated Press captured this image:

Whatever one thinks of Trump, it is now time for everyone to calm down their rhetoric. Trump, while imperfect, is not a threat to democracy. If he wins, it will not be the last election held in our country. The vitriol directed at him has been harmful, opportunistic, cynical, and now very possibly has led to actual violence.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Trump is reportedly in good health and the crowd was rallied by his defiant fist pump as the Secret Service escorted him out. It is a moment and an image that is destined to become iconic.

Under the headline, “How Biden’s Stumbles Collided With a Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory,” the New York Times reports Friday that “far-right social media is rife with outlandish, unproven stories of Democratic crimes and rigged elections. Most of those ideas fizzle over time as they fail to come true. But every now and then, one of those stories collides with reality.”

It appears that a conspiracy among Democratic Party elites to push President Joe Biden out of office is one of those times.

Just minutes after the New York Times story was published, Axios reported that “very-connected Democrats, mostly veterans of the Obama and Clinton administrations, are plotting hourly to get [Biden] to withdraw quickly.”

Dubbed by Axios as the “Committee to Unelect the President” this “loose anti-Biden network” is “trading texts, emails and polling, fighting fellow Democrats on TV and X, and circulating stories and arguments by sympathetic journalists and columnists.”

While there is “no command and control” in the group, “almost all are one step away from former presidents Obama or Clinton.”

To be fair to the New York Times, the existing and very real conspiracy to push Biden out of office has not existed for years, as some social media conspiracists claim, and they did not conspire to torpedo Biden’s first debate performance.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But there was very much a conspiracy within the Biden White House to conceal his true mental capacity, a conspiracy many on the right correctly identified long before the debate, a conspiracy that was vehemently denied by the Biden White House and actively covered up by the supposedly nonpartisan journalists at the New York Times.

So yes, there are some outlandish conspiracy theories on social media, but that does not excuse the journalists at the New York Times from failing to report the very real decline in Biden’s mental state.