NY Yankees honor YMCA’s Toledo
BRONX TIMES REPORTER, SEPTEMBER 2 44 7-OCTOBER 3, 2019 BTR
Action
Association
The YMCA of Greater New
York’s vice president of Field
Operations, Elizabeth Toledo,
has received an achievement
award from the New York Yankees
as part of the team’s Hispanic
Heritage Month celebration.
The annual Hispanic Heritage
Month Community
Achievement Awards honor
individuals and organizations
who have made a signifi cant
difference in the lives of others.
Elizabeth received her award
on Wednesday, September 18,
during a pregame ceremony
at Yankee Stadium. She was
awarded in the category of So-
cial Responsibility.
As vice president of Field
Operations, Elizabeth oversees
all of the Y branches in Manhattan
and the Bronx, including
the two newest branches
set to open in 2020, Northeast
Bronx and La Central.
“Elizabeth embodies the
YMCA of Greater New York’s
mission of supporting all
New Yorkers by empowering
youth, improving health, and
strengthening community,”
said Sharon Greenberger, president
and CEO of the YMCA of
Greater New York. “I know the
entire organization joins me in
congratulating Elizabeth on
this achievement.”
Elizabeth has over three
decades of experience in the
child care and youth development
fi eld throughout New
York City, including a total
of 24 years with the YMCA of
Greater New York, as well as
eight years as the executive director
of the Dodge and Bronx
YMCAs. She holds the YMCA
Organizational Leader Certifi -
cation.
“I am so grateful to have
received this award alongside
such a talented and hard-working
group of people,” Toledo
said. “Many thanks to the Yankees
for this incredible honor.”
YMCA of Greater New York’s vice president of Field Operations, Elizabeth
Toledo. Photo courtesy of the NY Yankees
Additional honorees this
year included Bronx Chamber
of Commerce president Lisa
Sorin, Learning through an
Expanded Arts Program executive
director Richard Souto
and Univision sports anchor
Salvador Cruz.
The startling proposals and
legislation pushed by Democrat
presidential candidates,
elected offi cials, and the legislative
bodies and jurisdictions
they dominate need to
be listened to far more carefully.
They are a road map to
the diminution of the United
States.
In March, House Democrats
voted to defend localities
that allow illegal immigrants
to vote in their elections. Only
six Democrats voted against
the measure. Rep. Dan Crenshaw
(R-Tx) stated to Fox
News “What kind of government
would cancel the vote of
its own citizens, and replace it
with noncitizens?”
Federal law prohibits noncitizens
from voting in federal
elections. If the Democrats do
well in the 2020 election, that
could be changed.
The cost of this strange tilt
towards illegal aliens and away
from the needs of U.S. citizens,
particularly seniors and homeless
veterans, was reviewed in
2016 by Federation for Immigration
Reform study:
Illegal immigration costs
U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion
a year at the federal, state
and local level. The bulk of the
costs — some $84 billion — are
absorbed by state and local
governments.
The annual outlay that illegal
aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is
an average amount per nativeheaded
household of $1,117. The
fi scal impact per household
varies considerably because
the greatest share of the burden
falls on state and local taxpayers
whose burden depends
on the size of the illegal alien
population in that locality
Education for the children
of illegal aliens constitutes the
single largest cost to taxpayers,
at an annual price tag of
nearly $52 billion. Nearly all
of those costs are absorbed by
state and local governments.
At the federal level, about
one-third of outlays are
matched by tax collections
from illegal aliens. At the
state and local level, an average
of less than 5 percent of the
public costs associated with illegal
immigration is recouped
through taxes collected from
illegal aliens.
Most illegal aliens do not
pay income taxes. Among
those who do, much of the revenues
collected are refunded
to the illegal aliens when they
fi le tax returns. Many are also
claiming tax credits resulting
in payments from the U.S.
Treasury.
The 2016 fi gures cited by
the Federation have risen in
the past several years.
Not content with allowing
noncitizens to vote, many
prominent Democrats seek
to allow convicted felons to
cast ballots as well. The Hill
reports that Senator Bernie
Sanders (D-Vermont) wants
to extend the vote even to the
worst felons, still incarcerated.
“You’re paying a price,
you committed a crime, you’re
in jail. That’s bad,” Sanders
told The Hill. “But you’re still
living in American society
and you have a right to vote.”
The reason for the Democrats’
interest in this topic is
clear. According to an NYU
study, “disenfranchisement
laws tend to take more votes
from Democratic than from
Republican candidates. Analysis
shows that felon disenfranchisement
played a decisive
role in U.S. Senate elections
in recent years. Moreover, at
least one Republican presidential
victory would have
been reversed if former felons
had been allowed to vote…
felon voters showed strong
Democratic preferences in
both presidential and senatorial
elections…even comparatively
unpopular Democratic
candidates… would have garnered
almost 70 percent of the
felon vote.”
During the 2016 presidential
campaign, Terry McAuliffe,
then-governor of the key
swing state of Virginia and
a personal friend of Hillary
Clinton, announced that he
was restoring voting rights of
more than 200,000 Virginians
who were convicted of felonies
such as murder, rape, armed
assault and other crimes.
Some analyses indicated that
the governor’s restoration
would be permitted despite
the status of any unpaid fi nes
or restitution requirements. A
press release from McAuliffe’s
offi ce noted “Each of those
Virginians will immediately
regain the right to register to
vote, to run for offi ce, to serve
on a jury and to serve as a notary
public…”
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn)
told Fox News that she wants
to abolish the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agency,
and have the United Nations
supervise the U.S. southern
border. She states “We need
to abolish ICE and end all inhumane
deportation and detention
programs. We need to
fi ght back against the criminalization
of immigrants and
those crossing the border.”
Despite the rampant expense
and the increase in crime
(64% of federal arrests were of
aliens) and the existence of
many seniors and homeless
veterans in need, some Democrat
state offi cials, particularly
in California, seem to put
the needs of illegals fi rst.
A National Council on Aging
study reports that “Over
25 million Americans aged 60+
are economically insecure—
living at or below 250% of the
federal poverty level…These
older adults struggle with rising
housing and health care
bills, inadequate nutrition,
lack of access to transportation,
diminished savings, and
job loss. For older adults who
are above the poverty level,
one major adverse life event
can change today’s realities
into tomorrow’s troubles.”
According to the National
Council on Homeless Veterans,
the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) estimates that
40,056 veterans are homeless
on any given night.
Nevertheless, illegals are
given more attention by Democrat
run jurisdictions and
presidential candidates than
either seniors or homeless veterans.
A Forbes study discusses
the collapse of California,
where illegals are given top
priority. “So, what is an impoverished
California to do?
It’s not an academic question.
California leads the nation in
poverty when cost of living is
factored into the equation…
According to… the Democrats,
the answer is: fi ght for
future immigrants, refugees,
sanctuary cities, social issues
and global warming.”
On the other coast, reports
the New York Post, Democrats
in the New York State Legislature
“… set aside $27 million
in tuition assistance for the
children of undocumented immigrants
in the new state budget
— but wouldn’t add hundreds
of thousands of dollars
to expand a similar program
for kids of deceased and disabled
veterans.”
In foreign policy, it appears
that many Democrats haven’t
had time to review international
realities, or simply have
confl icting personal interests.
Ignoring Moscow’s massive
weapons programs, which
have made Russia the planet’s
strongest nuclear power, and
China’s leap to military superpower
status (as well as the aggressive
moves made by each,
and their alliance with each
other) is dangerous and absurd.
Yet little emphasis on
defense is placed by the fi eld of
2020 Democratic presidential
contenders. Worse, they uniformly
seek to slash U.S. defense
spending at a time of the
most signifi cant threats since
the end of the Second World
War.
Far too many Democrats
openly support anti-Semitic
movements, such as the “Boycott,
Disinvest, and Sanction”
(BDS) movement. Some key
Democrats, such as former
DNC vice chair (and current
Minnesota Attorney General)
Keith Ellison have allied with
anti-Semitic fi gures.
In dealing with all of these
contentious issues, it would be
somewhat of a reassurance,
limited as it might be, if the
Democrats were open to at
least discussing their differences
with other Americans
reasonably and peacefully.
Unfortunately, that is not the
case. Those disagreeing with
their policy preferences are
branded with horrible epithets.
Some associate with
individuals who openly support
and encourage violence
against those they disagree
with.
American politics is rapidly
reaching the edge of a
dangerous precipice.