For those of you who need something to worry about in 2015, a lone forecaster is predicting the Icelandic volcano Bardarbunga is about to experience a cataclysmic eruption. The earth-shattering blast will cloak Europe with toxic sulphur dioxide gases that will alter the continent's weather patterns.
As a result of the climate change, crops across Europe will suffer crippling loses. That will lead to a doubling of grain prices worldwide, according to the soothsayer. Of course, this could just be another outlandish prediction that will be buried in the ash heap of prophetic rubbish.
But that's part of the allure of forecasting. Most people will have forgotten the annual predictions by the time February dawns on the calendar. Secure in that knowledge, your faithful scribe issues his annual predictions for the coming year:
1. Oil prices continue their downward spiral for at least the first quarter, slowing energy production and hampering economic growth, but the overall impact will be mitigated somewhat by increases in consumer spending. Some states, especially Texas and North Dakota, will be hurt by declining job growth. However, retail sales tick upward before gas prices begin rising in the third quarter.
2. Continuing problems in Europe and China hinder U.S. economic expansion as trade erodes and the dollar strengthens. For the seventh straight year, the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of economic activity, fails to reach 3.0 percent for the year, finishing at an annual rate of 2.5 percent.
3. Stock prices continue their roller coaster ride, dipping to new lows, before eclipsing record highs as economic disruption becomes the new world order. Tech stocks, after soaring for most of 2014, come thumping back to earth as overvaluations catch up with reality. The market finishes on an uptick as blue chips once again find favor with investors and the Dow-Jones ends near 18,850.
4. The U.S. Supreme Court issues a 5-4 ruling slapping the hands of the Obama Administration for improperly providing tax credits to consumers who purchased health insurance through federal exchanges. The decision is a blow to Affordable Care Act because the tax credits are considered key to the law's success.
5. New housing starts fail to reach 500,000 in the new year as the Fed adjusts interest rates upward and mortgage lenders continue to tighten borrowing guidelines. Not only will mortgage rates climb for borrowers, but the rising cost of building materials will make new homes more expensive, delaying purchases by millennials.
6. With falling oil prices and a weak currency, Russia's economy nosedives into dangerous territory, fueling speculation the country will default on some loans. President Putin, feeling like a cornered rat, covertly orchestrates terrorist threats at home designed to enhance his standing as a tough leader in times of crisis and uses the imbroglio to interfere in Belarus.
7. The cyber warfare between North Korea and the United States escalates after hackers shutdown a major stock exchange. The action follows cyber attacks on major U.S. online retailers that expose the weakness of security at business firms throughout the country. There are hints the Chinese government may be helping North Korea carry out the attacks.
8. The Apple Watch debuts in 2015 and the device redefines the market for health related personal information. The device works with apps that monitor blood pressure, heart rate and body temperature. The watches begin showing up on the arms of out-patients after surgery so doctors can remotely monitor their recovery.
9. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, after declaring she had no intention to run for president, enters the Democratic race after presumptive front-runner Hillary Clinton stumbles. Behind the scenes, President Obama's former campaign staffers join forces with Warren, further widening the rift between the Clintons and the Obamas.
10. President Obama issues an executive order that imperils the building of the Keystone Pipeline after the newly-installed Republican Congressional majorities green light the long-stalled project. The action precipitates a major constitutional battle between the executive and legislative branch that ends up on the doorstep of the Supreme Court.
These bold predictions notwithstanding, 2015 promises to be a year overflowing with surprises and seismic shifts in economies, governments and currencies. Let not your hearts be troubled. Embrace change, languish in the moments of calm and find laughter in life's ever shifting currents.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Monday, December 22, 2014
Rudolph Seeing Red Over Santa's Treatment
Dear Santa Claus:
With Christmas days away, I wanted to lodge a protest on behalf of the other reindeer about your shabby treatment. Your sleigh keeps getting bigger and heavier, just like your belly, yet our wages and benefits have not kept up with North Pole inflation.
Therefore, we formally demand that you call a vote for union representation. Leaders of the NRA, that's the National Reindeer Association, will be contacting you soon. You may have been able to tamp down last year's elf unionization efforts, but your reindeer won't be as easily intimidated.
I still recall that snowy night when you came to me, practically on your knees, begging me to lead your reindeer team. But I saw right through your plea. You only needed me because of my shinny red rose. Before that evening, you had let the other reindeer bully me unmercifully on Twitter.
The final straw came last week when you gave into the cultural diversity crowd and changed Dancer's name to Muhammad to give Muslin kids a reindeer they could relate to. Now he spends all day reading the Koran and posting hate messages on Facebook. He refuses to work anymore and never bathes.
Pulling your sleigh has never been the glamorous job portrayed in Christmas fairy tales. I have to don earmuffs to drown out your shrill shouts, urging us to go faster and faster. I'd like to see you get your big old fat duff out of the driver's seat and try to tug that sleigh around the globe.
As the world's population has grown, so have the demands for toys. Last year was awful because you decided to outsource toy production. We must have made seven trips to China to pick up toys for American kids. No wonder the elves tried to form a union.
As you know, last year we lost our Claus Health Benefits and were forced to sign up for Obamacare. Donner can no longer see his regular doctor, who was the only reindeer specialist for miles and miles. You promised Donner could keep his doctor. Your name belongs on the Naughty List.
Reindeer still receive the minimum wage and no overtime. Most of us have been in our positions for more than 70 years with no raise. You and Mrs. Claus are in the One Percent Club, while we struggle to get by on wages fit for an animal. Yeah, I know, a reindeer is technically an animal, but fair is fair.
There was an open revolt yesterday when you announced amnesty for the two reindeer that had slipped across the border to get jobs on the sleigh team. Neither reindeer could speak English and they wanted free Obama cell phones before they agreed to do any work. Bad Santa.
Prancer reminded me to bring up your anti-gay slurs last Christmas. None of us will forget the moment you yelled in exasperation at Prancer, "You look a little light on the hoof!" After months of counseling, Prancer has finally been able to join the other reindeer in stud poker games.
On the other hand, Vixen remains traumatized from last year's journey. When she failed to pick up the pace on Christmas, you yelled at her and called her a skank. In the aftermath, she lost so much weight that Sony Pictures cancelled her contract. I hear the movie folks blamed her firing on North Korea.
I know you said it was just a coincidence, but the reindeer took notice when Mrs. Claus served venison for Thanksgiving. Our nerves have been on edge ever since. We might have overlooked the incident if little Nicky Claus hadn't erected a deer blind right next to the reindeer fraternal lodge.
Once upon a time Santa, you respected the rights of reindeer. But lately you have taken to issuing executive orders without consulting the head reindeer. That would be me. You, Mr. Claus, are ignoring the clause in our North Pole Constitution that guarantees we reindeer make the laws.
This Christmas we need to hear more than just "Ho, Ho, Ho" from you. Reindeer lives matter. We expect higher wages, improved benefits and a lighter workload. If you can't deliver, then we won't either. You will be stuck with using the Post Office to deliver presents just in time for Easter.
Not my fault, Santa. I'm a victim. Pardon me, but my box of Cuban cigars just arrived. I am thinking of having a single malt Scotch and a smoke on Christmas eve. Enjoy your sleigh ride without me.
This Buck Stops Here,
Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer
With Christmas days away, I wanted to lodge a protest on behalf of the other reindeer about your shabby treatment. Your sleigh keeps getting bigger and heavier, just like your belly, yet our wages and benefits have not kept up with North Pole inflation.
Therefore, we formally demand that you call a vote for union representation. Leaders of the NRA, that's the National Reindeer Association, will be contacting you soon. You may have been able to tamp down last year's elf unionization efforts, but your reindeer won't be as easily intimidated.
I still recall that snowy night when you came to me, practically on your knees, begging me to lead your reindeer team. But I saw right through your plea. You only needed me because of my shinny red rose. Before that evening, you had let the other reindeer bully me unmercifully on Twitter.
The final straw came last week when you gave into the cultural diversity crowd and changed Dancer's name to Muhammad to give Muslin kids a reindeer they could relate to. Now he spends all day reading the Koran and posting hate messages on Facebook. He refuses to work anymore and never bathes.
Pulling your sleigh has never been the glamorous job portrayed in Christmas fairy tales. I have to don earmuffs to drown out your shrill shouts, urging us to go faster and faster. I'd like to see you get your big old fat duff out of the driver's seat and try to tug that sleigh around the globe.
As the world's population has grown, so have the demands for toys. Last year was awful because you decided to outsource toy production. We must have made seven trips to China to pick up toys for American kids. No wonder the elves tried to form a union.
As you know, last year we lost our Claus Health Benefits and were forced to sign up for Obamacare. Donner can no longer see his regular doctor, who was the only reindeer specialist for miles and miles. You promised Donner could keep his doctor. Your name belongs on the Naughty List.
Reindeer still receive the minimum wage and no overtime. Most of us have been in our positions for more than 70 years with no raise. You and Mrs. Claus are in the One Percent Club, while we struggle to get by on wages fit for an animal. Yeah, I know, a reindeer is technically an animal, but fair is fair.
There was an open revolt yesterday when you announced amnesty for the two reindeer that had slipped across the border to get jobs on the sleigh team. Neither reindeer could speak English and they wanted free Obama cell phones before they agreed to do any work. Bad Santa.
Prancer reminded me to bring up your anti-gay slurs last Christmas. None of us will forget the moment you yelled in exasperation at Prancer, "You look a little light on the hoof!" After months of counseling, Prancer has finally been able to join the other reindeer in stud poker games.
On the other hand, Vixen remains traumatized from last year's journey. When she failed to pick up the pace on Christmas, you yelled at her and called her a skank. In the aftermath, she lost so much weight that Sony Pictures cancelled her contract. I hear the movie folks blamed her firing on North Korea.
I know you said it was just a coincidence, but the reindeer took notice when Mrs. Claus served venison for Thanksgiving. Our nerves have been on edge ever since. We might have overlooked the incident if little Nicky Claus hadn't erected a deer blind right next to the reindeer fraternal lodge.
Once upon a time Santa, you respected the rights of reindeer. But lately you have taken to issuing executive orders without consulting the head reindeer. That would be me. You, Mr. Claus, are ignoring the clause in our North Pole Constitution that guarantees we reindeer make the laws.
This Christmas we need to hear more than just "Ho, Ho, Ho" from you. Reindeer lives matter. We expect higher wages, improved benefits and a lighter workload. If you can't deliver, then we won't either. You will be stuck with using the Post Office to deliver presents just in time for Easter.
Not my fault, Santa. I'm a victim. Pardon me, but my box of Cuban cigars just arrived. I am thinking of having a single malt Scotch and a smoke on Christmas eve. Enjoy your sleigh ride without me.
This Buck Stops Here,
Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer
Monday, December 15, 2014
Sen. Feinstein's Tortuous, Biased Report
Perspective is a scarce commodity in these United States. Too many Americans have forgotten that sickening feeling watching television video of the two airplanes demolish the Twin Towers in New York City. They don't recall their piercing anguish, their frail helplessness, their fierce anger.
That day, September 11, 2001, will forever be etched in the memory of those who lost loved ones, friends and co-workers. Nearly 3,000 Americans perished in the bloodiest attack on U.S. soil. But apparently members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have developed amnesia about that day.
They have forgotten that within hours of the attacks, the Congress and the American people were up in arms, demanding retribution. Most leaders, including Democrats, felt the possibility of another attack was imminent. With one voice, Americans besieged their government to protect the homeland.
Many in Washington, including Senator Diane Feinstein, clamored for answers on the failure of the intelligence apparatus to uncover the plot. The Central Intelligence Agency was publicly flogged for dereliction of duty. Americans implored their leaders to strike back swiftly at the enemy.
In this environment, the CIA and other intelligence agencies were thrust into a new battle against terror. They had no roadmap, no previous experience with attacks on the homeland. Urgency was the watchword. Politicians implored the CIA to develop intelligence to prevent another attack.
By any measure, the intelligence community did its job. But 13 years later, the Democrat-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee decided to rewrite history. Under Sen. Feinstein's iron hand, the group issued a scathing critique of the CIA in a document the media gleefully dubbed The Torture Report.
The paper is nothing more than an armchair quarterback's assessment of the interrogation techniques employed by an intelligence agency under intense fire to produce results. The 6,000-page report is one-sided, incendiary and a gift to those jihadists who want to recruit terrorists to kill Americans.
Sen. Feinstein's motive was never to unearth the truth about the interrogation techniques used to extract information from battle-hardened terrorists. If it had been, her band of Democrats on the committee would have interviewed CIA agents and detainees to learn their side of the story.
Instead, the partisan group spent five-years trolling through documents, sifting the most damaging details they could find to second-guess the use of enhanced interrogation. In a rush to release the report, Sen. Feinstein ignored pleas from her president and the secretary of state to delay making it public.
Her intent was to embarrass the CIA because she caught them snooping on her and the committee staff after leaks began appearing in the media. Her vendetta extended to former President George Bush, the man Democrats like Feinstein still yearn to put on public trial for unleashing the CIA.
Her agenda also included wrapping up the report before she was replaced as the committee chairperson after the new Republican majority was ushered in the Senate. The senator and President Obama longed for another opportunity to show the world how contrite America has become about its past.
But, for the most part, this was about a senator out for revenge. The Californian was willing to put American lives in jeopardy to achieve her objectives. Her document airing the agency's dirty laundry was hardly news, since Democrats had publicly complained about the CIA's use of torture for years.
Within hours of the release of The Torture Report, an independent publisher announced that a 528-page declassified summary would be available in bookstores before New Year's Day. Sen. Feinstein thus cemented her legacy before she was replaced in the chairman's role.
Media coverage of the report was predictably sanctimonious. News outlets, with few exceptions, relished the opportunity to whipsaw the intelligence community, former president Bush and Republicans. But a couple of courageous Americans spoke out about the committee's hindsight.
Among them was Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and noted lawyer. "Public opinion polls (at the time) showed a vast majority of Americans supporting the use of enhanced interrogation techniques if it would stop a terrorist attack," Dershowitz declared.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden insisted that he had fully informed Sen. Feinstein and the committee about interrogation methods in 2006. He denied misleading the committee, a charge the senator lobbed after Bush Administration officials complained Feinstein was aware of the tactics.
Thirteen years after bloody September 11th, Sen. Feinstein and the other Democrats on her committee decided to play Monday Morning Quarterback. However, their reconstruction failed to provide sufficient retrospective on the clear and present danger the country faced in the wake of the attacks.
Instead, Sen. Feinstein and the other cowardly Democrats performed a hatchet job on the CIA. That may be the cruelest verbal torture ever heaped on the brave men and women who staff the intelligence agency. For that, the senator and her rubber-stamp committee deserve the nation's everlasting scorn.
That day, September 11, 2001, will forever be etched in the memory of those who lost loved ones, friends and co-workers. Nearly 3,000 Americans perished in the bloodiest attack on U.S. soil. But apparently members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have developed amnesia about that day.
They have forgotten that within hours of the attacks, the Congress and the American people were up in arms, demanding retribution. Most leaders, including Democrats, felt the possibility of another attack was imminent. With one voice, Americans besieged their government to protect the homeland.
Many in Washington, including Senator Diane Feinstein, clamored for answers on the failure of the intelligence apparatus to uncover the plot. The Central Intelligence Agency was publicly flogged for dereliction of duty. Americans implored their leaders to strike back swiftly at the enemy.
In this environment, the CIA and other intelligence agencies were thrust into a new battle against terror. They had no roadmap, no previous experience with attacks on the homeland. Urgency was the watchword. Politicians implored the CIA to develop intelligence to prevent another attack.
By any measure, the intelligence community did its job. But 13 years later, the Democrat-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee decided to rewrite history. Under Sen. Feinstein's iron hand, the group issued a scathing critique of the CIA in a document the media gleefully dubbed The Torture Report.
The paper is nothing more than an armchair quarterback's assessment of the interrogation techniques employed by an intelligence agency under intense fire to produce results. The 6,000-page report is one-sided, incendiary and a gift to those jihadists who want to recruit terrorists to kill Americans.
Sen. Feinstein's motive was never to unearth the truth about the interrogation techniques used to extract information from battle-hardened terrorists. If it had been, her band of Democrats on the committee would have interviewed CIA agents and detainees to learn their side of the story.
Instead, the partisan group spent five-years trolling through documents, sifting the most damaging details they could find to second-guess the use of enhanced interrogation. In a rush to release the report, Sen. Feinstein ignored pleas from her president and the secretary of state to delay making it public.
Her intent was to embarrass the CIA because she caught them snooping on her and the committee staff after leaks began appearing in the media. Her vendetta extended to former President George Bush, the man Democrats like Feinstein still yearn to put on public trial for unleashing the CIA.
Her agenda also included wrapping up the report before she was replaced as the committee chairperson after the new Republican majority was ushered in the Senate. The senator and President Obama longed for another opportunity to show the world how contrite America has become about its past.
But, for the most part, this was about a senator out for revenge. The Californian was willing to put American lives in jeopardy to achieve her objectives. Her document airing the agency's dirty laundry was hardly news, since Democrats had publicly complained about the CIA's use of torture for years.
Within hours of the release of The Torture Report, an independent publisher announced that a 528-page declassified summary would be available in bookstores before New Year's Day. Sen. Feinstein thus cemented her legacy before she was replaced in the chairman's role.
Media coverage of the report was predictably sanctimonious. News outlets, with few exceptions, relished the opportunity to whipsaw the intelligence community, former president Bush and Republicans. But a couple of courageous Americans spoke out about the committee's hindsight.
Among them was Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and noted lawyer. "Public opinion polls (at the time) showed a vast majority of Americans supporting the use of enhanced interrogation techniques if it would stop a terrorist attack," Dershowitz declared.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden insisted that he had fully informed Sen. Feinstein and the committee about interrogation methods in 2006. He denied misleading the committee, a charge the senator lobbed after Bush Administration officials complained Feinstein was aware of the tactics.
Thirteen years after bloody September 11th, Sen. Feinstein and the other Democrats on her committee decided to play Monday Morning Quarterback. However, their reconstruction failed to provide sufficient retrospective on the clear and present danger the country faced in the wake of the attacks.
Instead, Sen. Feinstein and the other cowardly Democrats performed a hatchet job on the CIA. That may be the cruelest verbal torture ever heaped on the brave men and women who staff the intelligence agency. For that, the senator and her rubber-stamp committee deserve the nation's everlasting scorn.
Monday, December 8, 2014
Secret Unveiled: Obama's Letter To The Ayatollah
CLASSIFIED: Islamic Eyes Only
Dear Ayatollah:
As one Supreme Leader to another, let me be clear. Under no circumstances should the contents of this letter be divulged. If those Republican nitwits in my country knew I was writing to you, it would appear as if I was leaving Congress out of the diplomatic loop. Like I care! Ha-Ha.
I want to refrain from using the "N' word but I don't think it can be avoided. (No, I'm not talking about THAT "n" word that every black rapper spouts.) I refer to Nukes. Those contemptible Israelis believe you are secretly building nuclear weapons. My own super snoops at the CIA are of the same mind.
Let me be clear: I take you at your word when you say you have no plutonium. Heck, when I asked my Vice President Joe Biden for his counsel, he thought plutonium was a planet. But I digress. Anyone who dresses in a long robe and sports a beard has got to be trustworthy in my book.
By the way, ignore blow-dried John Kerry. That guy flits in-and-out of countries without messing up a single hair on his oversized head. I liked it better when disheveled Hillary Clinton was our secretary of state. Now there was someone who looked like she had a lot of miles on her.
Here's the deal. If you promise not to bomb my birthplace in Kenya, then I feel we can strike an agreement. Just make sure you hide those nuclear enrichment facilities out of sight of the international inspectors. It shouldn't be a problem. Most of them are dependent on seeing eye dogs.
I know the mullahs over there might be skeptical of any deal with American infidels. But remember I bow to every Muslin I meet. I still recall the sweet sound of the call to evening prayers. The real enemy is missionaries who want to convert everyone in Iran to Christianity. That is pure evil.
On another matter, it has come to my attention that your country launched the first test flight for a drone that was an exact replica of the U.S. model you captured in 2011. I already have enough trouble with the Chinese ignoring American copyright laws. I didn't think you'd stoop this low.
Just do me a favor. When you are ready to arm the drones, check with me for a list of targets. There are a whole lot of new Republicans headed to Washington. If we can eliminate a sizable number before January, my party can retain the House and Senate. Elections are so overrated.
As a bonus, the American tech giant Apple is readying the launch of a new wearable device that tracks how far a person runs. There are a lot of names being bandied about. I could use my influence to get the company to call it iRan. Cool, huh?
There is one last item on my agenda. We need Iran's help in fighting the Islamic State or ISIS in Iraq. I don't want to anger my shrinking party base by sending boots into Iraq. If you could unleash your army to destroy ISIS, I would have more time to concentrate on the important stuff, like golf.
In exchange, I promise to continue to reduce the budget and the size of the American military. I am thinking about sending every last soldier and seamen to Africa to fight Ebola as a way to take them out of the field of battle. You would have nothing to fear from us except perhaps a viral infection.
In closing, I had to laugh the other day when I saw your tweet about how to take out Israel. You don't need nuclear bombs for that. My foreign policy is weakening their position in the Middle East every day. Just hang around another two years and you won't have to deal with the Jews except at the banks.
I remain America's Supreme Leader according to the two-thirds who didn't vote in the midterm elections.
Barrack Hussein Obama
President, the Divided States of America
Dear Ayatollah:
As one Supreme Leader to another, let me be clear. Under no circumstances should the contents of this letter be divulged. If those Republican nitwits in my country knew I was writing to you, it would appear as if I was leaving Congress out of the diplomatic loop. Like I care! Ha-Ha.
I want to refrain from using the "N' word but I don't think it can be avoided. (No, I'm not talking about THAT "n" word that every black rapper spouts.) I refer to Nukes. Those contemptible Israelis believe you are secretly building nuclear weapons. My own super snoops at the CIA are of the same mind.
Let me be clear: I take you at your word when you say you have no plutonium. Heck, when I asked my Vice President Joe Biden for his counsel, he thought plutonium was a planet. But I digress. Anyone who dresses in a long robe and sports a beard has got to be trustworthy in my book.
By the way, ignore blow-dried John Kerry. That guy flits in-and-out of countries without messing up a single hair on his oversized head. I liked it better when disheveled Hillary Clinton was our secretary of state. Now there was someone who looked like she had a lot of miles on her.
Here's the deal. If you promise not to bomb my birthplace in Kenya, then I feel we can strike an agreement. Just make sure you hide those nuclear enrichment facilities out of sight of the international inspectors. It shouldn't be a problem. Most of them are dependent on seeing eye dogs.
I know the mullahs over there might be skeptical of any deal with American infidels. But remember I bow to every Muslin I meet. I still recall the sweet sound of the call to evening prayers. The real enemy is missionaries who want to convert everyone in Iran to Christianity. That is pure evil.
On another matter, it has come to my attention that your country launched the first test flight for a drone that was an exact replica of the U.S. model you captured in 2011. I already have enough trouble with the Chinese ignoring American copyright laws. I didn't think you'd stoop this low.
Just do me a favor. When you are ready to arm the drones, check with me for a list of targets. There are a whole lot of new Republicans headed to Washington. If we can eliminate a sizable number before January, my party can retain the House and Senate. Elections are so overrated.
As a bonus, the American tech giant Apple is readying the launch of a new wearable device that tracks how far a person runs. There are a lot of names being bandied about. I could use my influence to get the company to call it iRan. Cool, huh?
There is one last item on my agenda. We need Iran's help in fighting the Islamic State or ISIS in Iraq. I don't want to anger my shrinking party base by sending boots into Iraq. If you could unleash your army to destroy ISIS, I would have more time to concentrate on the important stuff, like golf.
In exchange, I promise to continue to reduce the budget and the size of the American military. I am thinking about sending every last soldier and seamen to Africa to fight Ebola as a way to take them out of the field of battle. You would have nothing to fear from us except perhaps a viral infection.
In closing, I had to laugh the other day when I saw your tweet about how to take out Israel. You don't need nuclear bombs for that. My foreign policy is weakening their position in the Middle East every day. Just hang around another two years and you won't have to deal with the Jews except at the banks.
I remain America's Supreme Leader according to the two-thirds who didn't vote in the midterm elections.
Barrack Hussein Obama
President, the Divided States of America
Monday, December 1, 2014
Immigration Lies: The President In His Own Words
A scorned president has cauterized the simmering debate over immigration reform with an inflammatory speech followed by a ham-fisted executive fiat. His words and his unilateral action have doomed any chances of forging a national consensus on this tumultuous issue.
In the wake of the impetuous president's decision, polls revealed a divided country over Obama's amnesty order. By a 50-40 split, voters disapproved of the president's scheme, according to research released last week by Democratic polling firm Rasmussen Reports.
This immigration schism can only be bridged by compromise. But this president has chosen contention over concession. He is driven by revenge for the humiliation he suffered in the mid-terms. His executive action was an opportunity to poke his finger in the eyes of incensed Republicans.
As the days have passed since his televised address, even ardent supporters of immigration reform are realizing the president's course offers only a temporary fix. If his motivation was to goad Congress into enacting permanent legislation, he has seriously miscalculated the political ramifications.
But this president has always shunned the high road. He prefers the rough politics of Chicago ward bosses where no opponent goes unpunished. A re-reading of the transcript of his speech reveals a man willing to engage in disinformation and incendiary language to justify his action.
His address was aimed at branding Americans who believe in the rule of law as uncaring and heartless people. In the president's own words, read his attempts at verbal manipulation:
"But today, our immigration system is broken and everyone knows it." This distortion has been repeated so many times, no one questions its veracity. While some changes may be needed in the immigration process, the current system accommodated the largest influx of legal immigrants in the nation's history. From 2005 to 2013, a total of 9,787,594 immigrants have obtained permanent residency status in the U.S.. according to the Department of Homeland Security. This total represents the largest number of immigrants to gain residency in any nine-year period in American history. America does not have a legal immigration problem, it has an illegal alien issue.
"Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character." Not a single politician in either party has advocated deportation of the more than 11 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. Yet the president continues to use his fabrication to scare immigrants into thinking they will be shipped home in shackles if the Republicans have their way. Only Obama can save them from this fate.
"If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up." Figures from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that deportations declined 19 percent from 2011 to 2012 and dropped another 22 percent last year. Despite these numbers, the Obama Administration has devised a clever method to calculate deportations that inflates the actual statistics. Even the egregious number-rigging cannot hide the fact the administration freed 36,007 illegal aliens convicted of 88,000 crimes last year, ICE figures confirm. This administration's has the worst record in history in dealing with illegal immigrants, including those with criminal records.
"Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents arms?" Please Mr. President, name one example. No children are being snatched from their parents and exported back home. In fact, at the end of last year there were 1.8 million illegal immigrants awaiting deportation, ICE figures show. Illegal aliens play a waiting game that often ends with them ducking hearings while remaining in the U.S.
"I know some of the critics call it amnesty. Well, its not." His order defers deportation of illegals, while allowing them to obtain permanent residency. It is amnesty because despite entering the country illegally, the government is willing to spare aliens deportation and will not prosecute them for violating the laws of the country. That is amnesty under any name.
"The actions I'm taking are not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic president for the past half-century." To make their point, the president and the obsequious media have drawn comparisons to President Reagan's executive action on immigration. However, it is a duplicitous analogy. In 1986, Congress approved the Immigration Reform and Control Act that provided a path to legalization for millions of illegal aliens. After the measure was passed and signed into law by President Reagan, he issued an executive order stalling deportation of non-citizens in more than 100,000 families not covered under the legislation. Unlike Obama, Reagan acted after the legislative branch had approved a law. Obama chose to sidestep Congress and take unilateral action.
Neither comparisons to past presidents nor provocative rhetoric offer rationalization for President Obama's perversive abuse of executive power. He has acted wantonly without fear of retribution from the courts, the media, the Congress or the American people.
Unilateral action has become his modus operandi and it is undermining the constitutional powers of the legislative branch. Unless the next Congress halts this erosion, the coming two years will see runaway growth of executive power under a president who thumbs his nose at the Constitution.
In the wake of the impetuous president's decision, polls revealed a divided country over Obama's amnesty order. By a 50-40 split, voters disapproved of the president's scheme, according to research released last week by Democratic polling firm Rasmussen Reports.
This immigration schism can only be bridged by compromise. But this president has chosen contention over concession. He is driven by revenge for the humiliation he suffered in the mid-terms. His executive action was an opportunity to poke his finger in the eyes of incensed Republicans.
As the days have passed since his televised address, even ardent supporters of immigration reform are realizing the president's course offers only a temporary fix. If his motivation was to goad Congress into enacting permanent legislation, he has seriously miscalculated the political ramifications.
But this president has always shunned the high road. He prefers the rough politics of Chicago ward bosses where no opponent goes unpunished. A re-reading of the transcript of his speech reveals a man willing to engage in disinformation and incendiary language to justify his action.
His address was aimed at branding Americans who believe in the rule of law as uncaring and heartless people. In the president's own words, read his attempts at verbal manipulation:
"But today, our immigration system is broken and everyone knows it." This distortion has been repeated so many times, no one questions its veracity. While some changes may be needed in the immigration process, the current system accommodated the largest influx of legal immigrants in the nation's history. From 2005 to 2013, a total of 9,787,594 immigrants have obtained permanent residency status in the U.S.. according to the Department of Homeland Security. This total represents the largest number of immigrants to gain residency in any nine-year period in American history. America does not have a legal immigration problem, it has an illegal alien issue.
"Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character." Not a single politician in either party has advocated deportation of the more than 11 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. Yet the president continues to use his fabrication to scare immigrants into thinking they will be shipped home in shackles if the Republicans have their way. Only Obama can save them from this fate.
"If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up." Figures from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that deportations declined 19 percent from 2011 to 2012 and dropped another 22 percent last year. Despite these numbers, the Obama Administration has devised a clever method to calculate deportations that inflates the actual statistics. Even the egregious number-rigging cannot hide the fact the administration freed 36,007 illegal aliens convicted of 88,000 crimes last year, ICE figures confirm. This administration's has the worst record in history in dealing with illegal immigrants, including those with criminal records.
"Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents arms?" Please Mr. President, name one example. No children are being snatched from their parents and exported back home. In fact, at the end of last year there were 1.8 million illegal immigrants awaiting deportation, ICE figures show. Illegal aliens play a waiting game that often ends with them ducking hearings while remaining in the U.S.
"I know some of the critics call it amnesty. Well, its not." His order defers deportation of illegals, while allowing them to obtain permanent residency. It is amnesty because despite entering the country illegally, the government is willing to spare aliens deportation and will not prosecute them for violating the laws of the country. That is amnesty under any name.
"The actions I'm taking are not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic president for the past half-century." To make their point, the president and the obsequious media have drawn comparisons to President Reagan's executive action on immigration. However, it is a duplicitous analogy. In 1986, Congress approved the Immigration Reform and Control Act that provided a path to legalization for millions of illegal aliens. After the measure was passed and signed into law by President Reagan, he issued an executive order stalling deportation of non-citizens in more than 100,000 families not covered under the legislation. Unlike Obama, Reagan acted after the legislative branch had approved a law. Obama chose to sidestep Congress and take unilateral action.
Neither comparisons to past presidents nor provocative rhetoric offer rationalization for President Obama's perversive abuse of executive power. He has acted wantonly without fear of retribution from the courts, the media, the Congress or the American people.
Unilateral action has become his modus operandi and it is undermining the constitutional powers of the legislative branch. Unless the next Congress halts this erosion, the coming two years will see runaway growth of executive power under a president who thumbs his nose at the Constitution.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Be Thankful For Four Things Americans Agree On
In an era when the media paints America as a hopelessly divided nation, there are a number of social and cultural issues where there is near unanimous agreement. As it turns out, these areas where Americans find consensus are the things that unite us as one nation.
Therefore, if you are searching for something to be grateful for this Thanksgiving, here are at least four reasons to feel better about these United States:
(Editor's Note: All the statistics used in this column were gleaned from Pew Research polling reports from 2007 through 2014.)
America is a highly religious nation: Ninety percent of the people profess they believe in God. Eight in ten claim they never doubt God's existence. A surprising 76 percent say prayer is an important part of their daily life. Large percentages of Americans agree about many religious beliefs and behaviors. That is not to suggest that faith is not under attack in America. Courts have forced crosses to be torn down in public places, mandated the removal of the Ten Commandments from buildings and banned the use of prayer in certain venues. Despite this legal aggression supported by a secular media, Americans have refused to give up their practice of religion or to reject God. In times of crisis, such as when the country was ruthlessly attacked on September 11th, Americans found shelter in their churches with fellow worshipers. They steadfastly cling to the old-fashioned notion that God watches over their country. It is comforting to live in a country of believers, even if our religious practices may differ. What is important is that God maintains a prominent place in American life.
Americans are proud of their military. More than eight in 10 Americans have a favorable opinion of the armed forces. In large numbers (78%), Americans believe that the members of the military contribute "a lot" to society's well being. In fact, in a survey of 10 occupational groups, American service members come out on top, beating clergy, medical doctors, teachers and scientists, to name a few. Interestingly, the occupational group that has suffered the biggest decline in prestige since the surveys began in 2009 is journalists. No surprise there. By contrast, Americans of every political stripe have always held high opinions of the military. That should not be taken for granted because in many countries the military are often viewed disparagingly. Because Americans support their service men and women, the military has always been a force to unite the country. There is nothing as stirring as watching average Americans applaud as service members board a plane, or stroll through an airport or pass in review.
Americans are patriotic. Popular culture would suggest patriotism is a quaint idea that no longer matters. However, for more than 20 years, surveys have found an overwhelming number of Americans consider themselves patriotic. The figure has held steady at 90 percent since 1987. Sixty-two percent of Americans display the flag at their homes, in their office or on their car. This brand of American patriotism is not only responsible for the largest volunteer military in the country's history, but it motivates ordinary citizens in ways that are often overlooked. Pride in country leads to extending a helping hand to neighbors, showing up at the polls, volunteering to clean up a river, standing up for good government and supporting the building of more schools. In countries where patriotism lags, people tend to be more invested in their day-to-day survival with little time or incentive to do something for the good of others. That's why patriotism matters.
Americans believe hard works pays off. Among all nations, the United States stands out as the country where most people believe the key to getting ahead in life is hard work. Almost eight in ten (73%) Americans, are convinced hard work leads to a better future. Perhaps, you think this is true of all people around the world. Not so. In Greece, only 21 per cent of the citizens think hard work benefits people. No wonder Greece is bankrupt and unemployment stands in double-digits. And other Europeans share the Greeks' sentiment. Italians and French also pooh-pooh the idea of hard work. They believe that knowing the right people is crucial to getting ahead in life. The work ethic of the American worker is legendary. Coupled with American ingenuity, it is the reason Americans are more productive, more efficient and more motivated. As a result, American workers enjoy a higher standard of living than their counterparts in other countries.
This Thanksgiving celebrate the things that make America unique. They are the glue that binds us together through good times and bad. May we always live in a nation that honors God, supports its military, takes pride in country and works hard to forge a better future.
Therefore, if you are searching for something to be grateful for this Thanksgiving, here are at least four reasons to feel better about these United States:
(Editor's Note: All the statistics used in this column were gleaned from Pew Research polling reports from 2007 through 2014.)
America is a highly religious nation: Ninety percent of the people profess they believe in God. Eight in ten claim they never doubt God's existence. A surprising 76 percent say prayer is an important part of their daily life. Large percentages of Americans agree about many religious beliefs and behaviors. That is not to suggest that faith is not under attack in America. Courts have forced crosses to be torn down in public places, mandated the removal of the Ten Commandments from buildings and banned the use of prayer in certain venues. Despite this legal aggression supported by a secular media, Americans have refused to give up their practice of religion or to reject God. In times of crisis, such as when the country was ruthlessly attacked on September 11th, Americans found shelter in their churches with fellow worshipers. They steadfastly cling to the old-fashioned notion that God watches over their country. It is comforting to live in a country of believers, even if our religious practices may differ. What is important is that God maintains a prominent place in American life.
Americans are proud of their military. More than eight in 10 Americans have a favorable opinion of the armed forces. In large numbers (78%), Americans believe that the members of the military contribute "a lot" to society's well being. In fact, in a survey of 10 occupational groups, American service members come out on top, beating clergy, medical doctors, teachers and scientists, to name a few. Interestingly, the occupational group that has suffered the biggest decline in prestige since the surveys began in 2009 is journalists. No surprise there. By contrast, Americans of every political stripe have always held high opinions of the military. That should not be taken for granted because in many countries the military are often viewed disparagingly. Because Americans support their service men and women, the military has always been a force to unite the country. There is nothing as stirring as watching average Americans applaud as service members board a plane, or stroll through an airport or pass in review.
Americans are patriotic. Popular culture would suggest patriotism is a quaint idea that no longer matters. However, for more than 20 years, surveys have found an overwhelming number of Americans consider themselves patriotic. The figure has held steady at 90 percent since 1987. Sixty-two percent of Americans display the flag at their homes, in their office or on their car. This brand of American patriotism is not only responsible for the largest volunteer military in the country's history, but it motivates ordinary citizens in ways that are often overlooked. Pride in country leads to extending a helping hand to neighbors, showing up at the polls, volunteering to clean up a river, standing up for good government and supporting the building of more schools. In countries where patriotism lags, people tend to be more invested in their day-to-day survival with little time or incentive to do something for the good of others. That's why patriotism matters.
Americans believe hard works pays off. Among all nations, the United States stands out as the country where most people believe the key to getting ahead in life is hard work. Almost eight in ten (73%) Americans, are convinced hard work leads to a better future. Perhaps, you think this is true of all people around the world. Not so. In Greece, only 21 per cent of the citizens think hard work benefits people. No wonder Greece is bankrupt and unemployment stands in double-digits. And other Europeans share the Greeks' sentiment. Italians and French also pooh-pooh the idea of hard work. They believe that knowing the right people is crucial to getting ahead in life. The work ethic of the American worker is legendary. Coupled with American ingenuity, it is the reason Americans are more productive, more efficient and more motivated. As a result, American workers enjoy a higher standard of living than their counterparts in other countries.
This Thanksgiving celebrate the things that make America unique. They are the glue that binds us together through good times and bad. May we always live in a nation that honors God, supports its military, takes pride in country and works hard to forge a better future.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Citizen Journalist: How One Man Exposed Obamacare
By all accounts, Rich Weinstein is the most unlikely person in America to ignite a firestorm that threatens to topple Obamacare. The unassuming Pennsylvanian is an investment adviser. He is not a reporter, yet he exposed the underhanded tactics used to bamboozle the public on health reform.
In a San Antonio radio interview, Weinstein recounted how his journalistic journey began when his health insurance was cancelled and he was forced to enroll in Obamacare. He decided to research the law. The more he learned about his new health care coverage, the more dismayed he became.
His legwork on the internet revealed provisions buried in the law's 2,000-plus pages that had escaped media attention. Then he uncovered a bombshell: a video of one of Obamacare's architects disclosing that the bill's obfuscation was deliberate and that passage of the law required opacity.
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," bragged Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."
The bombastic tirade was a gift that Weinstein decided to share with the news media last year. Not one media outlet, including The Washington Post, thought it was newsworthy. It wasn't until the video was posted online that the media could no longer ignore the powerful unmasking of political chicanery.
Gruber, after being taken to the woodshed by Democrats, quickly apologized on President Obama's personal television network MSNBC, explaining that he had been "speaking off the cuff." But then four more damning videos surfaced and Gruber crawled into academic hiding.
But this is not just a story about a crusade by a citizen journalist. Weinstein's lone effort to shine a light on the president's signature health care reform is an indictment of the nation's media for their failure to do their own investigation of the behind-the-scenes political shenanigans.
Those paragons of journalistic principle, The New York Times, The Washington Post and ABC, NBC and CBS news, allowed their own fawning support of President Obama to cloud their news judgement. They joined hands to ensure their reporting would burnish the image of the health care law.
Now they all look foolish. As do Democrats, who are now scrambling to cover up the deliberate con they hatched to pass the president's health law. In one toxic interview, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi huffed that she had not heard of Gruber and that he had nothing to do with the law.
But some enterprising reporters found videos of Ms. Pelosi suggesting that Gruber was THE expert on health care statistics. Other journalists discovered the California representative had also featured Gruber's role in shaping Obamacare on her own website in 2009. So much for transparency.
Embarrassed by Weinstein's journalism, the news media has adopted a policy of pooh-poohing Gruber's remarks as idle chatter about routine political back room maneuvering. The Washington Post set the tone with a blog report that Gruber's offhanded comments were much ado about nothing.
"…Gruber's comments, while damning, aren't exactly the most fertile political territory," an arrogant Post columnist opined. "That's because, while "stupidity of the American voter" is a pretty strong soundbite, Gruber's connection to the law takes some explaining."
In other words, The Washington Post also believes most people are too stupid to ferret out the linkage between Gruber and Obamacare, although there is public evidence that Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and helped craft the new health care law.
Gruber's skulduggery was handsomely rewarded by the federal government. In 2009, he pocketed nearly $400,000 through contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services. Yet Pelosi and presidential spokesman Josh Earnest continue to insist Gruber played no role in Obamacare.
Public logs, readily available to journalists, document that Gruber was a regular visitor to the White House and Congress. Records show Gruber made 19 visits to the White House and Capitol Hill from 2009 to June of this year.
Despite this evidence, President Obama has distanced himself from Gruber, calling him "some adviser, who never worked on our staff." He may not have been a staff member, but Gruber was paid by the very government that the president serves as chief executive.
The only stupid Americans in this saga are The Washington Post, Democrats, Jonathan Gruber and Nancy Pelosi. Most average people now understand they were duped by the president and his Democrat allies in order to saddle Americans with inferior government-dictated health care.
It took an ordinary citizen named Rich Weinstein to divulge the sleazy deception. He is the only hero in this political tragedy. The elitist Washington Post probably considers him stupid, too.
In a San Antonio radio interview, Weinstein recounted how his journalistic journey began when his health insurance was cancelled and he was forced to enroll in Obamacare. He decided to research the law. The more he learned about his new health care coverage, the more dismayed he became.
His legwork on the internet revealed provisions buried in the law's 2,000-plus pages that had escaped media attention. Then he uncovered a bombshell: a video of one of Obamacare's architects disclosing that the bill's obfuscation was deliberate and that passage of the law required opacity.
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," bragged Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."
The bombastic tirade was a gift that Weinstein decided to share with the news media last year. Not one media outlet, including The Washington Post, thought it was newsworthy. It wasn't until the video was posted online that the media could no longer ignore the powerful unmasking of political chicanery.
Gruber, after being taken to the woodshed by Democrats, quickly apologized on President Obama's personal television network MSNBC, explaining that he had been "speaking off the cuff." But then four more damning videos surfaced and Gruber crawled into academic hiding.
But this is not just a story about a crusade by a citizen journalist. Weinstein's lone effort to shine a light on the president's signature health care reform is an indictment of the nation's media for their failure to do their own investigation of the behind-the-scenes political shenanigans.
Those paragons of journalistic principle, The New York Times, The Washington Post and ABC, NBC and CBS news, allowed their own fawning support of President Obama to cloud their news judgement. They joined hands to ensure their reporting would burnish the image of the health care law.
Now they all look foolish. As do Democrats, who are now scrambling to cover up the deliberate con they hatched to pass the president's health law. In one toxic interview, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi huffed that she had not heard of Gruber and that he had nothing to do with the law.
But some enterprising reporters found videos of Ms. Pelosi suggesting that Gruber was THE expert on health care statistics. Other journalists discovered the California representative had also featured Gruber's role in shaping Obamacare on her own website in 2009. So much for transparency.
Embarrassed by Weinstein's journalism, the news media has adopted a policy of pooh-poohing Gruber's remarks as idle chatter about routine political back room maneuvering. The Washington Post set the tone with a blog report that Gruber's offhanded comments were much ado about nothing.
"…Gruber's comments, while damning, aren't exactly the most fertile political territory," an arrogant Post columnist opined. "That's because, while "stupidity of the American voter" is a pretty strong soundbite, Gruber's connection to the law takes some explaining."
In other words, The Washington Post also believes most people are too stupid to ferret out the linkage between Gruber and Obamacare, although there is public evidence that Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and helped craft the new health care law.
Gruber's skulduggery was handsomely rewarded by the federal government. In 2009, he pocketed nearly $400,000 through contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services. Yet Pelosi and presidential spokesman Josh Earnest continue to insist Gruber played no role in Obamacare.
Public logs, readily available to journalists, document that Gruber was a regular visitor to the White House and Congress. Records show Gruber made 19 visits to the White House and Capitol Hill from 2009 to June of this year.
Despite this evidence, President Obama has distanced himself from Gruber, calling him "some adviser, who never worked on our staff." He may not have been a staff member, but Gruber was paid by the very government that the president serves as chief executive.
The only stupid Americans in this saga are The Washington Post, Democrats, Jonathan Gruber and Nancy Pelosi. Most average people now understand they were duped by the president and his Democrat allies in order to saddle Americans with inferior government-dictated health care.
It took an ordinary citizen named Rich Weinstein to divulge the sleazy deception. He is the only hero in this political tragedy. The elitist Washington Post probably considers him stupid, too.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Midterms: How To Interpret The Election Results
The Big Red Tidal Wave swamped Democrats in the midterm elections as voters sent an unmistakable message: they want a change in the direction of their country. Exit polls confirmed two-thirds of voters believe President Obama's policies have placed the country on the wrong track.
Every major media outlet from the Associated Press to The New York Times tried to spin this election as a normal shift in power to be expected for presidents in their second term. But the size of the Republican landslide, including in state races, was too embarrassing to soft pedal as politics as usual.
Make no mistake about it: this was a shellacking of historic proportions for Democrats.
This election was about a deeply unpopular president whose polling numbers have nosedived. Even Democrats quarantined Obama from campaigning in their states and distanced themselves from his policies. In a surreal development, one Democrat refused to divulge if she voted for Obama.
The president set the tone for this election when he reminded everyone the midterm elections were about his policies. His pronouncement made every Democrat flinch. But the narcissistic Obama could not resist making this election about himself. His bluster doomed his party to a stinging defeat.
In fact, since Obama took up residence in the White House, Democrats have lost 69 House seats and 13 Senate seats with several midterm runoff elections still to be decided. Under Obama, Democrats have given up more seats than under any president since Harry Truman.
As soon as a Democrat ambush was evident, the media pirouetted into damage control. News pundits fabricated a narrative about the results being an indication voters wanted to end gridlock in Washington. Not a single exit poll supported that theory. Properly analyzed, the Republican sweep means:
1. Voters made it clear they want to stop the Obama agenda. Exit polls showed most voters opposed the president's policies. A majority of successful Republican candidates painted their Democrat opponents as rubber stamps for President Obama. While Americans are not opposed to compromise, they are not interested in political bargains that advance President Obama's programs.
2. The president's broken promises to heal the economy hurt Democrats. Exit polls showed that 45 percent of voters named the economy as the top issue in the election. Although Obama endlessly drones on about economic recovery, many Americans have not experienced any change in their personal fortunes or job outlook. Voters don't care about government GDP figures, unemployment numbers or job growth data. Workers have struggled as their wages have remained static, full time jobs have evaporated and business layoffs have mounted. That's the reality Washington has ignored.
3. The GOP should not read the results as an endorsement for the party brand. Few Republicans ran on issues, but instead forced Democrats to defend the president and his policies. This was not a campaign about bold ideas. In fact, there was a dearth of ideas in Democrat and Republican campaigns. The single issue was President Obama. Republicans now need to make their case on how their party is better equipped to govern. Opposition to Obama must take the form of creative ideas on issues important to Americans. The first step should be to announce a comprehensive legislative agenda early in January before the State of the Union address.
4. The midterms cannot be extrapolated to give Republicans an upper hand for 2016. The turnout for midterm elections, as documented here in this space last week, is very different than presidential contests. As the last two elections have shown, minorities and young people tend to stay home for midterms but turnout for presidential elections. The Republicans need to extend their reach to take advantage of the momentum they created in last week's election. Unless they do, the GOP faces an uphill battle because Democrats have won the same 18 "blue" states in six straight presidential elections, accounting for 242 electoral votes. That leaves Democrats needing only 28 more electoral votes to win the presidency. Those are daunting numbers to overcome.
5. The touted Clinton magic fizzled. Former President Bill Clinton campaigned relentlessly in his home state for Arkansas Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor. The incumbent senator lost as did Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley, who enjoyed the full-throated endorsement of Hillary Clinton. The former Secretary of State also backed Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, another loser. In all, her coattails were entangled with five losing candidates. This does not bode well for Mrs. Clinton, who has already been anointed by the media as a shoo-in for president in 2016. Based on the election results, the Clinton candidacy no longer enjoys an aura of invincibility or inevitability.
For his part, President Obama's post-election news conference made it clear he assumes no responsibility for the demise of his party. He defiantly clung to his defeated vision for America in the face of a bitter rebuke by voters. His self-denial made him seem pitifully equipped to lead the nation.
Six years ago, the president crowed about how "elections have consequences." Indeed, they do. For his final two years in office, President Obama will have to deal with a suddenly empowered opposition party, a dispirited Democrat minority and an angry electorate.
Obama has only to gaze in a mirror to find the culprit for the dismal outlook for the remainder of his presidency.
Every major media outlet from the Associated Press to The New York Times tried to spin this election as a normal shift in power to be expected for presidents in their second term. But the size of the Republican landslide, including in state races, was too embarrassing to soft pedal as politics as usual.
Make no mistake about it: this was a shellacking of historic proportions for Democrats.
This election was about a deeply unpopular president whose polling numbers have nosedived. Even Democrats quarantined Obama from campaigning in their states and distanced themselves from his policies. In a surreal development, one Democrat refused to divulge if she voted for Obama.
The president set the tone for this election when he reminded everyone the midterm elections were about his policies. His pronouncement made every Democrat flinch. But the narcissistic Obama could not resist making this election about himself. His bluster doomed his party to a stinging defeat.
In fact, since Obama took up residence in the White House, Democrats have lost 69 House seats and 13 Senate seats with several midterm runoff elections still to be decided. Under Obama, Democrats have given up more seats than under any president since Harry Truman.
As soon as a Democrat ambush was evident, the media pirouetted into damage control. News pundits fabricated a narrative about the results being an indication voters wanted to end gridlock in Washington. Not a single exit poll supported that theory. Properly analyzed, the Republican sweep means:
1. Voters made it clear they want to stop the Obama agenda. Exit polls showed most voters opposed the president's policies. A majority of successful Republican candidates painted their Democrat opponents as rubber stamps for President Obama. While Americans are not opposed to compromise, they are not interested in political bargains that advance President Obama's programs.
2. The president's broken promises to heal the economy hurt Democrats. Exit polls showed that 45 percent of voters named the economy as the top issue in the election. Although Obama endlessly drones on about economic recovery, many Americans have not experienced any change in their personal fortunes or job outlook. Voters don't care about government GDP figures, unemployment numbers or job growth data. Workers have struggled as their wages have remained static, full time jobs have evaporated and business layoffs have mounted. That's the reality Washington has ignored.
3. The GOP should not read the results as an endorsement for the party brand. Few Republicans ran on issues, but instead forced Democrats to defend the president and his policies. This was not a campaign about bold ideas. In fact, there was a dearth of ideas in Democrat and Republican campaigns. The single issue was President Obama. Republicans now need to make their case on how their party is better equipped to govern. Opposition to Obama must take the form of creative ideas on issues important to Americans. The first step should be to announce a comprehensive legislative agenda early in January before the State of the Union address.
4. The midterms cannot be extrapolated to give Republicans an upper hand for 2016. The turnout for midterm elections, as documented here in this space last week, is very different than presidential contests. As the last two elections have shown, minorities and young people tend to stay home for midterms but turnout for presidential elections. The Republicans need to extend their reach to take advantage of the momentum they created in last week's election. Unless they do, the GOP faces an uphill battle because Democrats have won the same 18 "blue" states in six straight presidential elections, accounting for 242 electoral votes. That leaves Democrats needing only 28 more electoral votes to win the presidency. Those are daunting numbers to overcome.
5. The touted Clinton magic fizzled. Former President Bill Clinton campaigned relentlessly in his home state for Arkansas Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor. The incumbent senator lost as did Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley, who enjoyed the full-throated endorsement of Hillary Clinton. The former Secretary of State also backed Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, another loser. In all, her coattails were entangled with five losing candidates. This does not bode well for Mrs. Clinton, who has already been anointed by the media as a shoo-in for president in 2016. Based on the election results, the Clinton candidacy no longer enjoys an aura of invincibility or inevitability.
For his part, President Obama's post-election news conference made it clear he assumes no responsibility for the demise of his party. He defiantly clung to his defeated vision for America in the face of a bitter rebuke by voters. His self-denial made him seem pitifully equipped to lead the nation.
Six years ago, the president crowed about how "elections have consequences." Indeed, they do. For his final two years in office, President Obama will have to deal with a suddenly empowered opposition party, a dispirited Democrat minority and an angry electorate.
Obama has only to gaze in a mirror to find the culprit for the dismal outlook for the remainder of his presidency.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Boko Haram: The Real War on Women
The kidnappings, rape and torture of women in Nigeria continues unabated, despite the Obama Administration's ballyhooed #BringBackOurGirls crusade on social media. Apparently, Islamic terrorists are not easily swayed by fustian hashtag slogans and waspish tweets on Twitter.
The silly campaign has failed to stem the wave of violence unleashed by the militant Islamist group Boko Haram operating in Africa's most populous country. These Muslin savages target Christian women and girls, threatening them with death and torture if they refuse to convert to Islam.
Human Rights Watch, an international organization that chronicles abuses, estimates that Boko Haram has killed at least 2,053 civilians in an about 95 attacks since the first half of this year. The religious mob has abducted more than 500 women and girls since 2009.
After a video was released in April showing 276 kidnapped girls, First Lady Michelle Obama championed the drive to declare hashtag war on Boko Haram as a way of calling attention to their utter disregard for human nights. The terrorists were unmoved by the social media uproar.
Since that sophomoric movement was launched, Boko Haram has stepped up its reign of terror in Nigeria. Reports documenting escalating violence and abuse have surfaced in recent weeks from women and girls who escaped from secret forest camps where they were imprisoned.
The Nigerian girls recounted chilling episodes of physical torture, rape and forced marriages. In some cases, the girls were used as bait to lure Christian men to their death at the hands of Boko Haram goons. Other victims were forced to take part in attacks led by their captors.
The terrorist organization has been around since 2009 when it launched military operations against the Nigerian government with the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Nigeria, home to 121 million Muslims. The adherents of Islam represent 70 percent of the nation's population.
The name Boko Haram is loosely translated as "Western Education is Forbidden," which helps explain why it wants to stop girls from attending school. According to intelligence reports, Boko Haram receives support from al Qaeda affiliates in Africa, including money, weapons and training.
Aububakar Shekau is the spiritual and military leader of the thuggish group. Not much is known about this ruthless insurgent, who has earned a $7 million bounty on his head, courtesy of the U.S. government. His history may be cloaked in mystery, but his cruelty is legendary.
For example, a video clip appeared of him yucking it up as he admitted kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls earlier this year. Shekau glared into the camera lens and defiantly stated:
"I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah. I will sell them off and marry them off." By all accounts, he has been true to his heinous threat.
The terrorists certainly have nothing to fear from the Obama Administration. Unless, of course, the bloodthirsty killers are intimidated by hashtags and empty threats. For an administration that has opposed the "war on women," their response in this case has not matched their outrage.
Meanwhile, Boko Haram continues to inflict punishment on innocent civilians. Just a few weeks ago, the gangsters abducted another 80 girls and women, who are condemned to endure unspeakable suffering. The administration's silence over this latest tragedy is deafening.
The silly campaign has failed to stem the wave of violence unleashed by the militant Islamist group Boko Haram operating in Africa's most populous country. These Muslin savages target Christian women and girls, threatening them with death and torture if they refuse to convert to Islam.
Human Rights Watch, an international organization that chronicles abuses, estimates that Boko Haram has killed at least 2,053 civilians in an about 95 attacks since the first half of this year. The religious mob has abducted more than 500 women and girls since 2009.
After a video was released in April showing 276 kidnapped girls, First Lady Michelle Obama championed the drive to declare hashtag war on Boko Haram as a way of calling attention to their utter disregard for human nights. The terrorists were unmoved by the social media uproar.
Since that sophomoric movement was launched, Boko Haram has stepped up its reign of terror in Nigeria. Reports documenting escalating violence and abuse have surfaced in recent weeks from women and girls who escaped from secret forest camps where they were imprisoned.
The Nigerian girls recounted chilling episodes of physical torture, rape and forced marriages. In some cases, the girls were used as bait to lure Christian men to their death at the hands of Boko Haram goons. Other victims were forced to take part in attacks led by their captors.
The terrorist organization has been around since 2009 when it launched military operations against the Nigerian government with the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Nigeria, home to 121 million Muslims. The adherents of Islam represent 70 percent of the nation's population.
The name Boko Haram is loosely translated as "Western Education is Forbidden," which helps explain why it wants to stop girls from attending school. According to intelligence reports, Boko Haram receives support from al Qaeda affiliates in Africa, including money, weapons and training.
Aububakar Shekau is the spiritual and military leader of the thuggish group. Not much is known about this ruthless insurgent, who has earned a $7 million bounty on his head, courtesy of the U.S. government. His history may be cloaked in mystery, but his cruelty is legendary.
For example, a video clip appeared of him yucking it up as he admitted kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls earlier this year. Shekau glared into the camera lens and defiantly stated:
"I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah. I will sell them off and marry them off." By all accounts, he has been true to his heinous threat.
The terrorists certainly have nothing to fear from the Obama Administration. Unless, of course, the bloodthirsty killers are intimidated by hashtags and empty threats. For an administration that has opposed the "war on women," their response in this case has not matched their outrage.
Meanwhile, Boko Haram continues to inflict punishment on innocent civilians. Just a few weeks ago, the gangsters abducted another 80 girls and women, who are condemned to endure unspeakable suffering. The administration's silence over this latest tragedy is deafening.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Midterm Elections: Old, White Voters Hold Key
Every pollster, political pundit and media practitioner has weighed in on the nation's midterm elections. Their predictions range from a Republican rout to a Democrat miracle. But their forecasts are exercises in conceit because this election hinges on voter turnout, not on traditional polling results.
Historically, fewer voters go to the polls during years when there is no presidential election. This has been true since the 1840's reversing a trend when midterm elections typically lured more voters than presidential contests. That changed when most states repealed laws requiring voters to own property.
In 2008's presidential election, 57.1 percent of the voting-age populace cast ballots. That was the highest level in four decades. Two years later for the midterms, 36.9 percent of the voting-age population trekked to the polls as the GOP reclaimed the majority in the House of Representatives
Voter turnout slipped to 53.7 percent in the 2012 presidential election. Pew Research, which conducts extensive voter surveys, has predicted that "a lot fewer people" will vote this midterm than did in 2012. If their estimate proves accurate, then Democrats are likely to take a beating at the polls.
Brown University researcher Brian Knight in a recent paper concluded the falloff in voter turnout for midterm elections usually benefits the party that does not hold the White House. He calls it a "presidential penalty" as voters use the mid-terms to express dissatisfaction with the Oval Office holder.
That cannot be good news for Democrats because in the most recent polls President Obama's approval ratings have tumbled to new lows.
As Knight's research indicates, the president's party almost always loses Congressional seats in the midterm elections, regardless of approval ratings. Since 1842, the party of the president has dropped seats in 40 of 43 midterm elections. The lone exceptions were the midterms of 1934, 1998 and 2002.
Some political observers claim the Republicans have a built-in advantage in turnout in the midterm elections. Their rationale is based on exit polling data that reveals midterms attract older and white voters to the polls in disproportionate numbers.
For example, in the last midterm election in 2010 exit polling shows that 21 percent of all voters were over the age of 65. By comparison, seniors comprised only 17 percent of voters in the 2012 presidential election. Voters under the age of 30 cast just 12 percent of the votes in the last midterms, but represented 19 percent of those who cast ballots in the presidential election.
The key for Republicans: in the last midterms 61 percent of those 65-and-older voted with the GOP candidate.
Republicans also have done better with whites in the midterms. For instance, in the 2010 midterms House GOP candidates captured 62 percent of the white vote, while Democrats got 38 percent. In the presidential election of 2012, Democrats did better with whites, winning 60 percent of their votes in Congressional races.
This midterm racial gap favors Republicans because turnout of whites is proportionately higher than non-whites, according to exit polls compiled by The New York Times and CNN. To underscore the point, whites represented 72 percent of all voters in the presidential election, but accounted for 77 percent in the 2010 midterms.
Forget the current polling data. Winners in next week's midterms will be decided by voter turnout. If the past is any indication of this election, then Republicans will enhance their majority in the House and will narrowly capture the Senate. If that happens, the GOP likely will have old, white voters to thank for their victory.
However, if the turnout skews differently than past midterms, then all bets are off.
Historically, fewer voters go to the polls during years when there is no presidential election. This has been true since the 1840's reversing a trend when midterm elections typically lured more voters than presidential contests. That changed when most states repealed laws requiring voters to own property.
In 2008's presidential election, 57.1 percent of the voting-age populace cast ballots. That was the highest level in four decades. Two years later for the midterms, 36.9 percent of the voting-age population trekked to the polls as the GOP reclaimed the majority in the House of Representatives
Voter turnout slipped to 53.7 percent in the 2012 presidential election. Pew Research, which conducts extensive voter surveys, has predicted that "a lot fewer people" will vote this midterm than did in 2012. If their estimate proves accurate, then Democrats are likely to take a beating at the polls.
Brown University researcher Brian Knight in a recent paper concluded the falloff in voter turnout for midterm elections usually benefits the party that does not hold the White House. He calls it a "presidential penalty" as voters use the mid-terms to express dissatisfaction with the Oval Office holder.
That cannot be good news for Democrats because in the most recent polls President Obama's approval ratings have tumbled to new lows.
As Knight's research indicates, the president's party almost always loses Congressional seats in the midterm elections, regardless of approval ratings. Since 1842, the party of the president has dropped seats in 40 of 43 midterm elections. The lone exceptions were the midterms of 1934, 1998 and 2002.
Some political observers claim the Republicans have a built-in advantage in turnout in the midterm elections. Their rationale is based on exit polling data that reveals midterms attract older and white voters to the polls in disproportionate numbers.
For example, in the last midterm election in 2010 exit polling shows that 21 percent of all voters were over the age of 65. By comparison, seniors comprised only 17 percent of voters in the 2012 presidential election. Voters under the age of 30 cast just 12 percent of the votes in the last midterms, but represented 19 percent of those who cast ballots in the presidential election.
The key for Republicans: in the last midterms 61 percent of those 65-and-older voted with the GOP candidate.
Republicans also have done better with whites in the midterms. For instance, in the 2010 midterms House GOP candidates captured 62 percent of the white vote, while Democrats got 38 percent. In the presidential election of 2012, Democrats did better with whites, winning 60 percent of their votes in Congressional races.
This midterm racial gap favors Republicans because turnout of whites is proportionately higher than non-whites, according to exit polls compiled by The New York Times and CNN. To underscore the point, whites represented 72 percent of all voters in the presidential election, but accounted for 77 percent in the 2010 midterms.
Forget the current polling data. Winners in next week's midterms will be decided by voter turnout. If the past is any indication of this election, then Republicans will enhance their majority in the House and will narrowly capture the Senate. If that happens, the GOP likely will have old, white voters to thank for their victory.
However, if the turnout skews differently than past midterms, then all bets are off.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Ebola: What the CDC Isn't Telling Americans
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has an undeserved cache. Many view the CDC as the country's premiere health organization on the front lines of battling infectious diseases, like Ebola. However, the truth is the CDC is just another dysfunctional government bureaucracy.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the CDC's main job is to dole out tax dollars to other agencies. Eighty-five percent of the agency's 2014 annual budget of $6.8 billion will be dispatched in the form of grants to state and local health organizations, global health groups and communities.
The CDC, which opened its doors in Atlanta in 1946, has mushroomed from an agency with a $10 million budget and 400 employees to a federal behemoth. The agency has 10,000 full-time staff members, employs 6,000 contractors and maintains 14 locations throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
Despite its size, agency is ill equipped to deal with a major outbreak such as the Ebola virus. The CDC has carved out its niche in the areas of disease surveillance, research funding, statistical reporting and dissemination of information. Response to infectious epidemics ranks far down its list of priorities.
That has become painfully obvious with each misstep and contradictory statement from CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, an appointee of President Obama who once ran the activist New York City Heath Department. His claim to fame was banning trans fats in restaurants.
Pathetically, Dr. Frieden has clung to the notion that his job is not to panic Americans. But in adhering to this mantra, he has failed in his duty to keep the nation fully informed with truthful information.
Here are some examples of what the CDC hasn't told Americans:
1. This outbreak of Ebola is the deadliest in recorded history. Ebola was first discovered in 1976 and the World Health Organization (WHO) has documented 25 outbreaks that have claimed 1,590 victims in the ensuing years. The current pandemic has killed more people than all the others combined. The most recent estimate from WHO is that 4,493 people have died from Ebola in seven countries since the latest epidemic began earlier this year. The director of WHO calls Ebola one of the "deadliest pathogens on Earth." Dr. Frieden told Americans not to worry because the U.S. medical system knows how to stop Ebola in its tracks.
2. The current Ebola epidemic is vastly different than past outbreaks. Stanford University reports past Ebola outbreaks were initially spread by human contact with infected chimpanzees and fruit bats. This time the pathogen has been transmitted in nearly all cases by human-to-human contact with bodily fluids and tissue. The mortality rate for those who contract the virus has been extremely high. Out of 8,997 confirmed cases of Ebola, nearly one-half (49.93%) have died, according to WHO. However, WHO predicts the mortality rate is likely to soar to 70 percent as the number of cases multiplies.
3. The U.S. allowed Ebola to come to its shores because it had no travel ban. The disease was confined to West Africa in the past. The hardest hit countries this year are Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. No one on U.S. soil had ever contracted Ebola until now. Once the virus arrived, America lost its status as a safe haven from Ebola. There are no medically approved vaccines to prevent the spread of Ebola. Two vaccines are being tested at this time but are not commercially available. Blood transfusions have proven effective in helping recent patients fight the virus. However, the blood donors have been Ebola survivors, a very small universe. Despite Dr. Frieden's assurances, once the virus is unleashed it is difficult to contain and to effectively treat.
4. Most U.S. hospitals are not equipped to deal with Ebola. A study this year by the American Journal of Infection Control found that more than one-third of all U.S. hospitals have no certified infection prevention specialist on staff. In addition, state and federal regulators issued citations for infection control deficiencies to more than 250 hospitals during an investigation conducted from 2011 through June of this year. As the Dallas hospital experience with Ebola patients has shown, special training, hazmat equipment and strict protocols are needed to deal with the infectious virus. One or more of those are lacking in most hospitals. Yet Dr. Frieden lectured Americans like little children, informing them that the U.S. medical system was prepared to handle Ebola cases.
4. The CDC has not made funding of infectious disease programs a priority. Desperate Democrats are bellyaching that Republicans cut appropriations to fight Ebola. In fact, President Obama's 2014 budget proposal for the CDC was $270 million less than the agency's funding request. The problem is the CDC has diverted funds from its program to fight infectious disease outbreaks to non-essential items. Under provisions in Obamacare, the CDC has received nearly $3 billion in additional funds in the last five years. Just six percent was earmarked for expanding epidemiology and lab capacity, two critical building blocks in the effort to curb infectious diseases. Meanwhile the agency has spent $517.3 million during those five years on community grant programs to improve sidewalks for walkers and bikers, increase access to grocery stores and to support local farmers. Yet Dr. Frieden maintains fighting infectious diseases is the agency's priority
The Pollyanna approach of the CDC and its director Dr. Frieden have made Americans less vigilant and more vulnerable. Allowing West Africans to travel freely to the U.S. was a mistake that led directly to the spread of the disease in this country. Continuing that policy is unconscionable. At last count, 30 nations had instituted travel bans while the Obama Administration has stubbornly refused.
Americans have been lulled into a false sense of security by the CDC, the president and their shills in the media, who keep reminding everyone that more people die of influenza than Ebola. Unlike the flu virus, Ebola is a deadly pathogen that is expanding and accelerating geographically. WHO predicts the number of cases may zoom to 10,000 a week in West Africa by December.
Now that Ebola has arrived in the U.S., an urgent response is demanded. Reassuring bromides from Dr. Frieden are not a deterrence to the spread of Ebola. Neither is the president's appointment of a Washington political hack to be Ebola Czar. That move is nothing more than window dressing.
The contagion that poses the biggest threat to Americans is the ineptness of the current administration, the CDC and the federal government in responding to this crisis.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the CDC's main job is to dole out tax dollars to other agencies. Eighty-five percent of the agency's 2014 annual budget of $6.8 billion will be dispatched in the form of grants to state and local health organizations, global health groups and communities.
The CDC, which opened its doors in Atlanta in 1946, has mushroomed from an agency with a $10 million budget and 400 employees to a federal behemoth. The agency has 10,000 full-time staff members, employs 6,000 contractors and maintains 14 locations throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
Despite its size, agency is ill equipped to deal with a major outbreak such as the Ebola virus. The CDC has carved out its niche in the areas of disease surveillance, research funding, statistical reporting and dissemination of information. Response to infectious epidemics ranks far down its list of priorities.
That has become painfully obvious with each misstep and contradictory statement from CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, an appointee of President Obama who once ran the activist New York City Heath Department. His claim to fame was banning trans fats in restaurants.
Pathetically, Dr. Frieden has clung to the notion that his job is not to panic Americans. But in adhering to this mantra, he has failed in his duty to keep the nation fully informed with truthful information.
Here are some examples of what the CDC hasn't told Americans:
1. This outbreak of Ebola is the deadliest in recorded history. Ebola was first discovered in 1976 and the World Health Organization (WHO) has documented 25 outbreaks that have claimed 1,590 victims in the ensuing years. The current pandemic has killed more people than all the others combined. The most recent estimate from WHO is that 4,493 people have died from Ebola in seven countries since the latest epidemic began earlier this year. The director of WHO calls Ebola one of the "deadliest pathogens on Earth." Dr. Frieden told Americans not to worry because the U.S. medical system knows how to stop Ebola in its tracks.
2. The current Ebola epidemic is vastly different than past outbreaks. Stanford University reports past Ebola outbreaks were initially spread by human contact with infected chimpanzees and fruit bats. This time the pathogen has been transmitted in nearly all cases by human-to-human contact with bodily fluids and tissue. The mortality rate for those who contract the virus has been extremely high. Out of 8,997 confirmed cases of Ebola, nearly one-half (49.93%) have died, according to WHO. However, WHO predicts the mortality rate is likely to soar to 70 percent as the number of cases multiplies.
3. The U.S. allowed Ebola to come to its shores because it had no travel ban. The disease was confined to West Africa in the past. The hardest hit countries this year are Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. No one on U.S. soil had ever contracted Ebola until now. Once the virus arrived, America lost its status as a safe haven from Ebola. There are no medically approved vaccines to prevent the spread of Ebola. Two vaccines are being tested at this time but are not commercially available. Blood transfusions have proven effective in helping recent patients fight the virus. However, the blood donors have been Ebola survivors, a very small universe. Despite Dr. Frieden's assurances, once the virus is unleashed it is difficult to contain and to effectively treat.
4. Most U.S. hospitals are not equipped to deal with Ebola. A study this year by the American Journal of Infection Control found that more than one-third of all U.S. hospitals have no certified infection prevention specialist on staff. In addition, state and federal regulators issued citations for infection control deficiencies to more than 250 hospitals during an investigation conducted from 2011 through June of this year. As the Dallas hospital experience with Ebola patients has shown, special training, hazmat equipment and strict protocols are needed to deal with the infectious virus. One or more of those are lacking in most hospitals. Yet Dr. Frieden lectured Americans like little children, informing them that the U.S. medical system was prepared to handle Ebola cases.
4. The CDC has not made funding of infectious disease programs a priority. Desperate Democrats are bellyaching that Republicans cut appropriations to fight Ebola. In fact, President Obama's 2014 budget proposal for the CDC was $270 million less than the agency's funding request. The problem is the CDC has diverted funds from its program to fight infectious disease outbreaks to non-essential items. Under provisions in Obamacare, the CDC has received nearly $3 billion in additional funds in the last five years. Just six percent was earmarked for expanding epidemiology and lab capacity, two critical building blocks in the effort to curb infectious diseases. Meanwhile the agency has spent $517.3 million during those five years on community grant programs to improve sidewalks for walkers and bikers, increase access to grocery stores and to support local farmers. Yet Dr. Frieden maintains fighting infectious diseases is the agency's priority
The Pollyanna approach of the CDC and its director Dr. Frieden have made Americans less vigilant and more vulnerable. Allowing West Africans to travel freely to the U.S. was a mistake that led directly to the spread of the disease in this country. Continuing that policy is unconscionable. At last count, 30 nations had instituted travel bans while the Obama Administration has stubbornly refused.
Americans have been lulled into a false sense of security by the CDC, the president and their shills in the media, who keep reminding everyone that more people die of influenza than Ebola. Unlike the flu virus, Ebola is a deadly pathogen that is expanding and accelerating geographically. WHO predicts the number of cases may zoom to 10,000 a week in West Africa by December.
Now that Ebola has arrived in the U.S., an urgent response is demanded. Reassuring bromides from Dr. Frieden are not a deterrence to the spread of Ebola. Neither is the president's appointment of a Washington political hack to be Ebola Czar. That move is nothing more than window dressing.
The contagion that poses the biggest threat to Americans is the ineptness of the current administration, the CDC and the federal government in responding to this crisis.
Monday, October 13, 2014
ISIS: World's Bloodiest, Brutal Savages
The world has come to know the the blood thirsty jihadists savaging Iraqi citizens as the Islamic State. But that nom de guerre has lulled many into believing their cause is about religion when in fact they are the worst barbaric scourge to be unleashed on the world since Nazi Germany.
While the American media debates whether to call the thugs ISIS or ISIL, news outlets in this country have failed in their duty to document the sheer evil of men who ruthlessly rape women and children, slaughter entire villages of people and commit all manner of horrific atrocities.
Forget the acronym feud. These are cold-blooded killers who use Islam as an excuse to destroy towns, unmercifully attack schools and demolish hospitals. They behead, crucify, amputate and disfigure their victims. The cruelty of these butchers knows no human bounds.
The news media in other countries, especially the United Kingdom, have published pictures and posted disturbing videos online to show the depth of these killers' savagery. One peek at these images would repulse most Americans. But people need to view the horror to appreciate the hateful curse of ISIS.
In one graphic video, a vicious mob operating under the cover of darkness knocks on the door of a Sunni police major in Iraq. When the policeman answers, the gangsters blindfold and handcuff the startled victim. Then they carve off his head with a knife as the cameras capture the ghoulish scene.
Another demonic video shows about 15 Iraqi young men frog-marched to a ditch, hands bound behind their backs. The victims are forced to kneel. Then a firing squad of about 20 triggermen discharge a barrage of AK-47 gunfire. Their execution complete, the murderers hoist their weapons in celebration.
These depraved killings have gone unreported in the U.S. because the media do not want to inflame Americans, most of whom currently do not support using ground troops against these heartless killers. When the beheading of an American journalist fueled patriotic anger, the media switched tactics.
For the most part, the American media now have chosen to cover the carnage by relying on the sanitized Department of State briefings from spokesperson Jen Psaki, the queen of obfuscation and sophistry. Her ambiguity is eclipsed only by her equivocation.
It is a sad state of affairs when the United Nations publishes more reliable information about the deadly campaign than the United States government.
The UN estimates that 9,341 civilians have been murdered and 17,386 wounded in the bloody offensive that has terrorized Iraqi since the year began. These figures do not include the killings in the bloodstained provinces in Syria where ISIS controls large swathes of territory.
The UN High Commission for Human Rights has documented countless depraved acts and abuses from the war-torn area in Iraq. For instance, as many as 2,500 women and children have been captured, subjected to sexual attacks and sold into slavery for $10 a head by extremist militants.
The commission has uncovered what it calls increasing attacks against Christians and Muslins. One eyewitness in the village of Kobani in Syria told UN investigators of "women being raped and their hearts cut out of their chests and left on the tops of their bodies."
In addition, there have been confirmed reports of mass execution sites and makeshift graves, according to Human Rights Watch. Many of the dead were sadistically gunned down for refusing to renounce their faith. Implausibly, not one single prominent Muslin leader has condemned the violence.
The killing wastelands of Iraq and Syria stand as an indictment of America's lack of willingness to engage an enemy that has publicly vowed to destroy this nation. The Islamic State, or whatever euphemism you want to call these cut throats, should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.
The world cannot stand by while women, children and men are exterminated. Humankind did once before and 6 million Jews perished at the hands of evil madmen. How high must the death toll rise before America and the world act decisively to rid the the planet of this latest terror?
While the American media debates whether to call the thugs ISIS or ISIL, news outlets in this country have failed in their duty to document the sheer evil of men who ruthlessly rape women and children, slaughter entire villages of people and commit all manner of horrific atrocities.
Forget the acronym feud. These are cold-blooded killers who use Islam as an excuse to destroy towns, unmercifully attack schools and demolish hospitals. They behead, crucify, amputate and disfigure their victims. The cruelty of these butchers knows no human bounds.
The news media in other countries, especially the United Kingdom, have published pictures and posted disturbing videos online to show the depth of these killers' savagery. One peek at these images would repulse most Americans. But people need to view the horror to appreciate the hateful curse of ISIS.
In one graphic video, a vicious mob operating under the cover of darkness knocks on the door of a Sunni police major in Iraq. When the policeman answers, the gangsters blindfold and handcuff the startled victim. Then they carve off his head with a knife as the cameras capture the ghoulish scene.
Another demonic video shows about 15 Iraqi young men frog-marched to a ditch, hands bound behind their backs. The victims are forced to kneel. Then a firing squad of about 20 triggermen discharge a barrage of AK-47 gunfire. Their execution complete, the murderers hoist their weapons in celebration.
These depraved killings have gone unreported in the U.S. because the media do not want to inflame Americans, most of whom currently do not support using ground troops against these heartless killers. When the beheading of an American journalist fueled patriotic anger, the media switched tactics.
For the most part, the American media now have chosen to cover the carnage by relying on the sanitized Department of State briefings from spokesperson Jen Psaki, the queen of obfuscation and sophistry. Her ambiguity is eclipsed only by her equivocation.
It is a sad state of affairs when the United Nations publishes more reliable information about the deadly campaign than the United States government.
The UN estimates that 9,341 civilians have been murdered and 17,386 wounded in the bloody offensive that has terrorized Iraqi since the year began. These figures do not include the killings in the bloodstained provinces in Syria where ISIS controls large swathes of territory.
The UN High Commission for Human Rights has documented countless depraved acts and abuses from the war-torn area in Iraq. For instance, as many as 2,500 women and children have been captured, subjected to sexual attacks and sold into slavery for $10 a head by extremist militants.
The commission has uncovered what it calls increasing attacks against Christians and Muslins. One eyewitness in the village of Kobani in Syria told UN investigators of "women being raped and their hearts cut out of their chests and left on the tops of their bodies."
In addition, there have been confirmed reports of mass execution sites and makeshift graves, according to Human Rights Watch. Many of the dead were sadistically gunned down for refusing to renounce their faith. Implausibly, not one single prominent Muslin leader has condemned the violence.
The killing wastelands of Iraq and Syria stand as an indictment of America's lack of willingness to engage an enemy that has publicly vowed to destroy this nation. The Islamic State, or whatever euphemism you want to call these cut throats, should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.
The world cannot stand by while women, children and men are exterminated. Humankind did once before and 6 million Jews perished at the hands of evil madmen. How high must the death toll rise before America and the world act decisively to rid the the planet of this latest terror?
Monday, October 6, 2014
Should Schools Teach Patriotism?
A brouhaha erupted in Colorado recently over a school board proposal to promote patriotism, citizenship and respect for authority in the school curriculum. Students and teachers were so appalled by the notion that they walked out of class. They speciously claimed their actions were patriotic.
The Colorado skirmish was only the most recent rebellion. There have been battles in Texas and South Carolina over similar moves by so-called "conservatives" to tinker with high school education. In these clashes, it is clear that parents and school boards are expected to butt out of school business.
The education establishment treats schools as their own personal property. Never mind that tax paying citizens foot the bill for the schooling of the next generation. They are expected to pony up the money without having any say in education. This is truly taxation without representation.
School boards are supposed to be the duly elected representatives of taxpayers, parents and the public at large. But if board members dare to buck the education establishment, they are drawn and quartered in the media and mugged by teacher unions. That's what makes the Colorado case instructive.
The school board in a suburban Denver district thought students would benefit by focusing on American values, like patriotism. It seemed like a modest proposal to include such topics in history education. Some students and teachers compared the idea to censorship.
Censorship is exercised every day in American schools by principals, teachers and unions. Schools dictate dress, decorum, speech, textbooks, teaching methods, food services and every aspect of education. The sharp stick of censorship is wielded by the education apparatus.
No one has yet explained how teaching patriotism would harm students. The whiners in Colorado think promoting patriotism would downplay America's troubled past. That seems far fetched considering research about students' views of their country.
A Pew Research Poll this summer found that just 15 percent of young people ( ages 18-29) hold the view that America is the greatest country in the world. And the numbers are plummeting. Just three years ago, 27 percent of youngsters agreed the U.S. stood above all other countries.
The polling firm did not offer any reason for the sharp drop in attitudes. Perhaps, the Colorado school board read the same survey and decided to do something about it. Good for them. A nation without patriots is a country in irreparable decay.
Patriotism is more than just waving an American flag. It is more than the rote recital of the Pledge of Allegiance. It is not blind obedience nor mindless homage to the country or its leaders. Patriotism is about fealty to the uniquely American ideal of liberty, the bedrock on which the nation was chiseled.
America was the first country to declare that all men were free. Today that idea may seem old-fashioned, but in the 18th century democracy was a novel concept, too. No nation had ever been birthed on such a bold theory. Many predicted America would become a failed experiment.
The United States of America has survived nearly 240 years, outliving many countries that have fallen into the abyss of tyranny and oppression. That's why patriotism is worth teaching every citizen, including the youngest and brightest among us. Those who object should be heard but not followed.
If the education establishment finds patriotism so abhorrent, perhaps it is because they consider it an unnatural sentiment. However, there are no greater beneficiaries of unfettered freedom than teachers, principals and students. Perhaps, they need reminding of that fact every day in the classroom.
The Colorado skirmish was only the most recent rebellion. There have been battles in Texas and South Carolina over similar moves by so-called "conservatives" to tinker with high school education. In these clashes, it is clear that parents and school boards are expected to butt out of school business.
The education establishment treats schools as their own personal property. Never mind that tax paying citizens foot the bill for the schooling of the next generation. They are expected to pony up the money without having any say in education. This is truly taxation without representation.
School boards are supposed to be the duly elected representatives of taxpayers, parents and the public at large. But if board members dare to buck the education establishment, they are drawn and quartered in the media and mugged by teacher unions. That's what makes the Colorado case instructive.
The school board in a suburban Denver district thought students would benefit by focusing on American values, like patriotism. It seemed like a modest proposal to include such topics in history education. Some students and teachers compared the idea to censorship.
Censorship is exercised every day in American schools by principals, teachers and unions. Schools dictate dress, decorum, speech, textbooks, teaching methods, food services and every aspect of education. The sharp stick of censorship is wielded by the education apparatus.
No one has yet explained how teaching patriotism would harm students. The whiners in Colorado think promoting patriotism would downplay America's troubled past. That seems far fetched considering research about students' views of their country.
A Pew Research Poll this summer found that just 15 percent of young people ( ages 18-29) hold the view that America is the greatest country in the world. And the numbers are plummeting. Just three years ago, 27 percent of youngsters agreed the U.S. stood above all other countries.
The polling firm did not offer any reason for the sharp drop in attitudes. Perhaps, the Colorado school board read the same survey and decided to do something about it. Good for them. A nation without patriots is a country in irreparable decay.
Patriotism is more than just waving an American flag. It is more than the rote recital of the Pledge of Allegiance. It is not blind obedience nor mindless homage to the country or its leaders. Patriotism is about fealty to the uniquely American ideal of liberty, the bedrock on which the nation was chiseled.
America was the first country to declare that all men were free. Today that idea may seem old-fashioned, but in the 18th century democracy was a novel concept, too. No nation had ever been birthed on such a bold theory. Many predicted America would become a failed experiment.
The United States of America has survived nearly 240 years, outliving many countries that have fallen into the abyss of tyranny and oppression. That's why patriotism is worth teaching every citizen, including the youngest and brightest among us. Those who object should be heard but not followed.
If the education establishment finds patriotism so abhorrent, perhaps it is because they consider it an unnatural sentiment. However, there are no greater beneficiaries of unfettered freedom than teachers, principals and students. Perhaps, they need reminding of that fact every day in the classroom.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Finally, One Thing Most Americans Agree On
In these divisive times, it is virtually impossible to find public agreement on any topic. However, it turns out an overwhelming majority of Americans concur on one issue. Fully 76 percent of citizens have no confidence the next generation will have a better future.
Those are the findings of a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of Americans from every walk of life. The depth of despair shocked many in the news media, who have tried to paint a picture of American optimism about everything from the economy to health care reform.
The results showed only 21 percent of Americans thought the future would be better. That is the worst ever recorded in the annual poll. Americans have never been this pessimistic. The responses were similar among men, women, Republicans, Democrats, rich, poor, white and Hispanic.
And that isn't the only research to shed light on the national funk. Last month a public opinion poll by The Economist found that 63 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Most respondents agreed their government doesn't serve the country's interests any more.
This national gloominess should shock no one paying attention to what is happening in America and abroad. Americans share low opinions of Congress, the president, the Supreme Court, NSA and IRS. They are shaken by terrorist threats worldwide. They are discouraged about the economy.
But that hasn't stopped the media cheerleading. In a recent op-ed column, New York Times writer David Brooks crowed that Americans are living in a "golden age," where there "daily lives are immeasurably better." His view of the country is hopelessly skewed by his penthouse perch.
Americans have experienced feeble wage growth since 2009. Many have been forced into part-time jobs. Millions have become despondent and abandoned their search for work. Perhaps, Mr. Brooks has not scrutinized Labor Department figures because he is too busy sipping lattes at Starbucks.
But economic despair does not by itself explain the national depression. After all, the country has undergone recessions, depressions, runaway inflation and other economic maladies in the past. Yet Americans as a rule cling to their optimism. It's part of the American DNA.
However, the absence of inspirational leadership, especially in Washington, is responsible for much of the despondency. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are about as uplifting as a kidney stone. President Obama spends more time golfing than governing.
That's significant because Americans usually look to their leaders for the promise of a better tomorrow. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan rallied Americans in the darkest of times. Where do Americans turn today for their daily dose of encouragement?
Elections, like the upcoming mid-terms, used to renew optimism for positive change. But today politicians sling mud and fill the airwaves with nasty attack ads. More people are turned off every election by the sleazy process, resulting in a shrinking turn out of voters at the polls.
So how do Americans shake their current malaise? The answer is to quit looking to the Belt Way and politicians for motivation. Stop thinking that for every problem there is a government solution. Put your faith in yourself and your neighbor and not in some out-of-touch bureaucrat.
America works best when Americans rely on themselves. They start their own businesses, build their own futures, dream big and act confidently. If Americans start behaving like Americans, then the future will appear as bright as the shiniest star in the evening sky.
National unity is within our grasp. But only if Americans stop defining their future and their country by political parties and the morass they see in Washington. This still is the greatest country on God's green Earth. Opportunity still knocks on every door. Time to answer the door America.
Those are the findings of a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of Americans from every walk of life. The depth of despair shocked many in the news media, who have tried to paint a picture of American optimism about everything from the economy to health care reform.
The results showed only 21 percent of Americans thought the future would be better. That is the worst ever recorded in the annual poll. Americans have never been this pessimistic. The responses were similar among men, women, Republicans, Democrats, rich, poor, white and Hispanic.
And that isn't the only research to shed light on the national funk. Last month a public opinion poll by The Economist found that 63 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Most respondents agreed their government doesn't serve the country's interests any more.
This national gloominess should shock no one paying attention to what is happening in America and abroad. Americans share low opinions of Congress, the president, the Supreme Court, NSA and IRS. They are shaken by terrorist threats worldwide. They are discouraged about the economy.
But that hasn't stopped the media cheerleading. In a recent op-ed column, New York Times writer David Brooks crowed that Americans are living in a "golden age," where there "daily lives are immeasurably better." His view of the country is hopelessly skewed by his penthouse perch.
Americans have experienced feeble wage growth since 2009. Many have been forced into part-time jobs. Millions have become despondent and abandoned their search for work. Perhaps, Mr. Brooks has not scrutinized Labor Department figures because he is too busy sipping lattes at Starbucks.
But economic despair does not by itself explain the national depression. After all, the country has undergone recessions, depressions, runaway inflation and other economic maladies in the past. Yet Americans as a rule cling to their optimism. It's part of the American DNA.
However, the absence of inspirational leadership, especially in Washington, is responsible for much of the despondency. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are about as uplifting as a kidney stone. President Obama spends more time golfing than governing.
That's significant because Americans usually look to their leaders for the promise of a better tomorrow. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan rallied Americans in the darkest of times. Where do Americans turn today for their daily dose of encouragement?
Elections, like the upcoming mid-terms, used to renew optimism for positive change. But today politicians sling mud and fill the airwaves with nasty attack ads. More people are turned off every election by the sleazy process, resulting in a shrinking turn out of voters at the polls.
So how do Americans shake their current malaise? The answer is to quit looking to the Belt Way and politicians for motivation. Stop thinking that for every problem there is a government solution. Put your faith in yourself and your neighbor and not in some out-of-touch bureaucrat.
America works best when Americans rely on themselves. They start their own businesses, build their own futures, dream big and act confidently. If Americans start behaving like Americans, then the future will appear as bright as the shiniest star in the evening sky.
National unity is within our grasp. But only if Americans stop defining their future and their country by political parties and the morass they see in Washington. This still is the greatest country on God's green Earth. Opportunity still knocks on every door. Time to answer the door America.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Obama Phones: Poster Child For Government Waste
Millions of Americans are receiving free cell phones, free minutes and free texts, courtesy of taxpayers. It's easy to qualify for the government freebie. And best of all, this is a life time deal. All you need to do is re-qualify once a year to keep your free stuff.
The official government name of the program is Budget Mobile Lifeline Service. However, users and the community at large know it by another moniker: the Obama Phone. It acquired this sobriquet after a viral video spread the word that the Obama administration was handing out free phones to the poor.
The program, riddled with waste, fraud and abuse, has drawn new scrutiny on Capitol Hill. According to the most recent Congressional figures, the cost of providing those free phones was a staggering $2.2 billion in 2012. One report claimed there were 12.5 million subscribers to the programs.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in 2010 pegged the expenses at $802 million for the years 2005-2008. The costs skyrocketed to $1 billion in 2009. The number of participants had grown to 8.6 million in 2009, the GAO investigation found.
However, statistics are hard to verify because the agency in charge of the scheme, the Federal Communications Commission, has been guilty of shoddy record-keeping. In fact, the FCC only began to compile a subscriber database late last year. So far, no statistics have been released.
Meanwhile, the program costs have spiraled out of control. Just since President Obama took office, expenditures have nearly tripled from $800 million to more than $2 billion. Obama Phones are the perfect example of how government programs start small and mushroom out of control.
Under President Reagan, the federal government decided to provide a subsidy for so-called Lifeline telephone service to the poor in 1985. It was designed to give low income individuals the opportunity to call 911, an ambulance or for other emergency use. It applied only to landline telephones.
To pay for the program, the federal government tacked on fees to the phone bills of most customers. Although it is called a fee, wireline subscribers are being forced to pay what amounts to a tax for the privilege of having a telephone.
The program was expanded under President George W. Bush to include cell phone service. The rationale was that most poor people had disconnected their landline phones and opted for wireless devices. The problem is the original intent was lost in the expansion.
Now low income people get a free cell phone, 250 free minutes of usage and 250 free texts each month. Everyone who receives almost any type of government assistance qualifies. That includes people who get food stamps, energy assistance, Medicaid or housing assistance, to name just a few.
Once an individual qualifies, the service is provided for 12 months. After that, recipients can re-qualify every year. The government will even contact the user to make it easy to renew the free service annually. However, the program is replete with fraud because of slipshod administration.
This year the Justice Department charged three men with defrauding the program of $32 million after an investigation uncovered their scheme to bilk the government to finance a well-heeled lifestyle. It was unclear how the trio was able to pull off the elaborate con.
Last year the FCC filed two separate actions against eight firms who swindled the Obama Phone program of a total of $47.4 million. The companies were accused of such chicanery as receiving duplicate payments for consumers who already had the free cell service from their firm.
Meanwhile, the promotion of the program continues unabated. Google "Obama Phone" and up pops a smiling picture of the president talking on a landline phone. Underneath, the caption screams: "Get Your Free Obama Phone."
Scores of firms are peddling the phones because they collect a bounty from the government. The FCC pays $10 to the companies for every new subscriber. There is no incentive for these companies to verify eligibility and the FCC has failed to do an adequate job of policing the program.
Republicans have introduced legislation to pull the plug on the cell phone program. Of course, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid will never allow a vote on such a bill. That means the scam will continue unchecked costing Americans billions of dollars. Only in Washington is this deemed acceptable.
The official government name of the program is Budget Mobile Lifeline Service. However, users and the community at large know it by another moniker: the Obama Phone. It acquired this sobriquet after a viral video spread the word that the Obama administration was handing out free phones to the poor.
The program, riddled with waste, fraud and abuse, has drawn new scrutiny on Capitol Hill. According to the most recent Congressional figures, the cost of providing those free phones was a staggering $2.2 billion in 2012. One report claimed there were 12.5 million subscribers to the programs.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in 2010 pegged the expenses at $802 million for the years 2005-2008. The costs skyrocketed to $1 billion in 2009. The number of participants had grown to 8.6 million in 2009, the GAO investigation found.
However, statistics are hard to verify because the agency in charge of the scheme, the Federal Communications Commission, has been guilty of shoddy record-keeping. In fact, the FCC only began to compile a subscriber database late last year. So far, no statistics have been released.
Meanwhile, the program costs have spiraled out of control. Just since President Obama took office, expenditures have nearly tripled from $800 million to more than $2 billion. Obama Phones are the perfect example of how government programs start small and mushroom out of control.
Under President Reagan, the federal government decided to provide a subsidy for so-called Lifeline telephone service to the poor in 1985. It was designed to give low income individuals the opportunity to call 911, an ambulance or for other emergency use. It applied only to landline telephones.
To pay for the program, the federal government tacked on fees to the phone bills of most customers. Although it is called a fee, wireline subscribers are being forced to pay what amounts to a tax for the privilege of having a telephone.
The program was expanded under President George W. Bush to include cell phone service. The rationale was that most poor people had disconnected their landline phones and opted for wireless devices. The problem is the original intent was lost in the expansion.
Now low income people get a free cell phone, 250 free minutes of usage and 250 free texts each month. Everyone who receives almost any type of government assistance qualifies. That includes people who get food stamps, energy assistance, Medicaid or housing assistance, to name just a few.
Once an individual qualifies, the service is provided for 12 months. After that, recipients can re-qualify every year. The government will even contact the user to make it easy to renew the free service annually. However, the program is replete with fraud because of slipshod administration.
This year the Justice Department charged three men with defrauding the program of $32 million after an investigation uncovered their scheme to bilk the government to finance a well-heeled lifestyle. It was unclear how the trio was able to pull off the elaborate con.
Last year the FCC filed two separate actions against eight firms who swindled the Obama Phone program of a total of $47.4 million. The companies were accused of such chicanery as receiving duplicate payments for consumers who already had the free cell service from their firm.
Meanwhile, the promotion of the program continues unabated. Google "Obama Phone" and up pops a smiling picture of the president talking on a landline phone. Underneath, the caption screams: "Get Your Free Obama Phone."
Scores of firms are peddling the phones because they collect a bounty from the government. The FCC pays $10 to the companies for every new subscriber. There is no incentive for these companies to verify eligibility and the FCC has failed to do an adequate job of policing the program.
Republicans have introduced legislation to pull the plug on the cell phone program. Of course, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid will never allow a vote on such a bill. That means the scam will continue unchecked costing Americans billions of dollars. Only in Washington is this deemed acceptable.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Obamacare: Unhealthy Changes Doom Law
Obamacare, the president's eponymous health care reform, barely resembles the law passed in 2010. In the intervening months, the legislation has been changed 24 times by President Obama. On each occasion, he has acted unilaterally without Congressional consent to alter the bill.
As if the presidential tampering wasn't enough, the courts have stepped in and dealt crippling blows to the law. In the latest decision, a federal appeals court ruled the feds could not provide tax subsidies for millions of people who purchased insurance policies through the federal marketplace.
If the ruling stands, it will derail one of the law's key provisions effecting millions of health insurance purchasers. Health and Human Services (HHS) has estimated that 85 percent of those Americans who enrolled in Obamacare were promised they would receive premium subsidies.
As a result, the health care law has been left in tatters. What remains is a hodgepodge of rules and regulations that few individuals can comprehend. There is a growing awareness that Obamacare has metamorphosed into health care retrogression instead of reform.
For instance, a powerful union that first endorsed Obama for president just released a scorching report on the health care law, charging the administration with destroying insurance plans that benefited its members.
"The ACA (Affordable Care Act) threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage," the UNITE HERE union said in its report, entitled, "The Irony of Obamacare: Making Inequality Worse."
UNITE HERE has more than 265,000 active members, who predominantly work in the hotel, food service, laundry, warehouse and casino gaming industries. Its report, released in July, was not covered by a single news media outlet because most have been hushed by the Obama Administration.
Insurance companies, most of which supported the law, are in full retreat. The nation's third largest health insurance firm Aetna recently disclosed figures that cast doubt on the administration's claims that 8 million Americans signed up for Obamacare.
Aetna originally declared it signed up 720,000 people during the enrollment period. By the end of June, it had fewer than 600,000 paying customers. The company now expects the final number to be a shade over 500,000, a 30 percent drop since the sign-up figures were trumpeted by the president.
The news is worse for those who enrolled in Obamacare. Data compiled by the Health Research Institute reveals that most health insurance buyers will see their premiums rise by at least 7.5 percent next year. Some states, such as Nevada, could potentially be socked with a 36 percent hike.
In its latest forecast, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the federal government would spend an astronomical $1.032 trillion between 2015 and 2024 on subsidies for insurance premiums paid by low earners. The average subsidy is projected to be $4,250 annually per family.
However, with all the adjustments to the law, even the CBO is hedging its bets. The government agency announced earlier this year that it can no longer estimate Obamacare's total cost to taxpayers, in part, due to the "ever-changing rules in the laws implementation."
Worst of all, President Obama's promises about health care reform have all crumbled. Americans cannot keep their insurance. They cannot continue to see their same doctor. Consumers' insurance costs aren't going down.
The only change that will salvage health care reform is to dump Obamacare and start all over. That would be change most Americans would welcome as opposed to the kind the president promised in his propaganda campaign to peddle government health care.
As if the presidential tampering wasn't enough, the courts have stepped in and dealt crippling blows to the law. In the latest decision, a federal appeals court ruled the feds could not provide tax subsidies for millions of people who purchased insurance policies through the federal marketplace.
If the ruling stands, it will derail one of the law's key provisions effecting millions of health insurance purchasers. Health and Human Services (HHS) has estimated that 85 percent of those Americans who enrolled in Obamacare were promised they would receive premium subsidies.
As a result, the health care law has been left in tatters. What remains is a hodgepodge of rules and regulations that few individuals can comprehend. There is a growing awareness that Obamacare has metamorphosed into health care retrogression instead of reform.
For instance, a powerful union that first endorsed Obama for president just released a scorching report on the health care law, charging the administration with destroying insurance plans that benefited its members.
"The ACA (Affordable Care Act) threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage," the UNITE HERE union said in its report, entitled, "The Irony of Obamacare: Making Inequality Worse."
UNITE HERE has more than 265,000 active members, who predominantly work in the hotel, food service, laundry, warehouse and casino gaming industries. Its report, released in July, was not covered by a single news media outlet because most have been hushed by the Obama Administration.
Insurance companies, most of which supported the law, are in full retreat. The nation's third largest health insurance firm Aetna recently disclosed figures that cast doubt on the administration's claims that 8 million Americans signed up for Obamacare.
Aetna originally declared it signed up 720,000 people during the enrollment period. By the end of June, it had fewer than 600,000 paying customers. The company now expects the final number to be a shade over 500,000, a 30 percent drop since the sign-up figures were trumpeted by the president.
The news is worse for those who enrolled in Obamacare. Data compiled by the Health Research Institute reveals that most health insurance buyers will see their premiums rise by at least 7.5 percent next year. Some states, such as Nevada, could potentially be socked with a 36 percent hike.
In its latest forecast, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the federal government would spend an astronomical $1.032 trillion between 2015 and 2024 on subsidies for insurance premiums paid by low earners. The average subsidy is projected to be $4,250 annually per family.
However, with all the adjustments to the law, even the CBO is hedging its bets. The government agency announced earlier this year that it can no longer estimate Obamacare's total cost to taxpayers, in part, due to the "ever-changing rules in the laws implementation."
Worst of all, President Obama's promises about health care reform have all crumbled. Americans cannot keep their insurance. They cannot continue to see their same doctor. Consumers' insurance costs aren't going down.
The only change that will salvage health care reform is to dump Obamacare and start all over. That would be change most Americans would welcome as opposed to the kind the president promised in his propaganda campaign to peddle government health care.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
It's Official: Obama Administration Broke the Law
An agency of the government headed by Barrack Obama has slapped his wrist for violating a law passed by Congress. Despite the unprecedented finding, the president and his jelly spine allies in the media have acted as if it was a joke, brushing aside the charges like a cow swatting flies with its tail.
However, it is no laughing matter when the administration is caught red-handed operating outside the law. If this had happened on George W. Bush's watch, the media would have been apoplectic. But this president is the media's anointed one. Obama got off with a few stories buried in the media clutter.
The agency at the epicenter of the controversy was the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan group that serves as a Congressional watchdog. As its name implies, the agency is supposed to insure the accountability of the federal government to the American people.
Earlier this year, a group of Senate Republicans, including many who serve on key committees, requested a GAO review of the actions by the Department of Defense in its handling of a prisoner exchange involving five Taliban leaders held at Guantanamo Bay and Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014, section 8111 required the administration to give at least 30 days notice before the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay prisoners and prohibited the use of government funds to relocate the detainees without advance notice to congressional committees.
Before issuing its opinion, the GAO asked the Department of Defense to provide the relevant facts and its legal view on the matter. The department tried to justify its action by asserting the transfer was lawful, even while admitting that it failed to meet the requirement for notification.
Susan A. Poling, the GAO's general counsel, wasn't buying what defense officials were selling, despite obvious pressure to support the administration. In her tersely worded verdict, she concluded that the defense department violated the law as approved by Congress and signed by President Obama.
When the announcement was made, government officials ran for cover. They did what guilty parties always do--they attempted to skirt the issue. Instead of addressing the actual violation, the White House trotted out spokespersons to opine on the constitutionality of the administration's actions.
White House mouthpiece Eric Schultz led the verbal assault complaining the "GAO report does not address the lawfulness of the administration's actions as a matter of Constitutional law." But the GAO's counsel wrote in her opinion that her responsibility was not to consider the law's constitutionality.
After the initial flurry of denials, the administration slunk back into the shadows. They figured most Americans weren't paying attention to some arcane defense appropriation law. Even if they were, the reliably compliant media would hide the details from the public.
Of course, this is not the first time the administration and its titular leader President Obama have shown disdain for the law. The prisoner exchange is just the latest example. If President Obama didn't like the defense appropriations language, he could have vetoed the measure when it reached his desk.
Instead, Obama chose to ignore the law he signed. No amount of excuses and sleights of hand will change that fact. But in today's America there is no penalty for the nation's chief executive to violate the law. Is it any wonder the president's polling numbers are lower than the ocean floor?
Congress and the American people must demand more accountability from the executive branch of government. If law-breaking is allowed to continue unabated, even Democrats may rue the day when they sat idly by as their president made a mockery of duly approved and signed legislation.
After all, the next president may be a Republican. Then we'll see if Democrats adhere to the same cavalier attitude about following the law.
However, it is no laughing matter when the administration is caught red-handed operating outside the law. If this had happened on George W. Bush's watch, the media would have been apoplectic. But this president is the media's anointed one. Obama got off with a few stories buried in the media clutter.
The agency at the epicenter of the controversy was the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan group that serves as a Congressional watchdog. As its name implies, the agency is supposed to insure the accountability of the federal government to the American people.
Earlier this year, a group of Senate Republicans, including many who serve on key committees, requested a GAO review of the actions by the Department of Defense in its handling of a prisoner exchange involving five Taliban leaders held at Guantanamo Bay and Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014, section 8111 required the administration to give at least 30 days notice before the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay prisoners and prohibited the use of government funds to relocate the detainees without advance notice to congressional committees.
Before issuing its opinion, the GAO asked the Department of Defense to provide the relevant facts and its legal view on the matter. The department tried to justify its action by asserting the transfer was lawful, even while admitting that it failed to meet the requirement for notification.
Susan A. Poling, the GAO's general counsel, wasn't buying what defense officials were selling, despite obvious pressure to support the administration. In her tersely worded verdict, she concluded that the defense department violated the law as approved by Congress and signed by President Obama.
When the announcement was made, government officials ran for cover. They did what guilty parties always do--they attempted to skirt the issue. Instead of addressing the actual violation, the White House trotted out spokespersons to opine on the constitutionality of the administration's actions.
White House mouthpiece Eric Schultz led the verbal assault complaining the "GAO report does not address the lawfulness of the administration's actions as a matter of Constitutional law." But the GAO's counsel wrote in her opinion that her responsibility was not to consider the law's constitutionality.
After the initial flurry of denials, the administration slunk back into the shadows. They figured most Americans weren't paying attention to some arcane defense appropriation law. Even if they were, the reliably compliant media would hide the details from the public.
Of course, this is not the first time the administration and its titular leader President Obama have shown disdain for the law. The prisoner exchange is just the latest example. If President Obama didn't like the defense appropriations language, he could have vetoed the measure when it reached his desk.
Instead, Obama chose to ignore the law he signed. No amount of excuses and sleights of hand will change that fact. But in today's America there is no penalty for the nation's chief executive to violate the law. Is it any wonder the president's polling numbers are lower than the ocean floor?
Congress and the American people must demand more accountability from the executive branch of government. If law-breaking is allowed to continue unabated, even Democrats may rue the day when they sat idly by as their president made a mockery of duly approved and signed legislation.
After all, the next president may be a Republican. Then we'll see if Democrats adhere to the same cavalier attitude about following the law.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Part-Time America: The New Workforce Normal
This Labor Day millions of American workers have nothing to celebrate. Their hours have been sliced, their wages have been chopped and their full time jobs have vanished. They are the victims of the nation's weakest recovery from a recession in U.S. history.
At the end of July, more than 18.1 million Americans were saddled with part-time jobs, representing an estimated 16.5 percent of the work force. Many of these workers have been forced to accept part-time employment while they pursue full-time opportunities.
President Obama has tried to sweep the issue under the Oval Office rug by focusing the media's attention on the low unemployment figures. But the problem has been on the radar of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, an Obama appointee as the nation's top banker.
"The unemployment rate is down, but not included in the rate are more than 7 million people who are working part-time but want a full-time job," Yellen pointed out at a news conference in March. She lamented that some workers may be "stuck" in part-time jobs for the foreseeable future.
For some perspective, individuals working part-time comprised about 17 percent of total work force in 2007. That figure ticked up to 20 percent in 2009 and remained near that level through the middle of last year before trickling downward to the current level of 16.5 percent.
Some economists suggest the expansion in part-time employment may just be an echo caused by the recession. Indeed, part-time job growth spiked during the economic downturn, but it has remained stubbornly high, raising the specter of a new normal in the labor market.
That hypothesis was pooh-poohed last year by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. In a lengthly report, the fed flatly declared the high incidence of part-time employment "does not portend permanent changes" in the economy.
However, recent Labor Department household surveys call into question the Fed's assumption. In June, for example, the department estimated the economy lost 523,000 full-time jobs. That same month it reported part-time jobs skyrocketed by 799,000. It was the largest monthly spike in two decades.
At the end of July, there were 7.6 million Americans employed part-time for what the Labor Department euphemistically calls "economic" or "involuntary"reasons. That means workers' hours were reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. Part-timers work less than 35 hours per week.
Although the White House and its economists dispute it, there is a growing suspicion that Obamacare's implementation may be at least partly to blame for the part-time job growth. The law requires all but the smallest businesses provide health insurance for full-time employees next year.
Recent surveys by the Federal Reserve Banks in Philadelphia, New York and Atlanta documented evidence of the impact of the president's health care plan on employment. Their research found manufacturers and businesses projected increases in the portion of part-timers in their workforces.
For example 19.3 percent of manufacturers in New York said they were raising the number of part-time workers, while in the Atlanta region, 34 percent of businesses plan to hire more time-time employees than in the past. In Philadelphia, 13.7 percent of firms intend to outsource jobs because of Obamacare.
Up to now, the changing characteristics of America's workforce have escaped national attention, especially in the nation's capitol. Unless the issue is addressed soon, high-paying full-time jobs will continue to disappear along with the American dream.
Labor Day may soon become a date of mourning for American workers.
At the end of July, more than 18.1 million Americans were saddled with part-time jobs, representing an estimated 16.5 percent of the work force. Many of these workers have been forced to accept part-time employment while they pursue full-time opportunities.
President Obama has tried to sweep the issue under the Oval Office rug by focusing the media's attention on the low unemployment figures. But the problem has been on the radar of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, an Obama appointee as the nation's top banker.
"The unemployment rate is down, but not included in the rate are more than 7 million people who are working part-time but want a full-time job," Yellen pointed out at a news conference in March. She lamented that some workers may be "stuck" in part-time jobs for the foreseeable future.
For some perspective, individuals working part-time comprised about 17 percent of total work force in 2007. That figure ticked up to 20 percent in 2009 and remained near that level through the middle of last year before trickling downward to the current level of 16.5 percent.
Some economists suggest the expansion in part-time employment may just be an echo caused by the recession. Indeed, part-time job growth spiked during the economic downturn, but it has remained stubbornly high, raising the specter of a new normal in the labor market.
That hypothesis was pooh-poohed last year by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. In a lengthly report, the fed flatly declared the high incidence of part-time employment "does not portend permanent changes" in the economy.
However, recent Labor Department household surveys call into question the Fed's assumption. In June, for example, the department estimated the economy lost 523,000 full-time jobs. That same month it reported part-time jobs skyrocketed by 799,000. It was the largest monthly spike in two decades.
At the end of July, there were 7.6 million Americans employed part-time for what the Labor Department euphemistically calls "economic" or "involuntary"reasons. That means workers' hours were reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. Part-timers work less than 35 hours per week.
Although the White House and its economists dispute it, there is a growing suspicion that Obamacare's implementation may be at least partly to blame for the part-time job growth. The law requires all but the smallest businesses provide health insurance for full-time employees next year.
Recent surveys by the Federal Reserve Banks in Philadelphia, New York and Atlanta documented evidence of the impact of the president's health care plan on employment. Their research found manufacturers and businesses projected increases in the portion of part-timers in their workforces.
For example 19.3 percent of manufacturers in New York said they were raising the number of part-time workers, while in the Atlanta region, 34 percent of businesses plan to hire more time-time employees than in the past. In Philadelphia, 13.7 percent of firms intend to outsource jobs because of Obamacare.
Up to now, the changing characteristics of America's workforce have escaped national attention, especially in the nation's capitol. Unless the issue is addressed soon, high-paying full-time jobs will continue to disappear along with the American dream.
Labor Day may soon become a date of mourning for American workers.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Thin Blue Line: America's Police Under Assualt
A 38-year old police officer was viciously gunned down last year during a bank robbery in Mississippi. A nine year veteran of the Tupelo Police Department, Kevin Stauffer left behind a young wife and two children. There were no national headlines about his death.
As the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, demonstrates, the news media are more interested in covering racially charged events. The death of a police officer hardly rates national mention. In the last ten years, more than 1,500 police and detectives have died in the line of duty, including 568 by gunfire.
Crime fighting has taken its toll on America's police. Since the first recorded police death in 1791, there have been more than 20,000 officers killed in the line of duty. Violent crime, although down in recent years, still exceeds 1 million incidents nationwide every year.
Police not only are gunshot victims. Others die in motor vehicle accidents while chasing suspects, drownings, vehicle assaults, accidental shootings, stabbings and illnesses related to their duties. It is a hazardous profession with very little room for error.
The deadliest year since the dawn of the new century was 2001, when 71 officers were killed during the September 11 terrorist attacks alone. For that year, 140 officers were slain, including three who were ambushed by criminals.
Despite those numbers, the 1920's were far worse for law enforcement officers. That decade ended with with 2,390 police officers losing their lives in deadly shootings. The deadliest year, however, was 1930, when 297 officers were killed.
Thousands more police officers are assaulted every year in the line of duty. During the last decade, there were more than 519,000 assaults, resulting in injuries to 154,836 police officers, according to FBI statistics. The average over that period was 57,892 assaults each year.
Although shooting deaths of police are on the decline, even one fatality is too many for the thin blue line that maintains the peace in communities throughout America. The most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate there are 780,000 police and detectives keeping the country safe each day.
As a result of police deaths, many departments have purchased body armor to help protect the men and women in blue. However, body armor is not a panacea. In 2012, a total of 51 police officers died while wearing body armor. But the gear has been credited with the reduction in gun deaths.
The number one killer of police officers is not gunfire. More than twice as many law enforcement officers every year die from suicide than are killed in traffic accidents or assaults, according to a 2012 national study underwritten by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
Astonishingly, for every one suicide, the study's authors estimate there are 25 attempts. Those sobering numbers are testimony to a high risk occupation where law enforcement officers are exposed to the worst human atrocities while dealing with often potentially life threatening confrontations.
Unfortunately, the media seldom paint a fair and unbiased picture of police. Good police work goes unreported, but there is nothing like the scent of scandal or wrongdoing to get the media digging for details to expose the dirty blue laundry.
This does not mean police should not be scrutinized and held to high standards. Those officers who break the law they are sworn to uphold deserve swift and vigorous justice. What is lacking is balance in the reporting of incidents involving police.
That equilibrium has been missing in most news media coverage, particularly in reports that involve use of police force. That fact has not gone unnoticed by the chiefs of police.
"In large part, the public perception of police use of force is framed and influenced by media depictions which present unrealistic and often outlandish representations of law enforcement and the policing profession," the IACP group said in a 2012 report.
What was true then is still true today. Just look at the one-sided, incendiary media coverage coming out of Ferguson, Missouri.
As the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, demonstrates, the news media are more interested in covering racially charged events. The death of a police officer hardly rates national mention. In the last ten years, more than 1,500 police and detectives have died in the line of duty, including 568 by gunfire.
Crime fighting has taken its toll on America's police. Since the first recorded police death in 1791, there have been more than 20,000 officers killed in the line of duty. Violent crime, although down in recent years, still exceeds 1 million incidents nationwide every year.
Police not only are gunshot victims. Others die in motor vehicle accidents while chasing suspects, drownings, vehicle assaults, accidental shootings, stabbings and illnesses related to their duties. It is a hazardous profession with very little room for error.
The deadliest year since the dawn of the new century was 2001, when 71 officers were killed during the September 11 terrorist attacks alone. For that year, 140 officers were slain, including three who were ambushed by criminals.
Despite those numbers, the 1920's were far worse for law enforcement officers. That decade ended with with 2,390 police officers losing their lives in deadly shootings. The deadliest year, however, was 1930, when 297 officers were killed.
Thousands more police officers are assaulted every year in the line of duty. During the last decade, there were more than 519,000 assaults, resulting in injuries to 154,836 police officers, according to FBI statistics. The average over that period was 57,892 assaults each year.
Although shooting deaths of police are on the decline, even one fatality is too many for the thin blue line that maintains the peace in communities throughout America. The most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate there are 780,000 police and detectives keeping the country safe each day.
As a result of police deaths, many departments have purchased body armor to help protect the men and women in blue. However, body armor is not a panacea. In 2012, a total of 51 police officers died while wearing body armor. But the gear has been credited with the reduction in gun deaths.
The number one killer of police officers is not gunfire. More than twice as many law enforcement officers every year die from suicide than are killed in traffic accidents or assaults, according to a 2012 national study underwritten by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
Astonishingly, for every one suicide, the study's authors estimate there are 25 attempts. Those sobering numbers are testimony to a high risk occupation where law enforcement officers are exposed to the worst human atrocities while dealing with often potentially life threatening confrontations.
Unfortunately, the media seldom paint a fair and unbiased picture of police. Good police work goes unreported, but there is nothing like the scent of scandal or wrongdoing to get the media digging for details to expose the dirty blue laundry.
This does not mean police should not be scrutinized and held to high standards. Those officers who break the law they are sworn to uphold deserve swift and vigorous justice. What is lacking is balance in the reporting of incidents involving police.
That equilibrium has been missing in most news media coverage, particularly in reports that involve use of police force. That fact has not gone unnoticed by the chiefs of police.
"In large part, the public perception of police use of force is framed and influenced by media depictions which present unrealistic and often outlandish representations of law enforcement and the policing profession," the IACP group said in a 2012 report.
What was true then is still true today. Just look at the one-sided, incendiary media coverage coming out of Ferguson, Missouri.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Memo to Jesse: Focus on the Critical Issues
MEMORANDUM: To Jesse Jackson regarding your campaign to shine attention on Silicon Valley's dismal record of hiring blacks and Latinos for high tech jobs.
Even for a man who has made a career of shaking down businesses, you have stumbled to a new low with this attempt to shame the icons of America's technology industry into adopting hiring quotas, nonsensical diversity measurements and racial sensitivity training.
Your civil rights playbook needs some serious updating. For starters, there would be more African-Americans and Hispanics in Silicon Valley if they pursued degrees in engineering, computer science and other technology fields.
The Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies issued a recent report detailing how blacks and Latinos in particular "fall short in preparedness for jobs in the technology sector." In its report, the center called for increasing the number of minorities majoring in science and engineering in college to address the issue.
Apparently, Reverend Jackson, you must have been too busy jetting around the country to hustle a few million more dollars for your Rainbow PUSH organization to be bothered with the facts.
Frankly, African-Americans and Latinos have more pressing problems than scoring a corner office at some technology firm. It might be a more productive use of your time if you spent considerable energy tackling these urgent issues:
1. Blacks lead all ethnic groups in unemployment. According to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment among African-Americans is 11.4 percent. Just for the record, Hispanic occupy second place in the unemployment line. July statistics pegged the unemployment rate for Americans at 6.2 percent.
2. Blacks have the lowest high school graduation rates of all ethnic groups. Department of Education figures estimate that 66.1 percent of African-American students graduated from high school. Hispanic graduation rates were 71.4 percent. By comparison, 83 percent of whites achieved high school diplomas.
3. More than 60 percent of the people in state and federal prisons are racial and ethnic minorities. For black males in their 30's, one in ten is incarcerated in a prison on any given day. These figures are from the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group for imprisoned minorities. Firearm violence rates for blacks aged 12 and older were 40 percent higher than Hispanics and 200 percent more than whites, reports the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4. More black children are raised in a single parent household than other ethnic groups. In the African-American community, 72 percent of children are raised by a single parent. For the country as a whole, 25.8 percent of children are brought up by one parent, based on studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
5. Blacks are more likely to receive welfare assistance than other groups. Department of Health and Human Services data confirms that 39.8 of all Americans who receive food stamps, unemployment insurance or other forms of welfare are African-Americans. White recipients comprise 38.8 percent of those collecting federal aid and Hispanics constitute 15.7 percent. In the most recent U.S. Census, 72.4 percent of Americans were white, 12.6 percent were African-American and 16.4 percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Start with these five issues if you want to improve the plight of minorities, especially African-Americans. Stop trying to make them victims and do something that actually provides blacks and other minorities opportunities to share in America's prosperity.
Sorry, but you have no right to grumble about hiring practices in Silicon Valley until you have done more than just blame others for the serious problems that are ravaging the minority community. Just being a racial profiteer isn't enough to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King.
Even for a man who has made a career of shaking down businesses, you have stumbled to a new low with this attempt to shame the icons of America's technology industry into adopting hiring quotas, nonsensical diversity measurements and racial sensitivity training.
Your civil rights playbook needs some serious updating. For starters, there would be more African-Americans and Hispanics in Silicon Valley if they pursued degrees in engineering, computer science and other technology fields.
The Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies issued a recent report detailing how blacks and Latinos in particular "fall short in preparedness for jobs in the technology sector." In its report, the center called for increasing the number of minorities majoring in science and engineering in college to address the issue.
Apparently, Reverend Jackson, you must have been too busy jetting around the country to hustle a few million more dollars for your Rainbow PUSH organization to be bothered with the facts.
Frankly, African-Americans and Latinos have more pressing problems than scoring a corner office at some technology firm. It might be a more productive use of your time if you spent considerable energy tackling these urgent issues:
1. Blacks lead all ethnic groups in unemployment. According to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment among African-Americans is 11.4 percent. Just for the record, Hispanic occupy second place in the unemployment line. July statistics pegged the unemployment rate for Americans at 6.2 percent.
2. Blacks have the lowest high school graduation rates of all ethnic groups. Department of Education figures estimate that 66.1 percent of African-American students graduated from high school. Hispanic graduation rates were 71.4 percent. By comparison, 83 percent of whites achieved high school diplomas.
3. More than 60 percent of the people in state and federal prisons are racial and ethnic minorities. For black males in their 30's, one in ten is incarcerated in a prison on any given day. These figures are from the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group for imprisoned minorities. Firearm violence rates for blacks aged 12 and older were 40 percent higher than Hispanics and 200 percent more than whites, reports the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4. More black children are raised in a single parent household than other ethnic groups. In the African-American community, 72 percent of children are raised by a single parent. For the country as a whole, 25.8 percent of children are brought up by one parent, based on studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
5. Blacks are more likely to receive welfare assistance than other groups. Department of Health and Human Services data confirms that 39.8 of all Americans who receive food stamps, unemployment insurance or other forms of welfare are African-Americans. White recipients comprise 38.8 percent of those collecting federal aid and Hispanics constitute 15.7 percent. In the most recent U.S. Census, 72.4 percent of Americans were white, 12.6 percent were African-American and 16.4 percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Start with these five issues if you want to improve the plight of minorities, especially African-Americans. Stop trying to make them victims and do something that actually provides blacks and other minorities opportunities to share in America's prosperity.
Sorry, but you have no right to grumble about hiring practices in Silicon Valley until you have done more than just blame others for the serious problems that are ravaging the minority community. Just being a racial profiteer isn't enough to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Society's Most Discriminated Against Group
They are the butt of cruel jokes. They attract unwelcome stares. They are routinely portrayed in movies and on television as boobs. They are shunned by photographers. They are often mistaken for someone else because they all look alike. They are a hair salon's worst nightmare.
They are bald men, discriminated against by a society that believes a thick head of hair is next to godliness. Lesbians, gays, native Americans, African-Americans and even dwarfs are represented by anti-discriminatory groups. Laws have been written to protect them from hate crimes.
But bald men wallow in the shadows, unloved, vulnerable, indefensible and powerless. They are victims who suffer silently the barbs of the insensitive and malicious. "That glare bouncing off your head is blinding me," is the insult repeated ad nausea by amigos and antagonists alike.
Bald is not beautiful unless you are a movie star with your own yacht, a 20,000-square foot mansion and fire-engine red Maserati. Even then, you better don a hat. For every Bruce Willis, there are a 100 Tom Cruise clones on screen flaunting their flocculent follicles.
Gays, lesbians and transsexuals represent about 2.5 percent of the population according to a new study by the Center for Disease Control. Yet they have far more clout that bald males, who outnumber them by millions. By age 50, six out of every 10 men will have suffered some degree of baldness.
Just based on those figures, bald men deserve at least as much protection as gays. But they need to be better organized, more vocal and downright pushy. For starters, they need a lobby with a catchy abbreviation. How about Follicle Organization Lividly In Crisis or FOLIC?
Every special interest group needs a headquarters location. The small town (pop. 2,897) of Bald Knob, Arkansas, would nicely serve that purpose. The perfect front man for the organization would be Vin Diesel, an actor with an intimidating presence and a seriously gravelly voice.
Despite voters objections to gay marriage, the courts have struck down bans approved in most states. Surely, that precedent can be used to rule that a bald man can marry a bald woman without suffering stares, insults and society's scorn. It only seems fair.
No group needs hate crime protection more than bald men. The endless jokes are reason enough. "Bill is so bald you can see what's on his mind." "What's the difference between a prince and a bald man? A prince is an heir apparent and a bald man has no hair apparent." The gags are demeaning and hateful.
Have you ever noticed there are more gays on television shows than bald men? And, if the script calls for a bald actor, chances are he will be the show's buffoon. Meanwhile, the gay guy is smart, suave and oozes charm. The bald guy never gets the woman or the man.
Researchers in Germany and Japan found that people view bald men as being older, although socially mature. Men with a flowing locks were perceived as being more aggressive and less mature. The study, conducted in 2001, would have been produced far different results if it was done in the U.S.
In America, bald men are held in such low esteem every president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 has sported telegenic heads overflowing with hair. The optics of a bald man addressing the nation are just too frightening for many Americans.
But all that is about to change. Once organized, bald men will reclaim their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of Hair Club memberships.
Gays, lesbians and transsexuals represent about 2.5 percent of the population according to a new study by the Center for Disease Control. Yet they have far more clout that bald males, who outnumber them by millions. By age 50, six out of every 10 men will have suffered some degree of baldness.
Just based on those figures, bald men deserve at least as much protection as gays. But they need to be better organized, more vocal and downright pushy. For starters, they need a lobby with a catchy abbreviation. How about Follicle Organization Lividly In Crisis or FOLIC?
Every special interest group needs a headquarters location. The small town (pop. 2,897) of Bald Knob, Arkansas, would nicely serve that purpose. The perfect front man for the organization would be Vin Diesel, an actor with an intimidating presence and a seriously gravelly voice.
Despite voters objections to gay marriage, the courts have struck down bans approved in most states. Surely, that precedent can be used to rule that a bald man can marry a bald woman without suffering stares, insults and society's scorn. It only seems fair.
No group needs hate crime protection more than bald men. The endless jokes are reason enough. "Bill is so bald you can see what's on his mind." "What's the difference between a prince and a bald man? A prince is an heir apparent and a bald man has no hair apparent." The gags are demeaning and hateful.
Have you ever noticed there are more gays on television shows than bald men? And, if the script calls for a bald actor, chances are he will be the show's buffoon. Meanwhile, the gay guy is smart, suave and oozes charm. The bald guy never gets the woman or the man.
Researchers in Germany and Japan found that people view bald men as being older, although socially mature. Men with a flowing locks were perceived as being more aggressive and less mature. The study, conducted in 2001, would have been produced far different results if it was done in the U.S.
In America, bald men are held in such low esteem every president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 has sported telegenic heads overflowing with hair. The optics of a bald man addressing the nation are just too frightening for many Americans.
But all that is about to change. Once organized, bald men will reclaim their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of Hair Club memberships.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Exposing IRS Lies About Lost Emails
Congressional investigators have been stonewalled, stiff-armed and stalled at every turn in their efforts to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal. As a result, the probe has dragged on as precious little details have dribbled out of the agency at the heart of the controversy.
Just when investigators thought things couldn't get worse, Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen dropped a bombshell. Thousands of potentially incriminating emails from former IRS official Lois Lerner disappeared into thin air after a computer crash, he informed Congress.
Lerner, who directed the IRS targeting of conservative groups, was not the only agency employee whose emails dropped from sight. Five more IRS employees also claimed their email correspondence had gone missing. Koskinen contended none of the emails could be recovered.
This is worse than sheer nonsense. It is a damnable lie. Koskinen and the Obama Administration are depending on Americans' unfamiliarity with technology to perpetuate the deceit. Republican committee members could have easily exposed the fabrication if they had been better prepared.
Ed Glotzbach, former vice chairman of Information Services Group, Inc., reviewed Koskinen's testimony and charitably called the commissioner's explanation "not credible." Glotzbach's view carries weight because of his information technology experience.
He is the former chief executive officer of TPI, Inc., a Houston based firm that is a leading sourcing advisory firm in the U.S. Prior to that, Glotzbach served five years as the chief information officer for SBC Communications. His duties included overseeing data center operations for the telecom firm.
He is the former chief executive officer of TPI, Inc., a Houston based firm that is a leading sourcing advisory firm in the U.S. Prior to that, Glotzbach served five years as the chief information officer for SBC Communications. His duties included overseeing data center operations for the telecom firm.
"The fact that Lois Lerner's hard drive crashed is irrelevant," Glotzbach explains. "Today virtually every large organization backs up every email on file servers. Almost always, those servers have back-ups that shadow them. Those emails never leave the servers."
In layman's terms, servers are like super-sized computers. Every user's computer in the organization is linked to file servers, which store and retrieve files. Every document and email created is stored on the server. Most large businesses are required by federal regulations to archive correspondence for at least five years.
Federal government agencies, including the IRS, have similar document retention policies. An examination of the IRS guidelines confirms that the agency is supposed to provide for "backup and recovery of records to protect information against loss and corruption."
The IRS even employs a chief technology officer (CTO) who is responsible for the 400 systems operated by the agency. Inconceivably, Republicans have never called the CTO on the carpet to testify before the Congressional committee.
That has left the pedestrian Koskinen to justify why Lois Lerner's emails cannot be retrieved. His explanations, frankly, are dubious. "Her hard drive could be wrecked or her computer disc scratched. It doesn't matter. Those emails exist on the file server," Glotzbach asserts.
The emails could be easily reclaimed, Glotzbach maintains. Businesses and federal agencies are required often to produce emails and documents created by their employees as part of regulatory proceedings, lawsuits and law enforcement inquiries.
Could IRS officials have erased the emails from the servers? Not likely, Glotzbach explains. "It would require more than a handful of people and there would be a trail of mechanized process control steps," Glotzbach says. "The trail would consist of authorizations to make changes."
If Lerner's emails were not backed up on a server, then the IRS has an ever larger problem, according to Glotzbach. "It is unfathomable that an agency with such voluminous and essential data did not regularly conduct disaster recovery exercises and evaluate the outcome," he says.
In other words, the IRS has to employ a back-up system or it could lose all taxpayer data if its computers crashed. No business, let alone an agency dependent on records like the IRS, could risk losing all its data in the event a fire, earthquake or other disaster destroyed its computers or servers.
Despite the obvious lies, Democrats call the Congressional inquiry a political stunt. The lemmings in the news media have refused to lift a finger to investigate the IRS commissioner's claims. However, their efforts to squelch the Congressional investigation may have backfired.
Now the courts are involved. Cases have been filed with two federal district courts over the lost email issue. In at least one instance, the judge has already demanded an explanation from the IRS. Koskinen's coverup may about to be exposed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)