An English prophetess with a shadowy past is an appropriate patron saint for modern day soothsayers. This sorcerer was known as Mother Shipton, although that wasn't her real name, and her prophecies were appallingly inaccurate or otherwise discredited.
Born about 1488 as Ursula Southell, this medieval prognosticator was credited with writing a pamphlet that predicted the Great London Fire. However, critics claim her manuscript refers to another catastrophe: the lack of liquor in downtown London.
Apparently, Mother Shipton confused the destructive inferno of burning buildings with fire water (alcohol). It can happen to the best of oracles. With that in mind, your scribe offers these predictions for 2017:
The Dow Jones Average flirts with 21,000 in the second quarter before dipping below 20,000 and rallying in the final quarter to end the year at 20,887. Rising interest rates, weak top-line growth at major companies and an unsettled global economy tamp down enthusiasm for a break-out market.
After eight years of no uptick in interest rates, the Federal Reserve finally emerges from its cocoon and announces two increases in 2017 as the economy improves. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen comes under attack from Republicans, who accuse her of playing politics by failing to tinker with rates during the Obama presidency.
A year after the United Kingdom's vote to exit the European Union, the nation's politicians continue to slow-walk negotiations with their continent partners before announcing plans to hold another election on the issue. The decision ignites protests across England and the current prime minister is forced to stand for election.
On-board intelligent voice control becomes the new must-have feature in automobiles, replacing today's add-on systems. Ford becomes the first auto maker to introduce features in its cars that allow the driver to do everything from lower windows, set the cruise control and initiate turn signals using voice commands.
A disgruntled FBI agent releases documents showing the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server was compromised by interference from the Obama Department of Justice. The revelation sparks calls for reopening the probe, but recalcitrant Republicans urge the new Attorney General to drop the matter.
America's economy as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) finishes the year at 2.9 percent growth, the highest in eight years. The economic comeback is spurred by the growth in small businesses, particularly those in the Internet economy.
President Trump butts heads with Republicans over his signature issue of immigration reform, prompting some in the House of Representatives to call for the ouster of House Speaker Paul Ryan. The contentious issue involves how to deal with illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.
After eight years of hailing the nation's financial recovery, the mainstream media suddenly unleashes stories about the lousy state of job growth in the United States, blaming President Trump for being too distracted by plans to build a wall on the southern border. The media will point to statistics about the falling Labor Participation rate and the anemic increase in job creation.
A major cyber attack on the White House communications system rattles the nation, finally raising a red flag about the failure of the country to harden its IT infrastructure against malicious hackers. Initially, intelligence community officials point to Russia, but the culprit turns out to be a cyber gang operating in Iran.
Eighty-three-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, becomes seriously ill but refuses to resign. After months of speculation, she dies in office, leaving two vacancies for the new president to fill during his first term. With the naming of two justices, President Trump stamps the court with his own brand of judicial temperament.
Like Mother Shipton's visions, these predictions may also wind up being derided by historians with the hindsight of time. But at least for today, the forecasts have not proven to be inaccurate, something the good mother could appreciate if she were still around.
Monday, December 26, 2016
Monday, December 19, 2016
Fake News: Santa's Shocking Revelation
At a hastily called news conference at the newly built North Pole Tower, the world's most talked about person (not named Vladimir Putin) revealed that he intervened in the presidential election. Santa Claus make the shocking admission after weeks of speculation the Russians were involved.
"I decided to come clean," a repentant Claus disclosed to reporters. "Russians get blamed for everything these days. It would have been easy for me to remain silent, but that kind of behavior would wind up putting me on my own naughty list."
With a teary-eyed Mrs. Claus standing at his side, the jolly red-suited spirit of Christmas said he had spoken to the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey. Contacted by email, the FBI director said no charges would be filed against Mr. Claus.
"We call it the "Hillary Clinton Rule," Comey wrote. "Clearly, what Mr. Claus did was a violation of election laws, but he just wanted to have a little fun with the presidential outcome. He was careless but his intent was not malicious."
Pressed to explain how he tampered with the election, Santa unleashed a laugh that make his ample belly shake like a bowl of jello. "It was really easy," the corpulent man admitted. "I sent elves to every voting precinct in America. No one would turn away an elf, even without a voter ID."
According to Santa, the elves waited until after all the votes were cast, then snuck into the building and jiggered with the electronic machines. "You know elves are very mechanical; they were able to change the results with just a screw driver and a hammer."
To distract the poll watchers and election officials, Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer pranced outside each precinct. "Everyone stopped what they were doing and went outdoors to watch that darn blinking red nose," Santa said with a grin. "That gave the elves just enough time to switch the votes."
While Rudolf put on a show, the other reindeer marched with signs that warned the Russians were planning to steal the election. A sampling of the signage: "Put a Putin Puppet In the White House;" "Vladimir Doesn't Dig Chicks In Pantsuits;" and, "The KGB Loves Free Elections."
"It was all a diversionary tactic," Santa explained. "The clever spooks at the NSA deciphered the signs and came to the conclusion that the Russians were planning a malicious campaign to decide the outcome of the American presidential election."
Santa expressed surprise that America's intelligence community fell for the ruse of a Russian election sabotage. "Even President Obama ordered an investigation," Santa said, shaking his head in disbelief. "I wonder if Hillary Clinton had won, would there have been a probe?"
Under pressure from the White House, Santa was forced to delete Mr. Putin from the "nice list" this year. "That was cruel," Santa complained. "Last year, I gave him Ukraine for Christmas. He was so appreciative. This year he wanted Eastern Europe. It would have been huge."
Santa found a kernel of good cheer in the episode. "The little mischief I concocted had all the media reporting fake news about Russian intervention in our election. Even The New York Times and The Washington Post took the bait. Of course today, the news is mostly fantasy just like me."
On a serious note, Santa said the election outcome had left Ms. Claus in a serious funk. "She was a big Hillary supporter," Santa told reporters. "She hasn't slept in our bed since election night. I think she is suffering from elect-tile dysfunction. She has even threatened to move to the South Pole."
As reporters filed out of the media conference, Santa returned to the podium in a flash and bellowed into the microphone: "Merry Christmas everyone! And don't forget to leave a plate of gluten-free cookies by the fireplace this year."
"I decided to come clean," a repentant Claus disclosed to reporters. "Russians get blamed for everything these days. It would have been easy for me to remain silent, but that kind of behavior would wind up putting me on my own naughty list."
With a teary-eyed Mrs. Claus standing at his side, the jolly red-suited spirit of Christmas said he had spoken to the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey. Contacted by email, the FBI director said no charges would be filed against Mr. Claus.
"We call it the "Hillary Clinton Rule," Comey wrote. "Clearly, what Mr. Claus did was a violation of election laws, but he just wanted to have a little fun with the presidential outcome. He was careless but his intent was not malicious."
Pressed to explain how he tampered with the election, Santa unleashed a laugh that make his ample belly shake like a bowl of jello. "It was really easy," the corpulent man admitted. "I sent elves to every voting precinct in America. No one would turn away an elf, even without a voter ID."
According to Santa, the elves waited until after all the votes were cast, then snuck into the building and jiggered with the electronic machines. "You know elves are very mechanical; they were able to change the results with just a screw driver and a hammer."
To distract the poll watchers and election officials, Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer pranced outside each precinct. "Everyone stopped what they were doing and went outdoors to watch that darn blinking red nose," Santa said with a grin. "That gave the elves just enough time to switch the votes."
While Rudolf put on a show, the other reindeer marched with signs that warned the Russians were planning to steal the election. A sampling of the signage: "Put a Putin Puppet In the White House;" "Vladimir Doesn't Dig Chicks In Pantsuits;" and, "The KGB Loves Free Elections."
"It was all a diversionary tactic," Santa explained. "The clever spooks at the NSA deciphered the signs and came to the conclusion that the Russians were planning a malicious campaign to decide the outcome of the American presidential election."
Santa expressed surprise that America's intelligence community fell for the ruse of a Russian election sabotage. "Even President Obama ordered an investigation," Santa said, shaking his head in disbelief. "I wonder if Hillary Clinton had won, would there have been a probe?"
Under pressure from the White House, Santa was forced to delete Mr. Putin from the "nice list" this year. "That was cruel," Santa complained. "Last year, I gave him Ukraine for Christmas. He was so appreciative. This year he wanted Eastern Europe. It would have been huge."
Santa found a kernel of good cheer in the episode. "The little mischief I concocted had all the media reporting fake news about Russian intervention in our election. Even The New York Times and The Washington Post took the bait. Of course today, the news is mostly fantasy just like me."
On a serious note, Santa said the election outcome had left Ms. Claus in a serious funk. "She was a big Hillary supporter," Santa told reporters. "She hasn't slept in our bed since election night. I think she is suffering from elect-tile dysfunction. She has even threatened to move to the South Pole."
As reporters filed out of the media conference, Santa returned to the podium in a flash and bellowed into the microphone: "Merry Christmas everyone! And don't forget to leave a plate of gluten-free cookies by the fireplace this year."
Monday, December 12, 2016
America's Addiction to Pain Killers
More Americans die from overdoses of pain killers than are killed in auto accidents or murdered by guns. While lawmakers and activists are demanding action to reduce the carnage on the highways and on the streets, there is little outcry to deal with the rampant rise in opioid-related deaths.
There has been scant media coverage of the escalation of both the legal and illegal opioid use by Americans. The number of legal prescriptions for opioids has skyrocketed from 76 million in 1991 to nearly 207 million in 2013, according to Congressional testimony.
Opioids are a class of drugs that include well-known prescription pain relievers such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, codeine, morphine and fentanyl. You might recognize the drug brand names: Vicodin, OxyContin and Percocet. The illicit drug heroin is also an opioid.
These drugs work on the nerve cells in the brain and nervous system to produce euphoric effects and to relieve pain. When used properly, opioids help the more than 100 million people in the United States who suffer from chronic pain.
Despite the legitimate uses, opioids are often diverted for non-medical uses by patients or their friends. In many cases, the drugs are sold on the street. It has been estimated that non-medical use of opioid pain relievers costs insurance companies up to $72.5 billion annually.
In 2012, more than five percent of the U.S. population over the age of 12 used an opioid pain reliever for non-medical purposes. "The public health consequences of opioid pain reliever use are broad and disturbing," testified Dr. Nora D. Volkow, M.D., to a Senate caucus in 2014.
Doctor Volkow is director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse at the National Institute of Health. She has been sounding the alarm about the increasing worldwide problem of opioid abuse, which affects nearly 36 million people across the planet.
Drug overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death in the U.S. There were 47,055 deaths in 2014. The most recent statistics shows gun deaths in 2015 were 13,419. Automobile accidents killed 38,300 people last year. Why is there no outrage over the drug overdose epidemic?
The answer to that question underscores the problem with dealing with abuse. Over the past 20 years, laws governing the dispensing of opioid prescriptions have been relaxed. That has led to more doctors writing scripts for the drugs to patients who often demand the pills for minor pain.
Drug companies are also complicit, aggressively marketing the the safe use of pain killers. However, there have been no studies on the longer-term affects of usage. Despite the lack of evidence, pain killers are often viewed as benign by both doctors and patients.
The American Society of Addiction Medicine reports growing evidence of a relationship between non-medical usage of opioids and heroin abuse. It estimates that 23 percent of individuals who use heroin develop an opioid addiction. Four out of five new heroin users were first hooked on opioids.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that women more often than men become addicted to pain killers because they are more likely to have chronic pain. Studies show doctors often prescribe higher doses over longer periods of time to address the continuing symptoms.
In a 10 year period ending in 2010, 48,000 women died of prescription pain reliever overdoses, the center found in its ground breaking study entitled, "Prescription Painkiller Overdoses: A Growing Epidemic, Especially Among Women."
Urgent action is required to address this issue. Opioid addiction is the main driver of the staggering rise in drug overdose deaths in the U.S. In 2014, there were 18,893 overdose fatalities related to prescription pain killers. That is 40 percent of all deaths caused by drug overdoses.
Even more disturbing, abuse by adolescents (ages 12 to 17 years old) has spiraled out of control. A study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration documented that 168,000 adolescents are addicted to prescription pain relievers. Many graduate from opioids to heroin.
The problem will only worsen without a declaration of war on opioid usage.
Prevention of opioid abuse begins with education. Although these drugs can be effective in reducing pain, primary care doctors and patients need to armed with more information about the dangers associated with continued use and the linkage to heroin abuse.
Other solutions include more research on the treatment of pain without the use of opioids. More clinical studies are required to develop new drugs and compounds that do not have the same risks as opioids for dependence. Prescribing opioids should be a last resort, not the first treatment option.
Lastly, treatment of opioid addiction remains in the infant stages. More research should be undertaken to help patients deal with withdrawal symptoms and to regain control of their health. New medications need to be introduced as an essential part of weaning patients from opioids.
Dealing with opioid abuse must become a national priority. If not now, when? How many deaths will it take to awaken Americans to the problem? Whatever the number, it is too high. With so many lives at stake, further delay is unacceptable.
There has been scant media coverage of the escalation of both the legal and illegal opioid use by Americans. The number of legal prescriptions for opioids has skyrocketed from 76 million in 1991 to nearly 207 million in 2013, according to Congressional testimony.
Opioids are a class of drugs that include well-known prescription pain relievers such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, codeine, morphine and fentanyl. You might recognize the drug brand names: Vicodin, OxyContin and Percocet. The illicit drug heroin is also an opioid.
These drugs work on the nerve cells in the brain and nervous system to produce euphoric effects and to relieve pain. When used properly, opioids help the more than 100 million people in the United States who suffer from chronic pain.
Despite the legitimate uses, opioids are often diverted for non-medical uses by patients or their friends. In many cases, the drugs are sold on the street. It has been estimated that non-medical use of opioid pain relievers costs insurance companies up to $72.5 billion annually.
In 2012, more than five percent of the U.S. population over the age of 12 used an opioid pain reliever for non-medical purposes. "The public health consequences of opioid pain reliever use are broad and disturbing," testified Dr. Nora D. Volkow, M.D., to a Senate caucus in 2014.
Doctor Volkow is director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse at the National Institute of Health. She has been sounding the alarm about the increasing worldwide problem of opioid abuse, which affects nearly 36 million people across the planet.
Drug overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death in the U.S. There were 47,055 deaths in 2014. The most recent statistics shows gun deaths in 2015 were 13,419. Automobile accidents killed 38,300 people last year. Why is there no outrage over the drug overdose epidemic?
The answer to that question underscores the problem with dealing with abuse. Over the past 20 years, laws governing the dispensing of opioid prescriptions have been relaxed. That has led to more doctors writing scripts for the drugs to patients who often demand the pills for minor pain.
Drug companies are also complicit, aggressively marketing the the safe use of pain killers. However, there have been no studies on the longer-term affects of usage. Despite the lack of evidence, pain killers are often viewed as benign by both doctors and patients.
The American Society of Addiction Medicine reports growing evidence of a relationship between non-medical usage of opioids and heroin abuse. It estimates that 23 percent of individuals who use heroin develop an opioid addiction. Four out of five new heroin users were first hooked on opioids.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that women more often than men become addicted to pain killers because they are more likely to have chronic pain. Studies show doctors often prescribe higher doses over longer periods of time to address the continuing symptoms.
In a 10 year period ending in 2010, 48,000 women died of prescription pain reliever overdoses, the center found in its ground breaking study entitled, "Prescription Painkiller Overdoses: A Growing Epidemic, Especially Among Women."
Urgent action is required to address this issue. Opioid addiction is the main driver of the staggering rise in drug overdose deaths in the U.S. In 2014, there were 18,893 overdose fatalities related to prescription pain killers. That is 40 percent of all deaths caused by drug overdoses.
Even more disturbing, abuse by adolescents (ages 12 to 17 years old) has spiraled out of control. A study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration documented that 168,000 adolescents are addicted to prescription pain relievers. Many graduate from opioids to heroin.
The problem will only worsen without a declaration of war on opioid usage.
Prevention of opioid abuse begins with education. Although these drugs can be effective in reducing pain, primary care doctors and patients need to armed with more information about the dangers associated with continued use and the linkage to heroin abuse.
Other solutions include more research on the treatment of pain without the use of opioids. More clinical studies are required to develop new drugs and compounds that do not have the same risks as opioids for dependence. Prescribing opioids should be a last resort, not the first treatment option.
Lastly, treatment of opioid addiction remains in the infant stages. More research should be undertaken to help patients deal with withdrawal symptoms and to regain control of their health. New medications need to be introduced as an essential part of weaning patients from opioids.
Dealing with opioid abuse must become a national priority. If not now, when? How many deaths will it take to awaken Americans to the problem? Whatever the number, it is too high. With so many lives at stake, further delay is unacceptable.
Monday, December 5, 2016
December 7, 1941: A Day of Infamy
Navy corpsman Sterling Cale had just finished his shift at the hospital and trudged toward the main gate at the military base. Light was approaching the island of Oahu, Hawaii, and a tired Cale needed sleep. He would never make it to bed that day, December 7, 1941.
Before Cale left the base, the first wave of Japanese planes launched an assault on the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor. The aircraft dive bombed American cruisers, aircraft carriers and battleships. One hour later, a second wave of planes carried out deadly raids on air fields.
By 9:55 a.m, Japan's stealth blitzkrieg had ended, leaving in its wake chaos and destruction. In a a few hours, the lethal strike killed 2,403 Americans, destroyed 188 aircraft and damaged or obliterated eight battleships. Plumes of acrid black smoke hung over the island.
Cale was startled by the thrumming of scores of planes as he was leaving the base. He looked back toward the harbor in stunned disbelief. He remembered seeing the red Rising Sun painted on the aircraft's fuselage and thinking, "My God, those are Japanese planes!"
A flabbergasted Cale sprung into action. He raced to the armory building, grabbed a fire axe and smashed the door. Cale began handing out rifles to American soldiers as they ran toward the harbor. When the men reached the main gate, they commenced firing at the enemy planes.
"I don't think they ever hit anything," Cale recalled. "Just too much distance." But the soldiers wouldn't stop firing because their buddies were being torpedoed and bombed by relentless swarms of Japanese planes intent on wiping out the Pacific Fleet.
"I saw about ten of them (planes) going to hit the USS Oklahoma, so I ran down to the dock and took the officer's barge," Cale reminisced. "With so much activity in the water, we never did get there." Undeterred, Cale began plucking Navy servicemen from the chilly waters.
"I only picked up 46 people in four hours," modestly recalled Cale, a native of Macomb, Illinois. "Some of them were dead already. Some of them badly wounded, some badly burned." The wounded were rushed to the Naval Hospital at Pearl Harbor.
During the first three hours after the Japanese attack, the 250-bed Naval Hospital received 960 casualties. Ironically, Cale was not ordered to remain at the hospital with the wounded. Instead, the master-at-arms had him stand guard at the receiving station with rifle in hand.
By nightfall, an eerie glow from the harbor was a grim reminder of the day's horrific carnage. The USS Arizona was still burning because it had sustained a direct hit to its ammunition locker. The Pennsylvania-class battleship would smolder for two-and-a-half days.
On December 10, Cale was assigned to lead a team of 10 men to begin recovery operations on the hulking Arizona. Cale warned his team about what awaited them. "Men, I don't know what we're going to see on the Arizona," he told the soldiers. No one was prepared for what they found.
When they arrived at the battleship, black ashes were wafting in the air. Tragically, those ashes were what was left of sailors who perished on the fiery USS Arizona. The memory of that mission still haunts Cale, a soft-spoken man who lives on the island of Oahu with his wife of 70 years.
"About once a week I go out (to the USS Arizona Memorial) and pay my respects to the people I left on the ship," a solemn Cale said. What remains of the Arizona rests in Pearl Harbor, where a 184-foot long white memorial spans the mid-portion of the sunken ship.
A total of 1,177 crewmen on the Arizona died during the attack. Many were buried with their battleship. To date, more than 30 Arizona crewmen who survived the bombing have chosen the ship as their final resting place. Others will surely follow.
Cale's military career didn't end at Pearl Harbor. He served in the Korean War and did a tour in Vietnam. His military service allowed him to see the world, something he never imagined as an adopted Illinois farm boy who had been shunted off to an orphanage at six weeks old.
Cale, who celebrated his 95th birthday on November 29, still proudly wears his cap stitched with the words, "Pearl Harbor Survivor." He had a front row view of the battle that hurtled America into World War II. His story is one of service, sacrifice and patriotism.
America could still use more men like Sterling Cale.
Before Cale left the base, the first wave of Japanese planes launched an assault on the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor. The aircraft dive bombed American cruisers, aircraft carriers and battleships. One hour later, a second wave of planes carried out deadly raids on air fields.
By 9:55 a.m, Japan's stealth blitzkrieg had ended, leaving in its wake chaos and destruction. In a a few hours, the lethal strike killed 2,403 Americans, destroyed 188 aircraft and damaged or obliterated eight battleships. Plumes of acrid black smoke hung over the island.
Cale was startled by the thrumming of scores of planes as he was leaving the base. He looked back toward the harbor in stunned disbelief. He remembered seeing the red Rising Sun painted on the aircraft's fuselage and thinking, "My God, those are Japanese planes!"
A flabbergasted Cale sprung into action. He raced to the armory building, grabbed a fire axe and smashed the door. Cale began handing out rifles to American soldiers as they ran toward the harbor. When the men reached the main gate, they commenced firing at the enemy planes.
"I don't think they ever hit anything," Cale recalled. "Just too much distance." But the soldiers wouldn't stop firing because their buddies were being torpedoed and bombed by relentless swarms of Japanese planes intent on wiping out the Pacific Fleet.
"I saw about ten of them (planes) going to hit the USS Oklahoma, so I ran down to the dock and took the officer's barge," Cale reminisced. "With so much activity in the water, we never did get there." Undeterred, Cale began plucking Navy servicemen from the chilly waters.
"I only picked up 46 people in four hours," modestly recalled Cale, a native of Macomb, Illinois. "Some of them were dead already. Some of them badly wounded, some badly burned." The wounded were rushed to the Naval Hospital at Pearl Harbor.
During the first three hours after the Japanese attack, the 250-bed Naval Hospital received 960 casualties. Ironically, Cale was not ordered to remain at the hospital with the wounded. Instead, the master-at-arms had him stand guard at the receiving station with rifle in hand.
By nightfall, an eerie glow from the harbor was a grim reminder of the day's horrific carnage. The USS Arizona was still burning because it had sustained a direct hit to its ammunition locker. The Pennsylvania-class battleship would smolder for two-and-a-half days.
On December 10, Cale was assigned to lead a team of 10 men to begin recovery operations on the hulking Arizona. Cale warned his team about what awaited them. "Men, I don't know what we're going to see on the Arizona," he told the soldiers. No one was prepared for what they found.
When they arrived at the battleship, black ashes were wafting in the air. Tragically, those ashes were what was left of sailors who perished on the fiery USS Arizona. The memory of that mission still haunts Cale, a soft-spoken man who lives on the island of Oahu with his wife of 70 years.
"About once a week I go out (to the USS Arizona Memorial) and pay my respects to the people I left on the ship," a solemn Cale said. What remains of the Arizona rests in Pearl Harbor, where a 184-foot long white memorial spans the mid-portion of the sunken ship.
A total of 1,177 crewmen on the Arizona died during the attack. Many were buried with their battleship. To date, more than 30 Arizona crewmen who survived the bombing have chosen the ship as their final resting place. Others will surely follow.
Cale's military career didn't end at Pearl Harbor. He served in the Korean War and did a tour in Vietnam. His military service allowed him to see the world, something he never imagined as an adopted Illinois farm boy who had been shunted off to an orphanage at six weeks old.
Cale, who celebrated his 95th birthday on November 29, still proudly wears his cap stitched with the words, "Pearl Harbor Survivor." He had a front row view of the battle that hurtled America into World War II. His story is one of service, sacrifice and patriotism.
America could still use more men like Sterling Cale.
Monday, November 28, 2016
Democrats Scheme To Delegitimize Election
Imagine it's 2008. Barrack Hussein Obama has been elected president. A day after his victory, protests erupt in major cities. Movie stars warn they will flee to Canada. The opposition party trashes his character. The media denigrates those who voted for a political novice.
If this sounds far fetched, then just substitute the name of president-elect Donald J. Trump for Mr. Obama in that opening paragraph. There would have been moral outrage from all quarters had President-elect Obama suffered the same slings and arrows.
Mr. Trump has not even taken the oath of office and the vicious attacks have begun. Do you recall Republicans rioting in the streets after Mr. Obama's election? Did the media seek out Mitt Romney supporters distraught over a black president? Were whites fleeing to Canada? Crickets.
After the Democratic Party and its standard bearer Hillary Clinton were thoroughly rejected by voters, the media narrative is that white racists, misogynists and homophobes are responsible for Mr. Trump's triumph. He won because he appealed to Americans' base prejudices.
We have that on the authoritative word of election expert Mr. Obama, who has jetted around the globe trying to poison foreign relations by worrying out loud about the direction of one nation under Donald J. Trump. Does anyone remember George W. Bush embarking on a similar tour? Crickets.
Electoral College members are being harassed by Clinton loyalists to ignore their state's voters and back their flawed candidate. The Green Party and the Clinton campaign have joined forces to demand recounts in several states in a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the peaceful transition of power.
As a reminder, during the presidential campaign Ms. Clinton excoriated Mr. Trump for his comments about a rigged election. "Anyone who does not accept the results of the election is a threat to Democracy," she thundered at a campaign rally. Her own words now convict her.
Meanwhile, George Soros-funded faux activist groups are flooding the streets with paid demonstrators in cities across the country. A compliant media covers the protests as if these were spontaneous reactions to a Trump presidency. The outcry is nothing more than propaganda.
Democrats are lining up on liberal media expressing their concerns over Mr. Trump's cabinet, while he still fleshes out his choices. The media is howling that Mr. Trump is dallying, although it took Mr. Obama six weeks to announce his first choices to serve on his Beltway team.
Every one of these incidents is part of a clandestine orchestrated effort by Democrats and their accomplices to render the Trump presidency dead-on-arrival. They used the same tactic against Mr. Bush, calling him an illegitimate president after his narrow win in 2000.
In an attempt to impugn Mr. Trump's victory, the Democrat Party-controlled media has reminded Americans that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. According to the current tally, she has a 1.4 million vote lead out of 123 million ballots that were cast in the election.
That means the margin is barely one percent. To put that in perspective, Ms. Clinton beat Mr. Trump by nearly four million votes in California. Without that lopsided margin in a single state, Ms. Clinton would have lost the popular vote as well as the electoral count.
Another fact you will not read in the mainstream media: Mr. Trump won 3,084 out of 3,141 counties stretching across America's heartland. Ms. Clinton rolled up big vote margins in an elite band of 52 counties located on opposite coasts of the country. The remainder of America was a sea of red.
Democrats have a lot more to worry about than Mr. Trump. Since Mr. Obama ascended to the White House, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 12 governorships. With the exception of narrow slices of the East and West coasts, Republicans are dominating elections.
Instead of using their resources to declaw Mr. Trump, Democrats would be better served to figure out why the electorate has turned on their party. Their constant harping about Mr. Trump and his supporters won't win them any converts. Hillary Clinton tried that tactic and was drubbed.
But Democrats can't help themselves. When they lose, they blame the dumb voters and brand the winner as an unlawful pretender to the presidency. This time no one is listening but their dwindling base of voters.
If this sounds far fetched, then just substitute the name of president-elect Donald J. Trump for Mr. Obama in that opening paragraph. There would have been moral outrage from all quarters had President-elect Obama suffered the same slings and arrows.
Mr. Trump has not even taken the oath of office and the vicious attacks have begun. Do you recall Republicans rioting in the streets after Mr. Obama's election? Did the media seek out Mitt Romney supporters distraught over a black president? Were whites fleeing to Canada? Crickets.
After the Democratic Party and its standard bearer Hillary Clinton were thoroughly rejected by voters, the media narrative is that white racists, misogynists and homophobes are responsible for Mr. Trump's triumph. He won because he appealed to Americans' base prejudices.
We have that on the authoritative word of election expert Mr. Obama, who has jetted around the globe trying to poison foreign relations by worrying out loud about the direction of one nation under Donald J. Trump. Does anyone remember George W. Bush embarking on a similar tour? Crickets.
Electoral College members are being harassed by Clinton loyalists to ignore their state's voters and back their flawed candidate. The Green Party and the Clinton campaign have joined forces to demand recounts in several states in a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the peaceful transition of power.
As a reminder, during the presidential campaign Ms. Clinton excoriated Mr. Trump for his comments about a rigged election. "Anyone who does not accept the results of the election is a threat to Democracy," she thundered at a campaign rally. Her own words now convict her.
Meanwhile, George Soros-funded faux activist groups are flooding the streets with paid demonstrators in cities across the country. A compliant media covers the protests as if these were spontaneous reactions to a Trump presidency. The outcry is nothing more than propaganda.
Democrats are lining up on liberal media expressing their concerns over Mr. Trump's cabinet, while he still fleshes out his choices. The media is howling that Mr. Trump is dallying, although it took Mr. Obama six weeks to announce his first choices to serve on his Beltway team.
Every one of these incidents is part of a clandestine orchestrated effort by Democrats and their accomplices to render the Trump presidency dead-on-arrival. They used the same tactic against Mr. Bush, calling him an illegitimate president after his narrow win in 2000.
In an attempt to impugn Mr. Trump's victory, the Democrat Party-controlled media has reminded Americans that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. According to the current tally, she has a 1.4 million vote lead out of 123 million ballots that were cast in the election.
That means the margin is barely one percent. To put that in perspective, Ms. Clinton beat Mr. Trump by nearly four million votes in California. Without that lopsided margin in a single state, Ms. Clinton would have lost the popular vote as well as the electoral count.
Another fact you will not read in the mainstream media: Mr. Trump won 3,084 out of 3,141 counties stretching across America's heartland. Ms. Clinton rolled up big vote margins in an elite band of 52 counties located on opposite coasts of the country. The remainder of America was a sea of red.
Democrats have a lot more to worry about than Mr. Trump. Since Mr. Obama ascended to the White House, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 12 governorships. With the exception of narrow slices of the East and West coasts, Republicans are dominating elections.
Instead of using their resources to declaw Mr. Trump, Democrats would be better served to figure out why the electorate has turned on their party. Their constant harping about Mr. Trump and his supporters won't win them any converts. Hillary Clinton tried that tactic and was drubbed.
But Democrats can't help themselves. When they lose, they blame the dumb voters and brand the winner as an unlawful pretender to the presidency. This time no one is listening but their dwindling base of voters.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Grandchildren: Giving Thanks For the Little Ones
When Thanksgiving arrives each season, it is a reminder there are few treasures in life to be cherished more than grandchildren. They tug at our crusty hearts, induce wrinkled smiles and love us even if we are creaky, old-fashioned and smell funny.
Nothing in life compares to the squeal of a grandchild. That sound of utter joy when you waddle into their room or shower them with a gift or repeat the same story you have told one hundred times before. A grandchild has the power to uplift those of us battling the indignities of age.
Grandchildren are truth tellers. Don't ask them a question unless you want an honest answer. They are incapable of political correctness. What tumbles out of the mouths of these babes is authentic, unfiltered. Unlike adults, they are uncomplicated and sincere.
These little ones know you love them, but not just because of your expressions of affection for them. Grandchildren have a sixth sense about grandparents. Somewhere in their DNA there is a gene that triggers an emotional connection with grandparents.
Grand kids make you feel special every time you are in their company. Sure, they enjoy the presents you tote to their house, but grandchildren are comforted by your mere presence. They show their gratitude by hugging your leg, clambering up into your lap or squeezing your neck.
When they kiss and hug you, all of the world's troubles evaporate. They are affectionate by nature and nothing delights them more than receiving your approval. When you least expect it, they blurt out, "I love you." The sound of those three words is like a heavenly angelic chorus.
Grandchildren offer the best gifts. A hand-scrawled drawing from a grandchild is worth more than a Picasso or a Van Gough. Refrigerators were created to hold these priceless paintings made by tiny hands. A barely legible signature at the bottom of the artwork creates a lasting memory.
Grand kids innately understand when their grandparents could use a boost. They pluck a flower from a park and hand it to you with a grin. "This is for you because you are my grandma," a grandchild giggles. What can you do but laugh and feel grateful for the experience of this small gesture?
When a toddler places his palm in your hand, there is a tenderness that is difficult to explain to those who have never felt the touch of a grandchild. In that moment, memories of your own children rush into your consciousness, kindling a longing for those days when they were under your roof.
There is something astonishing about holding your grandchild in your arms. It feels like only yesterday you clutched your children in the same way. How did those times fade so quickly? Grand kids allow you to close your eyes and dream about the way it was with your own children.
Having a grandchild spend a day or a week at your house tops any expensive vacation. It's your time alone without snoopy parents around to issue rebukes about indulging your grand kids' appetite for ice cream. When they leave, you count down the days until their next visit.
Every grandchild is born with an instruction manual telling each one how to manipulate grandparents. A pouty plea or a wistful wish from a grand kid is impossible to resist. They know it, you know it, but neither of you cares.
Reading to grandchildren is a pleasure without equal. They fidget, tilt their little heads, lean into you for warmth and mouth the words along with you. It is hard to concentrate on the text as you watch their eyelids flutter with the approach of sleep.
Best of all you can see the future by looking into the eyes of a grandchild. Their destiny is filled with light, love and high expectations. You may be experiencing your final revolution around the sun, but your grandchild has a whole life to live. It makes your future less scary.
Be thankful for your grand kids. They are God's gift to a world that could use more of their unique brand of unconditional love.
Nothing in life compares to the squeal of a grandchild. That sound of utter joy when you waddle into their room or shower them with a gift or repeat the same story you have told one hundred times before. A grandchild has the power to uplift those of us battling the indignities of age.
Grandchildren are truth tellers. Don't ask them a question unless you want an honest answer. They are incapable of political correctness. What tumbles out of the mouths of these babes is authentic, unfiltered. Unlike adults, they are uncomplicated and sincere.
These little ones know you love them, but not just because of your expressions of affection for them. Grandchildren have a sixth sense about grandparents. Somewhere in their DNA there is a gene that triggers an emotional connection with grandparents.
Grand kids make you feel special every time you are in their company. Sure, they enjoy the presents you tote to their house, but grandchildren are comforted by your mere presence. They show their gratitude by hugging your leg, clambering up into your lap or squeezing your neck.
When they kiss and hug you, all of the world's troubles evaporate. They are affectionate by nature and nothing delights them more than receiving your approval. When you least expect it, they blurt out, "I love you." The sound of those three words is like a heavenly angelic chorus.
Grandchildren offer the best gifts. A hand-scrawled drawing from a grandchild is worth more than a Picasso or a Van Gough. Refrigerators were created to hold these priceless paintings made by tiny hands. A barely legible signature at the bottom of the artwork creates a lasting memory.
Grand kids innately understand when their grandparents could use a boost. They pluck a flower from a park and hand it to you with a grin. "This is for you because you are my grandma," a grandchild giggles. What can you do but laugh and feel grateful for the experience of this small gesture?
When a toddler places his palm in your hand, there is a tenderness that is difficult to explain to those who have never felt the touch of a grandchild. In that moment, memories of your own children rush into your consciousness, kindling a longing for those days when they were under your roof.
There is something astonishing about holding your grandchild in your arms. It feels like only yesterday you clutched your children in the same way. How did those times fade so quickly? Grand kids allow you to close your eyes and dream about the way it was with your own children.
Having a grandchild spend a day or a week at your house tops any expensive vacation. It's your time alone without snoopy parents around to issue rebukes about indulging your grand kids' appetite for ice cream. When they leave, you count down the days until their next visit.
Every grandchild is born with an instruction manual telling each one how to manipulate grandparents. A pouty plea or a wistful wish from a grand kid is impossible to resist. They know it, you know it, but neither of you cares.
Reading to grandchildren is a pleasure without equal. They fidget, tilt their little heads, lean into you for warmth and mouth the words along with you. It is hard to concentrate on the text as you watch their eyelids flutter with the approach of sleep.
Best of all you can see the future by looking into the eyes of a grandchild. Their destiny is filled with light, love and high expectations. You may be experiencing your final revolution around the sun, but your grandchild has a whole life to live. It makes your future less scary.
Be thankful for your grand kids. They are God's gift to a world that could use more of their unique brand of unconditional love.
Monday, November 7, 2016
What Trump's Election Means
Political insiders, pundits, well-heeled lobbyists and pollsters were dead wrong. They were certain Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in an epic landslide. Americans would never elect Donald Trump, a man they spent 18 months dismissing as unfit to occupy the Oval Office.
The problem is every single one of these know-it-alls is out-of-touch with real Americans. The inside-the-Beltway crowd talks only to each other. Meanwhile, out in fly over country, those bitter clingers who had been mocked by the media were spoiling to rewrite electoral history
An anti-establishment tide was sweeping America and none of the political big shots took notice. Americans no longer considered the media mainstream. There was palpable anger against institutions, including Wall Street, giant banks, global corporations and the federal government.
Americans had no love for the hidebound cliques who dominated both political parties. Their distrust fueled two anti-establishment candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Republican and Democrat barons pooh-poohed their chances and connived to keep them from primary victory.
Democrats rigged the primary to deny Sanders. Republican emperors savaged Mr. Trump and his supporters. The lords of the GOP had surrogates working behind the scenes to crater the Trump campaign to no avail. They never recognized their base had changed right before their eyes.
Make no mistake: this victory by Donald Trump was a rejection of the Washington establishment and everything it stands for. Americans of both parties are sick and tired of being ignored, taken-for-granted and being flimflammed by special interests who sway decision-making in Congress.
Equally as important, Mr. Trump's election means there are new rules for winning the presidency. Rule number one: money isn't everything. Ms. Clinton outspent her opponent nearly 100-to-one, raising a record $1 billion in campaign cash. Money can no longer purchase the White House.
All those bucks are needed to pay for waves of political advertising. Political consultants worship negative advertising aimed at smearing the opponent. This time it didn't work. Ms. Clinton owned television, but her vicious ads were ineffective especially in swing states.
The conventional political calculus has always been that a ground game wins general elections. Door-knocking, robot calls, yard signs and political store front offices were supposed to be an advantage. The political nobility chuckled that huge candidate rallies were nothing more than eye candy.
Mr. Trump proved his unconventional approach to campaigning not only attracted crowds, but energized voters to turnout. By comparison, Ms. Clinton spoke at half-filled venues speckled with unenthusiastic automatons. That should have been a red flag to anyone paying attention.
Mr. Trump's win also deals a blow to pollsters and their research. Americans have been brainwashed by the media about the science of taking the temperature of voters. Polling is fraught with errors, especially when the results can be skewed by those conducting the research.
Campaigns will continue to use polling, but they would be well advised to place little faith in the results. There is no substitute for hearing from real people, face-to-face. Fewer people are even willing to talk to telephone researchers, which renders traditional polling methods obsolete.
The election results also smashed to smithereens the hollowed cliche no candidate can win the presidency without the Latino and African-American vote. Eight years ago the political elite were convinced white voters no longer mattered. The "white" GOP was history.
It turns out white voters still make up 73.5 percent of registered voters. They remain the majority. Ignoring that reality is political folly. Demographics are changing and at some point the numbers may shift, too. However, right now minorities remain the minority.
The biggest loser this election was the media cabal. Every newspaper and television outlet conspired to influence voters by tilting news coverage in favor of Ms. Clinton. It utterly failed. Traditional media has lost its political clout. Social media and cable news are the new political kingmakers.
Honest historians, an oxymoron if there ever was one, should reach two conclusions about the 2016 election. Voters renounced the establishment and signaled that the old political formula is no longer relevant. Change is sweeping America, but few in the political intelligentsia saw it coming.
The problem is every single one of these know-it-alls is out-of-touch with real Americans. The inside-the-Beltway crowd talks only to each other. Meanwhile, out in fly over country, those bitter clingers who had been mocked by the media were spoiling to rewrite electoral history
An anti-establishment tide was sweeping America and none of the political big shots took notice. Americans no longer considered the media mainstream. There was palpable anger against institutions, including Wall Street, giant banks, global corporations and the federal government.
Americans had no love for the hidebound cliques who dominated both political parties. Their distrust fueled two anti-establishment candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Republican and Democrat barons pooh-poohed their chances and connived to keep them from primary victory.
Democrats rigged the primary to deny Sanders. Republican emperors savaged Mr. Trump and his supporters. The lords of the GOP had surrogates working behind the scenes to crater the Trump campaign to no avail. They never recognized their base had changed right before their eyes.
Make no mistake: this victory by Donald Trump was a rejection of the Washington establishment and everything it stands for. Americans of both parties are sick and tired of being ignored, taken-for-granted and being flimflammed by special interests who sway decision-making in Congress.
Equally as important, Mr. Trump's election means there are new rules for winning the presidency. Rule number one: money isn't everything. Ms. Clinton outspent her opponent nearly 100-to-one, raising a record $1 billion in campaign cash. Money can no longer purchase the White House.
All those bucks are needed to pay for waves of political advertising. Political consultants worship negative advertising aimed at smearing the opponent. This time it didn't work. Ms. Clinton owned television, but her vicious ads were ineffective especially in swing states.
The conventional political calculus has always been that a ground game wins general elections. Door-knocking, robot calls, yard signs and political store front offices were supposed to be an advantage. The political nobility chuckled that huge candidate rallies were nothing more than eye candy.
Mr. Trump proved his unconventional approach to campaigning not only attracted crowds, but energized voters to turnout. By comparison, Ms. Clinton spoke at half-filled venues speckled with unenthusiastic automatons. That should have been a red flag to anyone paying attention.
Mr. Trump's win also deals a blow to pollsters and their research. Americans have been brainwashed by the media about the science of taking the temperature of voters. Polling is fraught with errors, especially when the results can be skewed by those conducting the research.
Campaigns will continue to use polling, but they would be well advised to place little faith in the results. There is no substitute for hearing from real people, face-to-face. Fewer people are even willing to talk to telephone researchers, which renders traditional polling methods obsolete.
The election results also smashed to smithereens the hollowed cliche no candidate can win the presidency without the Latino and African-American vote. Eight years ago the political elite were convinced white voters no longer mattered. The "white" GOP was history.
It turns out white voters still make up 73.5 percent of registered voters. They remain the majority. Ignoring that reality is political folly. Demographics are changing and at some point the numbers may shift, too. However, right now minorities remain the minority.
The biggest loser this election was the media cabal. Every newspaper and television outlet conspired to influence voters by tilting news coverage in favor of Ms. Clinton. It utterly failed. Traditional media has lost its political clout. Social media and cable news are the new political kingmakers.
Honest historians, an oxymoron if there ever was one, should reach two conclusions about the 2016 election. Voters renounced the establishment and signaled that the old political formula is no longer relevant. Change is sweeping America, but few in the political intelligentsia saw it coming.
Media: The Biggest Losers This Election
The 2016 presidential election has once and for all unmasked the mainstream media as nothing more than Democrat Party apparatchiks. There no longer is even a pretense of journalism or fairness. Most "news" organizations have coddled Hillary Clinton, while lambasting Donald Trump.
Allegations of media bias are nothing new in presidential elections. But this time reporters and editors have openly confessed they consider Mr. Trump's candidacy a threat to democracy. If you doubt that statement, then you have not being paying attention to the news coverage.
Here is what The New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote. "If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that." The last vestiges of journalistic ethics have been shredded on the pages of the newspaper of record.
Objectivity and balance are no longer viewed as ethical standards by the news media. The new creed for journalists is to ingratiate themselves with the academic elite, the politically connected and the Washington power brokers, while pretending to pursue the truth.
A recent Associated Press-GfK poll confirms that most Americans are not fooled by the media's facade of unprejudiced reporting. Overall, 56 percent of likely voters told researchers that the media is biased against Mr. Trump. Just five percent believe the coverage favors him.
Even Ms. Clinton's supporters are more likely to recognize the bias against Mr. Trump. Thirty percent of her voters single out the media for unfairly hammering Mr. Trump. Sixty percent of her backers see no bias in either direction. Their brain wave patterns should be analyzed.
A Rasmussen survey found 61 percent of likely voters put no faith in the political news they see on television, hear on the radio or read in newspapers. That is a 16-point jump from the last Rasmussen research on the topic. Only 21 percent express confidence in political coverage.
Here's just one example of why voters are justifiably suspicious. When Mr. Trump was ambushed with sexual misconduct allegations, ABC, NBC and CBS used 23 minutes combined covering the story on the day the news broke. It was the lead item on all three networks.
Now compare that to the news reporting the day Wikileaks released a series of bombshell emails authored by Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta. The three television networks combined spent all of one minute and seven seconds on the revelations. And it wasn't even the top story.
The Wikileaks emails also have spotlighted the seedy underbelly of journalism. Reporters emailed copies of stories to aides of Ms. Clinton for approval. Journalists were fed stories by her campaign and reliably regurgitated the talking-points. They might as well have been on her payroll.
In an extraordinary revelation, the Clinton campaign rounded up 65 reporters and journalists for an "off-the-record dinner" on April 10, 2015, to "frame" Hillary Clinton's message for her presidential announcement. The invitation flagged that ABC's Diane Sawyer would be among the guests.
The list of attendees included a who's who of Washington journalism, including David Muir and George Stephanoplous from ABC, Norah O'Donnell with CBS and eight news people from the CNN network. Five reporters from The New York Times showed up for the cozy affair.
The dinner was hosted at the palatial home of Podesta. Background sessions with reporters are not uncommon, but it is abnormal for journalists to be wined and dined by a campaign chairman. In days past, journalists avoided even the appearance of favoritism to one party campaign over the other.
Not to be outdone, CNN contributor Donna Brazile, who doubles as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was forced to resign from her news position after leaked emails showed she secretly supplied Ms. Clinton with the questions at least twice in advance of presidential debates.
Social media has thrown in with Ms. Clinton, too. Google jiggered its search engine to bury unfavorable entries about her. Twitter banned vociferous supporters of Mr. Trump. Facebook was outed for its hostility toward favorable posts about Mr. Trump. The fix was in for Ms. Clinton.
But social media does not pretend to be a forum for journalism. That's supposed to be the role of newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Those outlets which claim to report the news should be guardians of objectivity, fairness and impartiality.
Journalists in this election have been exposed as lemming-like partisans who are actively involved with the Democratic Party's campaign to claim the White House. Their shabby conduct has irreparably corrupted what few tattered principles remained from this once revered profession.
America no longer has an honest media. The media is nothing more than an extension of the Democratic Party, Washington political insiders and liberal voices who champion views that many Americans consider anathema to our culture and heritage.
That's not what America's founders envisioned when they enshrined the right of free expression and an unfettered press.
Allegations of media bias are nothing new in presidential elections. But this time reporters and editors have openly confessed they consider Mr. Trump's candidacy a threat to democracy. If you doubt that statement, then you have not being paying attention to the news coverage.
Here is what The New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote. "If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that." The last vestiges of journalistic ethics have been shredded on the pages of the newspaper of record.
Objectivity and balance are no longer viewed as ethical standards by the news media. The new creed for journalists is to ingratiate themselves with the academic elite, the politically connected and the Washington power brokers, while pretending to pursue the truth.
A recent Associated Press-GfK poll confirms that most Americans are not fooled by the media's facade of unprejudiced reporting. Overall, 56 percent of likely voters told researchers that the media is biased against Mr. Trump. Just five percent believe the coverage favors him.
Even Ms. Clinton's supporters are more likely to recognize the bias against Mr. Trump. Thirty percent of her voters single out the media for unfairly hammering Mr. Trump. Sixty percent of her backers see no bias in either direction. Their brain wave patterns should be analyzed.
A Rasmussen survey found 61 percent of likely voters put no faith in the political news they see on television, hear on the radio or read in newspapers. That is a 16-point jump from the last Rasmussen research on the topic. Only 21 percent express confidence in political coverage.
Here's just one example of why voters are justifiably suspicious. When Mr. Trump was ambushed with sexual misconduct allegations, ABC, NBC and CBS used 23 minutes combined covering the story on the day the news broke. It was the lead item on all three networks.
Now compare that to the news reporting the day Wikileaks released a series of bombshell emails authored by Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta. The three television networks combined spent all of one minute and seven seconds on the revelations. And it wasn't even the top story.
The Wikileaks emails also have spotlighted the seedy underbelly of journalism. Reporters emailed copies of stories to aides of Ms. Clinton for approval. Journalists were fed stories by her campaign and reliably regurgitated the talking-points. They might as well have been on her payroll.
In an extraordinary revelation, the Clinton campaign rounded up 65 reporters and journalists for an "off-the-record dinner" on April 10, 2015, to "frame" Hillary Clinton's message for her presidential announcement. The invitation flagged that ABC's Diane Sawyer would be among the guests.
The list of attendees included a who's who of Washington journalism, including David Muir and George Stephanoplous from ABC, Norah O'Donnell with CBS and eight news people from the CNN network. Five reporters from The New York Times showed up for the cozy affair.
The dinner was hosted at the palatial home of Podesta. Background sessions with reporters are not uncommon, but it is abnormal for journalists to be wined and dined by a campaign chairman. In days past, journalists avoided even the appearance of favoritism to one party campaign over the other.
Not to be outdone, CNN contributor Donna Brazile, who doubles as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was forced to resign from her news position after leaked emails showed she secretly supplied Ms. Clinton with the questions at least twice in advance of presidential debates.
Social media has thrown in with Ms. Clinton, too. Google jiggered its search engine to bury unfavorable entries about her. Twitter banned vociferous supporters of Mr. Trump. Facebook was outed for its hostility toward favorable posts about Mr. Trump. The fix was in for Ms. Clinton.
But social media does not pretend to be a forum for journalism. That's supposed to be the role of newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Those outlets which claim to report the news should be guardians of objectivity, fairness and impartiality.
Journalists in this election have been exposed as lemming-like partisans who are actively involved with the Democratic Party's campaign to claim the White House. Their shabby conduct has irreparably corrupted what few tattered principles remained from this once revered profession.
America no longer has an honest media. The media is nothing more than an extension of the Democratic Party, Washington political insiders and liberal voices who champion views that many Americans consider anathema to our culture and heritage.
That's not what America's founders envisioned when they enshrined the right of free expression and an unfettered press.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Who Will Win the Presidential Election?
This presidential election, unlike any other in recent history, defies conventional political calculations. For that reason, Americans are advised to ignore the polls, pundit predictions and electoral math. The truth is there are too many variables to accurately forecast the election outcome.
The latest stunning twist in this bizarre election was the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announcement last week that it was reopening its probe into Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Never in American history has a candidate for the presidency been investigated twice by the FBI.
This development and unproven allegations of Donald Trump's sexual misconduct have thrust the election into unchartered waters. For the first time in recent memory, surveys show voters are decidedly despondent and disgusted. Some Americans say they plan to vote for neither candidate.
An ABC News tracking poll identified enthusiasm gaps for both candidates. "As a percentage of voting age population, it (turnout) will be low, probably lower than the past four or five presidential elections," according to Matthew Dowd, an ABC News political analyst.
There are other variables that are even harder to quantify. Both candidates have corpulent negative favorability numbers that have never been seen in a presidential race. Will that be enough to motivate Americans to vote against one candidate or the other?
Questions also have been raised about turnout among African-Americans and Hispanics. In the 2012 presidential election, turnout among blacks topped 66 percent, eclipsing 2008's 65.2 percent. Hispanic turnout in 2008 reached a historic 49.9 percent, but slid to 48% in 2012.
These two demographics groups voted overwhelming for Barrack Obama. Ninety-five percent of African-Americans voted for the president in 2012. The president won 82 percent of the Hispanic vote that year. He racked up similar margins in 2008.
Will the record turnout and lopsided margin for Mr. Obama be the same for Ms. Clinton? Especially in swing states, African-Americans and Hispanics will hold the key to victory. Any slippage in turnout or margin will open the door for the Republican Donald Trump.
Right behind minorities in importance are young people aged 18-29. These adults turned out in record numbers in 2008 and 2012. More than half (51%) of young voters flocked to the polls in 2008, the highest since the election of 1964. Will these fickle voters remain engaged this year?
In both elections where Mr. Obama was on the ballot, young adults gave him comfortable margins. He collected 61 and 62 percent, respectively, in the elections of 2008 and 2012. Will young voters support the Democrat nominee at those same levels this year?
Answers to those questions will go a long way in deciding this presidential election. However, there is one group that has escaped media attention that likely will be the most influential in determining the next president. They are unmarried women.
According to the Voter Participation Data Center, unmarried women are the country's fastest growing demographic. More than 58 million single women are eligible to vote this year. The is the first time in American history that voting-age single women outnumber married women in an election.
In nine of the battleground states, including Colorado, Florida and Virginia, the number of unmarried women eligible to vote this election exceeds married women. That is significant because these singles have been among the most reliable Democrat Party supporters in past presidential elections.
In 2008, Mr. Obama carried unmarried women by a thirty-point margin, 66 to 34 percent. The vote for the president in 2012 was even more out of balance. Mr. Obama received 71 percent of the votes recorded by unmarried women, a 42 point margin over his Republican challenger.
Although it is never fair to generalize about an entire group, most single women have been at odds with Republican positions on abortion, contraception and female health issues. The charges against Donald Trump involving alleged sexual misconduct won't help him with these women either.
If single women turn out in droves, it will be a good sign for Hillary Clinton, if past voting patterns hold. Those are big IF's, considering Ms. Clinton's own trust issues with voters. It is just another unknown in an election sprinkled with question marks.
For that reason, the only accurate prediction about this election is that it is unpredictable.
The latest stunning twist in this bizarre election was the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announcement last week that it was reopening its probe into Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Never in American history has a candidate for the presidency been investigated twice by the FBI.
This development and unproven allegations of Donald Trump's sexual misconduct have thrust the election into unchartered waters. For the first time in recent memory, surveys show voters are decidedly despondent and disgusted. Some Americans say they plan to vote for neither candidate.
An ABC News tracking poll identified enthusiasm gaps for both candidates. "As a percentage of voting age population, it (turnout) will be low, probably lower than the past four or five presidential elections," according to Matthew Dowd, an ABC News political analyst.
There are other variables that are even harder to quantify. Both candidates have corpulent negative favorability numbers that have never been seen in a presidential race. Will that be enough to motivate Americans to vote against one candidate or the other?
Questions also have been raised about turnout among African-Americans and Hispanics. In the 2012 presidential election, turnout among blacks topped 66 percent, eclipsing 2008's 65.2 percent. Hispanic turnout in 2008 reached a historic 49.9 percent, but slid to 48% in 2012.
These two demographics groups voted overwhelming for Barrack Obama. Ninety-five percent of African-Americans voted for the president in 2012. The president won 82 percent of the Hispanic vote that year. He racked up similar margins in 2008.
Will the record turnout and lopsided margin for Mr. Obama be the same for Ms. Clinton? Especially in swing states, African-Americans and Hispanics will hold the key to victory. Any slippage in turnout or margin will open the door for the Republican Donald Trump.
Right behind minorities in importance are young people aged 18-29. These adults turned out in record numbers in 2008 and 2012. More than half (51%) of young voters flocked to the polls in 2008, the highest since the election of 1964. Will these fickle voters remain engaged this year?
In both elections where Mr. Obama was on the ballot, young adults gave him comfortable margins. He collected 61 and 62 percent, respectively, in the elections of 2008 and 2012. Will young voters support the Democrat nominee at those same levels this year?
Answers to those questions will go a long way in deciding this presidential election. However, there is one group that has escaped media attention that likely will be the most influential in determining the next president. They are unmarried women.
According to the Voter Participation Data Center, unmarried women are the country's fastest growing demographic. More than 58 million single women are eligible to vote this year. The is the first time in American history that voting-age single women outnumber married women in an election.
In nine of the battleground states, including Colorado, Florida and Virginia, the number of unmarried women eligible to vote this election exceeds married women. That is significant because these singles have been among the most reliable Democrat Party supporters in past presidential elections.
In 2008, Mr. Obama carried unmarried women by a thirty-point margin, 66 to 34 percent. The vote for the president in 2012 was even more out of balance. Mr. Obama received 71 percent of the votes recorded by unmarried women, a 42 point margin over his Republican challenger.
Although it is never fair to generalize about an entire group, most single women have been at odds with Republican positions on abortion, contraception and female health issues. The charges against Donald Trump involving alleged sexual misconduct won't help him with these women either.
If single women turn out in droves, it will be a good sign for Hillary Clinton, if past voting patterns hold. Those are big IF's, considering Ms. Clinton's own trust issues with voters. It is just another unknown in an election sprinkled with question marks.
For that reason, the only accurate prediction about this election is that it is unpredictable.
Monday, October 24, 2016
The Russians Are Coming!
Campaign 2016 officially has descended into insanity. Both candidates are hurling serious charges of election rigging. No wonder a recent poll found that 41 percent of registered voters believe there is at least a "possibility" of voter fraud in the presidential election.
Allegations of election tampering are nothing new. Who can forget the 2000 presidential election when Democrat Al Gore blamed voter irregularities for his defeat? But the new wrinkle is the claim that a foreign government is surreptitiously undermining the election.
Democrats and their nominee Hillary Clinton are alleging Russian President Vladimir Putin is behind an stealth effort to rig the outcome in favor of Republican Donald Trump. Putin, the cunning former KGB intelligence officer, has used the furor to cast an ominous shadow over the election.
This is a classic KGB disinformation campaign that the Democrat accomplices in the American media have regurgitated in an effort to help Ms. Clinton, who has repeatedly charged that Putin would like nothing better than to see Mr. Trump lounging in the Oval Office.
Ms. Clinton has huffed there is "credible evidence" from intelligence sources to "pursue an investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere with our election." She went on to assert at a rally that it was no accident the Russian scheme started "about the time Mr. Trump became the nominee."
Of course, Ms. Clinton offered no proof. No U.S. intelligence source has produced public evidence that the Russians are hacking their way into voting machines. Ms. Clinton's unsubstantiated claims have played right into the hands of Putin's effort to undermine public trust in the election process.
For Russia to tinker with the results, rogue agents of Putin would have to infiltrate more than 9,000 precincts to arrange to jigger with voting machines and paper ballots. They would literally have to gain access to every device and ballot without anyone noticing. It is simply mission impossible.
But that hasn't stopped Ms. Clinton and the Democratic Party from making the allegations.
Not one media outlet has challenged Ms. Clinton's screwball assertion. Her "proof" is her familiar refrain that Putin does not want her to be president because she would be tough on Russia. It matters little to the media that Ms. Clinton has a history of a cozy relationship with the Russians.
It was Secretary of State Clinton who famously presented her counterpart in Russia with the sophomoric "reset button" to signal a new era of cooperation between the two countries. What followed was Russian aggression in the Ukraine and the incursion into the Syrian conflict.
Under Ms. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, President Putin was able to resurrect Russian ambitions to become a dominant force in both Europe and the Middle East. America made it clear that it had no intention of confronting the Russian military. Diplomacy was the only option.
Putin only needs to look at recent history with the former Secretary of State to recognize future interventions in foreign countries will go unchecked by an America led by Hillary Clinton.
There are other reasons Putin and the Russian oligarchs would be comfortable with a Clinton presidency. As Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian company called Uranium One to acquire significant holdings in the United States.
Prior to the Uranium One deal, former President Bill Clinton became entangled in a Canadian mining firm that eventually sold off its assets to the Russians. A Canadian businessman gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation after Mr. Clinton aided in an effort to obtain uranium mines in Kazakhstan.
As the Russians were gradually gaining control of the Canadian firm, Uranium One's chairman also took an interest in the Clinton Foundation.
The chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. The contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clinton's, despite an agreement with the White House designed to ensure transparency.
For Democrats reading about Uranium One's shady dealings for the first time, this description of the transactions between the Russians and the Clinton Foundation was first printed in The New York Times on April 23, 2015. The charges of a shadowy quid-pro-quid were not concocted by the GOP.
While the deal with Uranium One was under consideration by Ms. Clinton, former president Clinton received a $500,000 speech fee from another connected Russian firm, according to The Wall Street Journal. Democrat apologists contend none of this influenced Hillary's decision.
As a result of Uranium One's wheeling and dealing, they now control one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the U.S. What difference at this point does it make? Uranium is a strategic component used in nuclear weapons. It is a matter of national security to protect the U.S. supply.
Uranium One now has uranium mining stakes in operations stretching from Canada to Central Asia to the American West. Without the approval of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's influence, the Russian firm would never have been able to assemble such a stash of uranium assets.
Yet American voters are supposed to be believe that the Russians and Putin prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. It is sheer lunacy to even make that assertion based on the Clinton's record of kowtowing to the Russians.
Meanwhile, a smug Vladimir Putin must be laughing as he gulps another shot of vodka. Without lifting a finger, he has managed to corrupt the expectation of a democratic election in the country of his arch enemy. He couldn't have done it without accomplices Hillary Clinton and a corrupt media.
Allegations of election tampering are nothing new. Who can forget the 2000 presidential election when Democrat Al Gore blamed voter irregularities for his defeat? But the new wrinkle is the claim that a foreign government is surreptitiously undermining the election.
Democrats and their nominee Hillary Clinton are alleging Russian President Vladimir Putin is behind an stealth effort to rig the outcome in favor of Republican Donald Trump. Putin, the cunning former KGB intelligence officer, has used the furor to cast an ominous shadow over the election.
This is a classic KGB disinformation campaign that the Democrat accomplices in the American media have regurgitated in an effort to help Ms. Clinton, who has repeatedly charged that Putin would like nothing better than to see Mr. Trump lounging in the Oval Office.
Ms. Clinton has huffed there is "credible evidence" from intelligence sources to "pursue an investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere with our election." She went on to assert at a rally that it was no accident the Russian scheme started "about the time Mr. Trump became the nominee."
Of course, Ms. Clinton offered no proof. No U.S. intelligence source has produced public evidence that the Russians are hacking their way into voting machines. Ms. Clinton's unsubstantiated claims have played right into the hands of Putin's effort to undermine public trust in the election process.
For Russia to tinker with the results, rogue agents of Putin would have to infiltrate more than 9,000 precincts to arrange to jigger with voting machines and paper ballots. They would literally have to gain access to every device and ballot without anyone noticing. It is simply mission impossible.
But that hasn't stopped Ms. Clinton and the Democratic Party from making the allegations.
Not one media outlet has challenged Ms. Clinton's screwball assertion. Her "proof" is her familiar refrain that Putin does not want her to be president because she would be tough on Russia. It matters little to the media that Ms. Clinton has a history of a cozy relationship with the Russians.
It was Secretary of State Clinton who famously presented her counterpart in Russia with the sophomoric "reset button" to signal a new era of cooperation between the two countries. What followed was Russian aggression in the Ukraine and the incursion into the Syrian conflict.
Under Ms. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, President Putin was able to resurrect Russian ambitions to become a dominant force in both Europe and the Middle East. America made it clear that it had no intention of confronting the Russian military. Diplomacy was the only option.
Putin only needs to look at recent history with the former Secretary of State to recognize future interventions in foreign countries will go unchecked by an America led by Hillary Clinton.
There are other reasons Putin and the Russian oligarchs would be comfortable with a Clinton presidency. As Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian company called Uranium One to acquire significant holdings in the United States.
Prior to the Uranium One deal, former President Bill Clinton became entangled in a Canadian mining firm that eventually sold off its assets to the Russians. A Canadian businessman gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation after Mr. Clinton aided in an effort to obtain uranium mines in Kazakhstan.
As the Russians were gradually gaining control of the Canadian firm, Uranium One's chairman also took an interest in the Clinton Foundation.
The chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. The contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clinton's, despite an agreement with the White House designed to ensure transparency.
For Democrats reading about Uranium One's shady dealings for the first time, this description of the transactions between the Russians and the Clinton Foundation was first printed in The New York Times on April 23, 2015. The charges of a shadowy quid-pro-quid were not concocted by the GOP.
While the deal with Uranium One was under consideration by Ms. Clinton, former president Clinton received a $500,000 speech fee from another connected Russian firm, according to The Wall Street Journal. Democrat apologists contend none of this influenced Hillary's decision.
As a result of Uranium One's wheeling and dealing, they now control one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the U.S. What difference at this point does it make? Uranium is a strategic component used in nuclear weapons. It is a matter of national security to protect the U.S. supply.
Uranium One now has uranium mining stakes in operations stretching from Canada to Central Asia to the American West. Without the approval of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's influence, the Russian firm would never have been able to assemble such a stash of uranium assets.
Yet American voters are supposed to be believe that the Russians and Putin prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. It is sheer lunacy to even make that assertion based on the Clinton's record of kowtowing to the Russians.
Meanwhile, a smug Vladimir Putin must be laughing as he gulps another shot of vodka. Without lifting a finger, he has managed to corrupt the expectation of a democratic election in the country of his arch enemy. He couldn't have done it without accomplices Hillary Clinton and a corrupt media.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Moderators Muck Up Presidential Debates
The first two presidential debates have been raucous brawls, marked by verbal bolts of lightning crackling across the stage. Media critics have been quick to blame the candidates for the sparring matches, but much of the guilt rests squarely on the shifty shoulders of the moderators.
In the first debate, NBC's Lester Holt seemed to disappear for long periods while the candidates rambled without answering the questions. Did he take a potty break while the cameras locked on the candidates? His performance became the butt of numerous jokes on social media.
No one knows why the Commission on Presidential Debates selected Holt. He appears to be a nice fellow, but his credentials to moderate a presidential debate are skimpy at best. Holt was clearly out of his comfort zone and he lost total control of the debate.
During the opening of the debate, Holt mentioned how "honored" he was to serve in the capacity as moderator. Perhaps, he was overwhelmed by his lofty position under the klieg lights with more than 80 million Americans eyeballing the proceedings. He wilted under the stifling pressure.
Then in last week's melee, moderators Anderson Cooper from CNN and ABC's Martha Raddatz fumbled the town-hall style debate. These two self-important members of the TV news glitterati intruded, interrupted and provoked what became a verbal rumble in the jungle.
Right from the start, Cooper tried to burnish his journalistic chops by quizzing Donald Trump about a leaked "Access Hollywood" tape featuring lurid comments about women. After Trump addressed the question, he attempted to move on and was interrupted three times.
This sparked a Trump tirade about Bill Clinton's sexual assault history, while a stern-faced Hillary Clinton simmered in the background. When he was finished, Ms. Clinton launched her counter attack. This back-and-forth consumed nearly 30 minutes of the town hall.
Although most Americans wanted the "tape" issue addressed, why did it have to be the opening volley? It could have been teed up later in the event. By leading with the tawdry tape, Cooper deliberately set the tone for the spectacle and buried interest in obvious issues in the campaign.
As a result, only a handful of real voters in the room were allowed to ask questions. Even that scanty portion was ruined by pompous pests Cooper and Raddatz, who insisted on inserting themselves into the discussion with a series of follow-up questions.
Town halls are supposed to be about the audience, not the moderators. Cooper and Raddatz, who view themselves as A-list media celebrities, were intent on keeping the camera's eye on them not the voters. As a result of their shoddy performance, they made a mockery of the town hall format.
Who selects these moderators anyway? Glad you asked. That job belongs to the Commission on Presidential Debates, an allegedly non-partisan, non-profit organization established in 1987. The commission is comprised of mostly political hacks.
The co-chairs of the current commission are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf served as the Republican National Committee chairman from 1983 to l989. McCurry was press secretary for former president Bill Clinton.
Does anyone believe either man is non-partisan?
Therein lies the problem with selection of the moderators and the debate format. The only way to fix the situation is to have an independent commission filled with people who have not served in any political capacity. How about ordinary citizens with an interest in an honest debate?
Heaping all the blame on the moderators for the first two skirmishes would not be fair either. Both Trump and Ms. Clinton have allowed their rhetoric to degenerate into verbal fisticuffs with each hoping to land a knockout punch to the other's candidacy. Decorum and decency be damned.
The final round on the three-debate card is scheduled October 19. Chris Wallace of Fox News has been tabbed to moderate the donnybrook. Don't expect any change in performance. Wallace, like the other conceited TV bigwigs, has a reputation to polish as a serious journalist.
The moderator's job is to make the debates about the candidates. That won't happen until the Commission on Presidential Debates stops trotting out TV news celebrities to be moderators. The time has come to let real debate moderators run the show.
In the first debate, NBC's Lester Holt seemed to disappear for long periods while the candidates rambled without answering the questions. Did he take a potty break while the cameras locked on the candidates? His performance became the butt of numerous jokes on social media.
No one knows why the Commission on Presidential Debates selected Holt. He appears to be a nice fellow, but his credentials to moderate a presidential debate are skimpy at best. Holt was clearly out of his comfort zone and he lost total control of the debate.
During the opening of the debate, Holt mentioned how "honored" he was to serve in the capacity as moderator. Perhaps, he was overwhelmed by his lofty position under the klieg lights with more than 80 million Americans eyeballing the proceedings. He wilted under the stifling pressure.
Then in last week's melee, moderators Anderson Cooper from CNN and ABC's Martha Raddatz fumbled the town-hall style debate. These two self-important members of the TV news glitterati intruded, interrupted and provoked what became a verbal rumble in the jungle.
Right from the start, Cooper tried to burnish his journalistic chops by quizzing Donald Trump about a leaked "Access Hollywood" tape featuring lurid comments about women. After Trump addressed the question, he attempted to move on and was interrupted three times.
This sparked a Trump tirade about Bill Clinton's sexual assault history, while a stern-faced Hillary Clinton simmered in the background. When he was finished, Ms. Clinton launched her counter attack. This back-and-forth consumed nearly 30 minutes of the town hall.
Although most Americans wanted the "tape" issue addressed, why did it have to be the opening volley? It could have been teed up later in the event. By leading with the tawdry tape, Cooper deliberately set the tone for the spectacle and buried interest in obvious issues in the campaign.
As a result, only a handful of real voters in the room were allowed to ask questions. Even that scanty portion was ruined by pompous pests Cooper and Raddatz, who insisted on inserting themselves into the discussion with a series of follow-up questions.
Town halls are supposed to be about the audience, not the moderators. Cooper and Raddatz, who view themselves as A-list media celebrities, were intent on keeping the camera's eye on them not the voters. As a result of their shoddy performance, they made a mockery of the town hall format.
Who selects these moderators anyway? Glad you asked. That job belongs to the Commission on Presidential Debates, an allegedly non-partisan, non-profit organization established in 1987. The commission is comprised of mostly political hacks.
The co-chairs of the current commission are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf served as the Republican National Committee chairman from 1983 to l989. McCurry was press secretary for former president Bill Clinton.
Does anyone believe either man is non-partisan?
Therein lies the problem with selection of the moderators and the debate format. The only way to fix the situation is to have an independent commission filled with people who have not served in any political capacity. How about ordinary citizens with an interest in an honest debate?
Heaping all the blame on the moderators for the first two skirmishes would not be fair either. Both Trump and Ms. Clinton have allowed their rhetoric to degenerate into verbal fisticuffs with each hoping to land a knockout punch to the other's candidacy. Decorum and decency be damned.
The final round on the three-debate card is scheduled October 19. Chris Wallace of Fox News has been tabbed to moderate the donnybrook. Don't expect any change in performance. Wallace, like the other conceited TV bigwigs, has a reputation to polish as a serious journalist.
The moderator's job is to make the debates about the candidates. That won't happen until the Commission on Presidential Debates stops trotting out TV news celebrities to be moderators. The time has come to let real debate moderators run the show.
Monday, October 10, 2016
An Open Letter To Colin Kaepernick
Dear Mr. Kaepernick:
Your refusal to stand during the playing of the national anthem, is a classless gesture that underscores your ignorance. Despite my personal feelings, I will defend your right to air your grievances, even though I disagree with your methods.
You claim you are protesting the oppression of African-Americans. That is a noble cause, but you are an odd spokesperson, considering your enormous personal forture. Although you are only 28 years old, you are playing professional football for an annual salary of $19 million.
When you entered the National Football League, you signed a six-year deal worth $114 million. You pocketed a signing bonus of $12,328,766. Your generous contract guarantees you $61 million, even if you never toss another pass for the San Francisco Forty-Niners.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud your financial bonanza. But I wonder how wealth qualifies you to speak on behalf of an African-American, living in the slums, hand-to-mouth, afraid to walk the mean streets. Can you really identify with the struggles of the average black person?
Let me make it clear. Just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you forfeit your right to speak for the less fortunate. There are many wealthy people making a difference in healing the racial divide. But none of them, as far as I know, take a knee during the playing of the national anthem.
Perhaps, you are feeling a little guilty. After all, your enormous wealth makes you immune to the sufferings of someone chained to the ghetto by failed government programs. If you truly want to fix the problem, there are many things you could do to help.
That's why it seems strange that you elected to show your disapproval by thumbing your nose at our national anthem. Do you even know the background of the "Star Spangled Banner"? What does it have to do with racial oppression?
An American lawyer named Francis Scott Key penned a poem in 1814 during the Battle of Baltimore, which eventually became known as the "Star Spangled Banner." President Herbert Hoover led the effort to declare the song our nation's anthem in 1931.
The anthem was written during the War of 1812 against the British, who burned down the White House in an act of gratuitous aggression. The war had nothing to do with slavery, although there were slaves in the country at that time. The anthem celebrates the American spirit, not slavery.
I would have more respect for you if you had announced you were funding a foundation to aid African-Americans who lack the financial resources to go to college. Or if you vowed to create after-school programs for inner city youth. Or you worked to end black-on-black crime.
Those are the actions of someone who wants to fix the problem. Kneeling during the national anthem doesn't help black people one iota. It does, however, put a glaring spotlight on you. If that's what you wanted, you have succeeded. But you have failed to do a darn thing about oppression.
That's why I disagree with President Obama and others who claim it takes courage to refuse to stand for the national anthem. Nonsense. Anyone can do that. It requires commitment to take a stand and back it up with actions that will make a difference. That's real courage.
President John F. Kennedy said it best. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." You are a beneficiary of American freedom, but what are you willing to do in return? Kneel. Really? That's it. That's your answer?
Unfortunately, your protest has done more to widen the chasm between the races. To many of us, your refusal feels like a giant middle finger against patriotism. Now that other black players have followed your lead, this has done nothing but escalate tension between the races.
You have made this a black versus white issue, since the charge of racism by its nature smears all whites as haters. There is no question racism exists in America and worldwide. But so does anti-Semitism. You can add to that list people who dislike Christians, atheists, Asians and Hispanics.
But the haters are in the minority. The vast majority of Americans pursue harmony with their neighbors, regardless of color, creed or religion. Still, we can agree that racism, sexism and all the other ism's need to be eradicated. You will get no argument from me or most Americans.
That's why dishonoring the national anthem is an senseless gesture that angers many. Do you recall September 11, 2001? After the terrorist attacks, all Americans, black and white, rallied behind their country. The playing of the "Star Spangled Banner" united all Americans.
Apparently, many Americans are offended by your actions. Ratings for NFL games are down for the first time in decades. Some research suggests fans are turning off their televisions to send a message to the players and the owners. They want to watch football without the racial bellyaching.
I ask you to please reconsider your form of protest, not your principles. Because when your 15 minutes of fame fades and your football skills erode, you will just be another unhappy, unemployed multi-millionaire. Still, not a bad life for someone concerned about oppression.
Sincerely,
Drew A. Roy
Your refusal to stand during the playing of the national anthem, is a classless gesture that underscores your ignorance. Despite my personal feelings, I will defend your right to air your grievances, even though I disagree with your methods.
You claim you are protesting the oppression of African-Americans. That is a noble cause, but you are an odd spokesperson, considering your enormous personal forture. Although you are only 28 years old, you are playing professional football for an annual salary of $19 million.
When you entered the National Football League, you signed a six-year deal worth $114 million. You pocketed a signing bonus of $12,328,766. Your generous contract guarantees you $61 million, even if you never toss another pass for the San Francisco Forty-Niners.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud your financial bonanza. But I wonder how wealth qualifies you to speak on behalf of an African-American, living in the slums, hand-to-mouth, afraid to walk the mean streets. Can you really identify with the struggles of the average black person?
Let me make it clear. Just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you forfeit your right to speak for the less fortunate. There are many wealthy people making a difference in healing the racial divide. But none of them, as far as I know, take a knee during the playing of the national anthem.
Perhaps, you are feeling a little guilty. After all, your enormous wealth makes you immune to the sufferings of someone chained to the ghetto by failed government programs. If you truly want to fix the problem, there are many things you could do to help.
That's why it seems strange that you elected to show your disapproval by thumbing your nose at our national anthem. Do you even know the background of the "Star Spangled Banner"? What does it have to do with racial oppression?
An American lawyer named Francis Scott Key penned a poem in 1814 during the Battle of Baltimore, which eventually became known as the "Star Spangled Banner." President Herbert Hoover led the effort to declare the song our nation's anthem in 1931.
The anthem was written during the War of 1812 against the British, who burned down the White House in an act of gratuitous aggression. The war had nothing to do with slavery, although there were slaves in the country at that time. The anthem celebrates the American spirit, not slavery.
I would have more respect for you if you had announced you were funding a foundation to aid African-Americans who lack the financial resources to go to college. Or if you vowed to create after-school programs for inner city youth. Or you worked to end black-on-black crime.
Those are the actions of someone who wants to fix the problem. Kneeling during the national anthem doesn't help black people one iota. It does, however, put a glaring spotlight on you. If that's what you wanted, you have succeeded. But you have failed to do a darn thing about oppression.
That's why I disagree with President Obama and others who claim it takes courage to refuse to stand for the national anthem. Nonsense. Anyone can do that. It requires commitment to take a stand and back it up with actions that will make a difference. That's real courage.
President John F. Kennedy said it best. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." You are a beneficiary of American freedom, but what are you willing to do in return? Kneel. Really? That's it. That's your answer?
Unfortunately, your protest has done more to widen the chasm between the races. To many of us, your refusal feels like a giant middle finger against patriotism. Now that other black players have followed your lead, this has done nothing but escalate tension between the races.
You have made this a black versus white issue, since the charge of racism by its nature smears all whites as haters. There is no question racism exists in America and worldwide. But so does anti-Semitism. You can add to that list people who dislike Christians, atheists, Asians and Hispanics.
But the haters are in the minority. The vast majority of Americans pursue harmony with their neighbors, regardless of color, creed or religion. Still, we can agree that racism, sexism and all the other ism's need to be eradicated. You will get no argument from me or most Americans.
That's why dishonoring the national anthem is an senseless gesture that angers many. Do you recall September 11, 2001? After the terrorist attacks, all Americans, black and white, rallied behind their country. The playing of the "Star Spangled Banner" united all Americans.
Apparently, many Americans are offended by your actions. Ratings for NFL games are down for the first time in decades. Some research suggests fans are turning off their televisions to send a message to the players and the owners. They want to watch football without the racial bellyaching.
I ask you to please reconsider your form of protest, not your principles. Because when your 15 minutes of fame fades and your football skills erode, you will just be another unhappy, unemployed multi-millionaire. Still, not a bad life for someone concerned about oppression.
Sincerely,
Drew A. Roy
Monday, October 3, 2016
Media Hiding The Truth About Polls
Polls. Polls. Polls. Every day a new poll surfaces on the presidential race. The mainstream media report the poll results as if the data is factual information. Reporters and editors make no attempt to warn the public of the errors inherent in the methodology of most political polls.
First, let's dismiss the idea that polling results represent facts. They do not. Polls are a snapshot in time of the sentiment of a narrow slice of Americans. Most polling organizations interview 1,000 or fewer people and then extrapolate the results to produce a purported representative sample of adults.
To put that into perspective, there are about 200 million adults in the United States, according to the latest U.S. Census. That means the typical poll of 1,000 adults is representative of .0005 percent of the adult population. The media never mention that fact in reporting on polls.
The Roper Polling organization estimates that an adult's odds of being called in any given year for a political survey are more than 100 to one. How many friends and family do you know who have participated in a telephone poll in any presidential election? Crickets.
Secondly, the vast majority of presidential polls are conducted by land line telephone. Ask yourself: How many people with caller ID even answer a call from a polling organization? How many adults accept the call then refuse to answer the questions?
Pollsters have tried other methods, including online surveys and text messages to elicit opinions about politics. However, both political parties have learned how to influence the results by encouraging their supporters to cast votes to sway the poll. That renders the data worthless.
It is a disservice and dishonest for news organizations to keep the public in the dark about all the variables implicit in the polls. Don't take our word for it. The ex-chairman of one of the most-respected polling organizations in America has scolded the media for misleading the public.
"But they (the media) would be better off assuming--as most of the readers surely do--that all surveys and all opinion polls are estimates, which may be wrong," warned Humphrey Taylor, the former chairman of Louis Harris And Associates, Inc., writing in an article in 1998.
Taylor pointed out that the wording of questions, the order of questions, the refusal rate, the non-availability of people and inadequate weighting are factors that make polling results subject to "substantial error."
For that reason, Harris included a "strong warning" in all its polls. "It is difficult or impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors (cited above)." So-called journalists are not the least bit interested in these caveats, concluded Harris.
Despite all the admonitions, the media persist in deceitful reporting of results. Unfortunately, too few Americans understand political polling, thus many continue to put stock in the results.
Although political polls enjoy public trust, these samples have a checkered past. In the 1948 presidential race, the Gallup poll had Thomas Dewey ahead of Harry Truman, 45 to 41 percent. Truman won the White House with 50 percent of the vote to Dewey's 45 percent.
In 2008, a consensus of seven polls taken just before the New Hampshire Democratic primary showed Barrack Obama had an eight-point margin over Hillary Clinton. Instead, Ms. Clinton won by three-percentage-points, leaving pollsters red-faced.
American pollsters could learn a few things from the British. After opinion polls were grossly wrong in predicting the outcome of May's general elections in Britain, some smart folks decided to do a face-to-face survey of voters by going door-to-door.
The sample included 3,000 people who fit the profile of those who regularly showed up and voted at the polls, instead of just surveying adults in general. The results were eyeopening. The voters' preferences in the poll accurately reflected the actual vote in the general election.
That begs the question: Why don't more polling outfits employ that same methodology if it is more accurate? The simple answer is money. Telephone surveys are infinitely less costly than door-to-door polling, especially when the research is conducted monthly or even weekly in the U.S.
The big media cabal understands the flaws with U.S. presidential polling. That's why their reporting is a deliberate deception. There is never an attempt to explain the limitations and fallacies of research. Reports on the latest polls are presented as unassailable truth.
Shawn Parry-Giles, a political communications professor at the University of Maryland, argues the media should stop treating polls as if they are authentic. "This is about what the voters say and do, and the media has to be very careful about how they frame the polls," she notes.
In other words, what voters tell researchers often may not be the same as their decision in the voting booth.
Her advice has gone unheeded by a mainstream media intent on using polls to advance their narrative about the race. When polls showed Hillary Clinton leading, it was front page news. Now that Donald Trump has narrowed the gap, there is less media enthusiasm for showcasing the results.
With Ms. Clinton sliding in the polls, the media use data to strengthen the case for Ms. Clinton. When Trump began climbing in the polls, the media quickly noted that he was losing with women, Hispanics and African-Americans. The media snickered that Trump was winning only with white men.
Of course, these conclusions were drawn from polls, too, subject to the same distortions as the presidential samples. In general, people trust polls way too much. The only thing that matters is the actual votes cast on November 8. Everything else is political chatter.
First, let's dismiss the idea that polling results represent facts. They do not. Polls are a snapshot in time of the sentiment of a narrow slice of Americans. Most polling organizations interview 1,000 or fewer people and then extrapolate the results to produce a purported representative sample of adults.
To put that into perspective, there are about 200 million adults in the United States, according to the latest U.S. Census. That means the typical poll of 1,000 adults is representative of .0005 percent of the adult population. The media never mention that fact in reporting on polls.
The Roper Polling organization estimates that an adult's odds of being called in any given year for a political survey are more than 100 to one. How many friends and family do you know who have participated in a telephone poll in any presidential election? Crickets.
Secondly, the vast majority of presidential polls are conducted by land line telephone. Ask yourself: How many people with caller ID even answer a call from a polling organization? How many adults accept the call then refuse to answer the questions?
Pollsters have tried other methods, including online surveys and text messages to elicit opinions about politics. However, both political parties have learned how to influence the results by encouraging their supporters to cast votes to sway the poll. That renders the data worthless.
It is a disservice and dishonest for news organizations to keep the public in the dark about all the variables implicit in the polls. Don't take our word for it. The ex-chairman of one of the most-respected polling organizations in America has scolded the media for misleading the public.
"But they (the media) would be better off assuming--as most of the readers surely do--that all surveys and all opinion polls are estimates, which may be wrong," warned Humphrey Taylor, the former chairman of Louis Harris And Associates, Inc., writing in an article in 1998.
Taylor pointed out that the wording of questions, the order of questions, the refusal rate, the non-availability of people and inadequate weighting are factors that make polling results subject to "substantial error."
For that reason, Harris included a "strong warning" in all its polls. "It is difficult or impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors (cited above)." So-called journalists are not the least bit interested in these caveats, concluded Harris.
Despite all the admonitions, the media persist in deceitful reporting of results. Unfortunately, too few Americans understand political polling, thus many continue to put stock in the results.
Although political polls enjoy public trust, these samples have a checkered past. In the 1948 presidential race, the Gallup poll had Thomas Dewey ahead of Harry Truman, 45 to 41 percent. Truman won the White House with 50 percent of the vote to Dewey's 45 percent.
In 2008, a consensus of seven polls taken just before the New Hampshire Democratic primary showed Barrack Obama had an eight-point margin over Hillary Clinton. Instead, Ms. Clinton won by three-percentage-points, leaving pollsters red-faced.
American pollsters could learn a few things from the British. After opinion polls were grossly wrong in predicting the outcome of May's general elections in Britain, some smart folks decided to do a face-to-face survey of voters by going door-to-door.
The sample included 3,000 people who fit the profile of those who regularly showed up and voted at the polls, instead of just surveying adults in general. The results were eyeopening. The voters' preferences in the poll accurately reflected the actual vote in the general election.
That begs the question: Why don't more polling outfits employ that same methodology if it is more accurate? The simple answer is money. Telephone surveys are infinitely less costly than door-to-door polling, especially when the research is conducted monthly or even weekly in the U.S.
The big media cabal understands the flaws with U.S. presidential polling. That's why their reporting is a deliberate deception. There is never an attempt to explain the limitations and fallacies of research. Reports on the latest polls are presented as unassailable truth.
Shawn Parry-Giles, a political communications professor at the University of Maryland, argues the media should stop treating polls as if they are authentic. "This is about what the voters say and do, and the media has to be very careful about how they frame the polls," she notes.
In other words, what voters tell researchers often may not be the same as their decision in the voting booth.
Her advice has gone unheeded by a mainstream media intent on using polls to advance their narrative about the race. When polls showed Hillary Clinton leading, it was front page news. Now that Donald Trump has narrowed the gap, there is less media enthusiasm for showcasing the results.
With Ms. Clinton sliding in the polls, the media use data to strengthen the case for Ms. Clinton. When Trump began climbing in the polls, the media quickly noted that he was losing with women, Hispanics and African-Americans. The media snickered that Trump was winning only with white men.
Of course, these conclusions were drawn from polls, too, subject to the same distortions as the presidential samples. In general, people trust polls way too much. The only thing that matters is the actual votes cast on November 8. Everything else is political chatter.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Alzheimer's Disease: New Drug Holds Promise
The scientific community is cautiously optimistic about a new plaque-busting drug to tackle dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Although there are other treatments on the market, this antidote is the first shown to slow and reverse the buildup of plaque in the brain which is linked to memory loss.
The results of a multi-year trial with 166 people were reported in the journal Nature, but have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. This Phase II trial produced tantalizing data showing the drug reduces toxic plaques in six regions of the brain and slows the progression of memory loss.
Although scientists are still grappling with questions about causes of Alzheimer's, plaques and so-called tangles are prime suspects in cell death and tissue loss associated with the disease. That's why the drug's potential for decreasing plaque is viewed as a game-changer in Alzheimer's treatment.
Up until the ground-breaking trial, the only available treatments for Alzheimers were targeted at the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. The drugs include inhibitors, such as Pfizer's Aricept, which slow memory loss but do not reverse the disease.
The experimental drug, manufactured by pharmaceutical company Biogen, Inc., is called aducanumab. The drug is a monoclonal antibody, which originally was harvested from brain-healthy, older donors. Biogen now makes the drug in its laboratory to mimic the body's immune system.
Scientists theorized that the antibodies from healthy older people had already resisted the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's. Researchers speculated these same antibodies could be used in those with early signs of memory loss, before the ravages of brain disease rendered treatment infeasible.
The peer-reviewed data from the trail rekindled new enthusiasm by clinicians and doctors to enroll their patients in aducanumab trials. A large Phase III study was launched in August of last year, aimed at recruiting 1,350 people for trials at 150 centers in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia.
Phase III trials are designed to confirm the effectiveness of a drug, while monitoring its side effects and comparing it to other treatments. The results of the research will help quantify dosage levels for patients and assess the safety of the drug.
The next step will be garnering the stamp of approval from the Federal Drug Administration. It is the last hurdle before aducanumab can be offered commercially to patients.
For many Americans, the drug cannot come to market fast enough. There are 5.1 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease. Research from the National Institute of Aging indicates that Alzheimer's disease doubles every five years beyond age 65.
That is not good news because the lifespan of Americans is increasing. The Census Bureau projects the number of people age 65 and older will more than double by 2050 to 88.5 million Americans. In 34 years, the number of 85 and older people will leap three-fold to 19 million.
Those numbers underscore the urgency the scientific community feels to find a cure. Alzheimer's is the most expensive disease to treat, costing more than cancer or heart disease. Caring for those with Alzheimer's carries a price tag estimated at $236 billion for this year alone.
Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States.
Unfortunately, the large-scale Phase III trial for aducanumab is expected to run until 2022. If the results remain positive, then the approval process will begin with the FDA. That could take years, even longer.
Meanwhile, the numbers of Alzheimer's victims will grow. Whatever can be done to speed up the trials and government approval, must be done. The clock is ticking and every year without a cure brings death, heartache and financial ruin to millions of Americans.
The results of a multi-year trial with 166 people were reported in the journal Nature, but have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. This Phase II trial produced tantalizing data showing the drug reduces toxic plaques in six regions of the brain and slows the progression of memory loss.
Although scientists are still grappling with questions about causes of Alzheimer's, plaques and so-called tangles are prime suspects in cell death and tissue loss associated with the disease. That's why the drug's potential for decreasing plaque is viewed as a game-changer in Alzheimer's treatment.
Up until the ground-breaking trial, the only available treatments for Alzheimers were targeted at the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. The drugs include inhibitors, such as Pfizer's Aricept, which slow memory loss but do not reverse the disease.
The experimental drug, manufactured by pharmaceutical company Biogen, Inc., is called aducanumab. The drug is a monoclonal antibody, which originally was harvested from brain-healthy, older donors. Biogen now makes the drug in its laboratory to mimic the body's immune system.
Scientists theorized that the antibodies from healthy older people had already resisted the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's. Researchers speculated these same antibodies could be used in those with early signs of memory loss, before the ravages of brain disease rendered treatment infeasible.
The peer-reviewed data from the trail rekindled new enthusiasm by clinicians and doctors to enroll their patients in aducanumab trials. A large Phase III study was launched in August of last year, aimed at recruiting 1,350 people for trials at 150 centers in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia.
Phase III trials are designed to confirm the effectiveness of a drug, while monitoring its side effects and comparing it to other treatments. The results of the research will help quantify dosage levels for patients and assess the safety of the drug.
The next step will be garnering the stamp of approval from the Federal Drug Administration. It is the last hurdle before aducanumab can be offered commercially to patients.
For many Americans, the drug cannot come to market fast enough. There are 5.1 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease. Research from the National Institute of Aging indicates that Alzheimer's disease doubles every five years beyond age 65.
That is not good news because the lifespan of Americans is increasing. The Census Bureau projects the number of people age 65 and older will more than double by 2050 to 88.5 million Americans. In 34 years, the number of 85 and older people will leap three-fold to 19 million.
Those numbers underscore the urgency the scientific community feels to find a cure. Alzheimer's is the most expensive disease to treat, costing more than cancer or heart disease. Caring for those with Alzheimer's carries a price tag estimated at $236 billion for this year alone.
Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States.
Unfortunately, the large-scale Phase III trial for aducanumab is expected to run until 2022. If the results remain positive, then the approval process will begin with the FDA. That could take years, even longer.
Meanwhile, the numbers of Alzheimer's victims will grow. Whatever can be done to speed up the trials and government approval, must be done. The clock is ticking and every year without a cure brings death, heartache and financial ruin to millions of Americans.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Progressives' Attacks on Charter Schools
Battles lines have been drawn in the war against public charter schools. Proponents are parents of minority students, leading education reformers and school choice advocates. Opponents include the NAACP, teachers' unions, liberal Democrats and even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
What began as a few skirmishes between politicians and charter schools in urban cities has escalated into a pitched political battle. Each side has developed competing studies that support their narrative. The issue of charter schools is now front and center in many mayoral and gubernatorial contests.
Why the contentious upsurge in interest?
Progressives, the politically sanitized name adopted by liberals, are alarmed at the growth and success of charter schools. In about 20 years, charter schools have exploded on the scene with more than 6,700 facilities in 42 states and the District of Columbia, educating nearly 3 million children.
Those numbers do not sit well with progressive politicians, who are beholden to the National Federation of Teachers (AFT). The union shovel millions into politicians' coffers to protect their members from performance-based pay and promotion. They are hidebound to the status quo.
AFT has political muscle few unions can match. It claims a membership of more than 1.5 million. It dominates union membership in inner city schools, a Democratic Party stronghold. It has more than $100 million in assets and doles out bushels of cash to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
Their opposition to charter schools is easily understood. More puzzling is the disapproval voiced by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), an organization supposedly dedicated to advancing the rights of African-Americans.
Charter schools are mostly located in urban centers with large minority populations. For the record, charter schools are public schools, receiving funding from local, state and federal sources based on enrollment. A few are operated by for-profit private firms, but still get public funding.
However, there are a couple of other important distinctions between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools are independently run, free from the bureaucracy that hamstrings public education. Teachers do not belong to unions and are paid and promoted based on performance.
Among the biggest supporters of charter schools are minorities. A 2013 poll of black voters found 85 percent were in favor of the government providing parents with as many school choices as possible. More than 50 percent supported charter schools.
Progressive politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have discovered waging war on charter schools comes with a price. He ran against expanding charter schools in New York City and won handily. However, he overplayed his hand when he demanded charter schools pay rent.
Black parents fought back. There were rallies in the streets and angry parents demanded charter schools be allowed to co-locate in the same buildings with public schools. De Blasio had good reasons for trying to kick-out charter schools. Charter schools made public schools look bad.
In a highly-publicized case, two New York City middle schools were located in the same building and drew students from similar backgrounds. In the charter school, 80 percent of the students passed the state math test and 59 percent made the grade on the English test.
By comparison, the results were miserable in the public school. Five percent of students managed a passing grade on the math test. The English test had an 11 percent passing rate. No wonder de Blasio didn't want the schools co-located where the comparisons were politically damning.
Charter schools are changing the educational landscape, a prospect unions fear. Charter schools offer innovative curricula. They experiment with new teaching methods. The schools focus on helping every student succeed. Typically, they stress discipline and have no tolerance for misbehavior.
There are waiting lists in every district that offers a charter school alternative, attesting to their popularity with parents. Nationwide, there are more than one million names on charter school wait lists, according to a Manhattan Institute study. In New York City, the wait lists tops 70,000.
Democrats and their accomplices in the NAACP march to the drumbeat of the teacher unions, fighting against the very people (minorities) they claim to champion. Their opposition is strictly a matter of political greed. They value union contributions over children's future.
A national study found that 28 percent of charter school students are African-American, nearly double the percentage for traditional public schools. Without school choice, the families of these students would be stuck inside failing schools with no opportunity for escape.
This election year school choice has been paid little more than lip service. Voters should demand to know the positions of every candidate on charter schools. Those against supporting school choices deserve a failing education grade and are no friends of minorities.
Vote for candidates who want every child to succeed in school with no youngster left behind in a under performing public education facility.
AFT has political muscle few unions can match. It claims a membership of more than 1.5 million. It dominates union membership in inner city schools, a Democratic Party stronghold. It has more than $100 million in assets and doles out bushels of cash to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
Their opposition to charter schools is easily understood. More puzzling is the disapproval voiced by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), an organization supposedly dedicated to advancing the rights of African-Americans.
Charter schools are mostly located in urban centers with large minority populations. For the record, charter schools are public schools, receiving funding from local, state and federal sources based on enrollment. A few are operated by for-profit private firms, but still get public funding.
However, there are a couple of other important distinctions between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools are independently run, free from the bureaucracy that hamstrings public education. Teachers do not belong to unions and are paid and promoted based on performance.
Among the biggest supporters of charter schools are minorities. A 2013 poll of black voters found 85 percent were in favor of the government providing parents with as many school choices as possible. More than 50 percent supported charter schools.
Progressive politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have discovered waging war on charter schools comes with a price. He ran against expanding charter schools in New York City and won handily. However, he overplayed his hand when he demanded charter schools pay rent.
Black parents fought back. There were rallies in the streets and angry parents demanded charter schools be allowed to co-locate in the same buildings with public schools. De Blasio had good reasons for trying to kick-out charter schools. Charter schools made public schools look bad.
In a highly-publicized case, two New York City middle schools were located in the same building and drew students from similar backgrounds. In the charter school, 80 percent of the students passed the state math test and 59 percent made the grade on the English test.
By comparison, the results were miserable in the public school. Five percent of students managed a passing grade on the math test. The English test had an 11 percent passing rate. No wonder de Blasio didn't want the schools co-located where the comparisons were politically damning.
Charter schools are changing the educational landscape, a prospect unions fear. Charter schools offer innovative curricula. They experiment with new teaching methods. The schools focus on helping every student succeed. Typically, they stress discipline and have no tolerance for misbehavior.
There are waiting lists in every district that offers a charter school alternative, attesting to their popularity with parents. Nationwide, there are more than one million names on charter school wait lists, according to a Manhattan Institute study. In New York City, the wait lists tops 70,000.
Democrats and their accomplices in the NAACP march to the drumbeat of the teacher unions, fighting against the very people (minorities) they claim to champion. Their opposition is strictly a matter of political greed. They value union contributions over children's future.
A national study found that 28 percent of charter school students are African-American, nearly double the percentage for traditional public schools. Without school choice, the families of these students would be stuck inside failing schools with no opportunity for escape.
This election year school choice has been paid little more than lip service. Voters should demand to know the positions of every candidate on charter schools. Those against supporting school choices deserve a failing education grade and are no friends of minorities.
Vote for candidates who want every child to succeed in school with no youngster left behind in a under performing public education facility.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Will Hackers Hijack The Presidential Election?
Nearly 16 years after "hanging chads" threw the 2000 presidential election into chaos, a new threat of vote tampering looms over the upcoming contest. Fears of a rigged election gained traction when the FBI director warned states about the potential of hackers invading voting systems in November.
Director James Comey sounded the alarm last week after it was disclosed there have been cyberattacks in recent weeks on voter databases in Illinois and Arizona. He divulged the FBI takes "very seriously" the prospect "of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country."
Comey's assessment comes on the heels of comments by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who both expressed concerns about election fraud. In today's overheated climate, the candidates' statements coupled with Comey's assertion have cast a pall over the presidential election.
If Americans cannot trust the voting procedure, then the entire premise of our democracy is at risk.
An investigation reveals that the biggest threat to America's presidential election may be outdated technology rather than hacking, according to a 2015 study by New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice.
Researchers discovered that 43 states will be using electronic voting machines that are at least a decade old. Many of the machines, manufactured in the 1990's, are susceptible to malfunctions and may have serious security flaws. The price tag for replacing the machines is more than $1 billion.
As a result of the replacement costs, many states have delayed purchasing new voting equipment. If the antiquated machines fail, it may fuel longer voting lines and force delays in results thus eroding public confidence in the election outcome. In a close contest, it will ignite a political firestorm.
Although hacking may be a ominous prospect, it would be nearly impossible to rig the election because of the myriad of voting methods used in the 9,000 precincts in the country. Eighteen states still use old-fashioned paper ballots, which are tabulated in most cases by optical scanners.
Others states use infamous punchcard systems and touchscreen devices, which are often referred to as Digital Recording Electronic (DRE) systems. The later employ computers to record votes directly into the computer's memory. The last of the mechanical lever voting machines was retired after 2010.
There is no data available on the exact number of electronic versus paper voting systems. However, most voters will be using paper ballots or punchcards, reports Verified Voting Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan group that provides data on elections.
A group or foreign country would have to deploy hundreds of its agents to fiddle with computers, punchcards and optical paper ballot scanners. Many voting machines are so old that they are not easily hacked because a cybercriminal would need to be physically located next to the device.
However, this does not mean it is impossible to alter voting results. If someone wanted to fix the election, the hacker could install malware on scanning devices used to tabulate votes. But the individual would have to place the software on the device right before the ballot counting began.
To rig the election, the cybercriminals would have to install the malware on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vote tabulation scanners across the nation. That kind of widespread tampering would surely be noticed by poll watchers, election officials and party observers.
These assurances aside, there is understandable angst about the voting process. The country was put on notice about the vulnerability of its systems when someone hacked the Democrat Party's emails. Suspicion rests on the Russians, but there has been no confirmation from the FBI.
The best defense against a rigged election remains updating the outmoded voting machines and tabulators. States must spend the money to insure fair elections. With the very foundation of democracy at stake, they can no longer afford to use funding as an excuse for lack of action.
At least all this talk about hacking elections has produced one positive outcome. Officials who support voting over the internet are having second thoughts. Online voting would be a hackers dream come true. Better for the country to have to deal with hanging chads.
Director James Comey sounded the alarm last week after it was disclosed there have been cyberattacks in recent weeks on voter databases in Illinois and Arizona. He divulged the FBI takes "very seriously" the prospect "of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country."
Comey's assessment comes on the heels of comments by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who both expressed concerns about election fraud. In today's overheated climate, the candidates' statements coupled with Comey's assertion have cast a pall over the presidential election.
If Americans cannot trust the voting procedure, then the entire premise of our democracy is at risk.
An investigation reveals that the biggest threat to America's presidential election may be outdated technology rather than hacking, according to a 2015 study by New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice.
Researchers discovered that 43 states will be using electronic voting machines that are at least a decade old. Many of the machines, manufactured in the 1990's, are susceptible to malfunctions and may have serious security flaws. The price tag for replacing the machines is more than $1 billion.
As a result of the replacement costs, many states have delayed purchasing new voting equipment. If the antiquated machines fail, it may fuel longer voting lines and force delays in results thus eroding public confidence in the election outcome. In a close contest, it will ignite a political firestorm.
Although hacking may be a ominous prospect, it would be nearly impossible to rig the election because of the myriad of voting methods used in the 9,000 precincts in the country. Eighteen states still use old-fashioned paper ballots, which are tabulated in most cases by optical scanners.
Others states use infamous punchcard systems and touchscreen devices, which are often referred to as Digital Recording Electronic (DRE) systems. The later employ computers to record votes directly into the computer's memory. The last of the mechanical lever voting machines was retired after 2010.
There is no data available on the exact number of electronic versus paper voting systems. However, most voters will be using paper ballots or punchcards, reports Verified Voting Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan group that provides data on elections.
A group or foreign country would have to deploy hundreds of its agents to fiddle with computers, punchcards and optical paper ballot scanners. Many voting machines are so old that they are not easily hacked because a cybercriminal would need to be physically located next to the device.
However, this does not mean it is impossible to alter voting results. If someone wanted to fix the election, the hacker could install malware on scanning devices used to tabulate votes. But the individual would have to place the software on the device right before the ballot counting began.
To rig the election, the cybercriminals would have to install the malware on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vote tabulation scanners across the nation. That kind of widespread tampering would surely be noticed by poll watchers, election officials and party observers.
These assurances aside, there is understandable angst about the voting process. The country was put on notice about the vulnerability of its systems when someone hacked the Democrat Party's emails. Suspicion rests on the Russians, but there has been no confirmation from the FBI.
The best defense against a rigged election remains updating the outmoded voting machines and tabulators. States must spend the money to insure fair elections. With the very foundation of democracy at stake, they can no longer afford to use funding as an excuse for lack of action.
At least all this talk about hacking elections has produced one positive outcome. Officials who support voting over the internet are having second thoughts. Online voting would be a hackers dream come true. Better for the country to have to deal with hanging chads.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Obamacare: An Unhealthy Diagnosis
Obamacare, the president's signature health initiative, still has a pulse but its vital signs are unstable. The patient suffers from hemorrhaging costs, feverish premium increases and chilling enrollment numbers. Despite the critical condition, the media and the president claim the scheme is healthy.
Every enrollment period, President Obama and his media sycophants cheer the rising numbers. They flog data showing the percentage of the population with no insurance is declining. They boast about the plethora of choices consumers have for insurance.
Long ago buried are the promises the president made before Obamacare was signed into law in 2010. Remember, he guaranteed consumers could keep their doctor. A steely-eyed Mr. Obama assured Americans they would experience a $2,500 drop in their insurance premiums.
And, not least of all, the president pounded his bully pulpit and wagged his finger, committing to a price tag of less than $1 trillion for a decade of improved care that would forever change America, leaving no one without health insurance.
As usual, the facts on the ground have a way of unraveling the narrative ginned up by Mr. Obama and his willing accomplices in the media. Things are so bad that even Democrats are not running around bragging about how good Obamacare has been for Americans.
Here is a report on the annual physical for Obamacare:
The number of enrollees has failed to meet projections. At the beginning of 2015, there were 11.7 million Americans enrolled in Obamacare. After the enrollment period was completed, the number of insured started shrinking. Nearly two million people stopped paying premiums or lost their coverage. By June of last year, only 9.9 million people had insurance under the government plan, according to figures on the Obamacare website. When the enrollment period ended for 2016, there were 11.3 million people signed up, reported Health and Human Services (HHS). Each month more people drop out. You never see news coverage of that figure. In addition, Obamacare enrollment has never met the goals. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted there would be 24 million enrollees by 2016, which means the government failed to even reach half that number.
The cost of insurance is rising. Premiums for the three levels of insurance coverage under Obamacare have increased every year. The nationwide average hike last year was 2 percent, a misleading figure. In many cities, the costs spiked by double-digits. In Portland, rates for the silver plan (the mid-range coverage) skyrocketed 16.2 percent. In Albuquerque, the price tag leaped 11 percent. In Virginia, costs zoomed up 10.8 percent. Things are not looking any better for the future. Rates are projected to soar 17 percent in 2017 in California, according to the Los Angeles Times. The CBO figured the costs of Obamacare insurance premiums will climb six percent every year over the next decade.
The numbers of uninsured remain high. The Obama Administration likes to champion the idea that the number of uninsured are only 9.1 percent of the population under the age of 65. However, there are a number of independent sources with contradictory data. For example, Gallup polling organization found 11.9 percent of the population under 65 had no insurance. In 2008, the percentage of uninsured was 14.6 percent of the population. That means the number of uninsured has dropped by 3.5 percentage points in five years. Tax returns for the year 2014 show that 7.5 million Americans paid fines to the Internal Revenue Service rather than purchase insurance.
Consumers' health insurance choices are dwindling. Three of the largest insurance companies--Aetna, Humana and United Healthcare--have announced plans to exit the business in 2017. A number of insurance cooperatives have also pulled the plug on Obamacare plans. Avalere, a health care consulting firm, projects that more than one-third of the exchange market regions in the country will be stuck with just one health carrier next year. About 55 percent of the regions will have two. Unsustainable financial losses are driving health insurance providers to dump Obamacare. Industry experts maintain the dreary finances are a toxic mix of lower than expected enrollment and higher than anticipated claims.
Obamacare's costs have far exceeded estimates. The CBO's latest figure pegs the cost of Obamacare over the next decade at $1.34 trillion. This is an increase of $136 billion over the budget agency's predictions issued in 2015. In 2016, the total cost of Obamacare is estimated at $110 billion. One reason for the escalating costs is that 87 percent of those enrolled in one of the three Obamacare plans received some form of financial assistance from the federal government to help pay for coverage. As the cost of coverage climbs, so does the subsidy needed to help people buy insurance. Last year the government paid $38 billion in subsidies, a $23 billion increase from 2014.
By any measurement, Obamacare is sick. Americans were sold a bill of goods by Democrats, the president and the apparatchik media. Obamacare deserves an early death. However, don't expect it to succumb, despite all its ills.
President Ronald Reagan once famously said that a government program "is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." As usual, Mr. Reagan was right. Obamacare will have a lasting existence, no matter what you read and hear from do-nothing Republicans.
Every enrollment period, President Obama and his media sycophants cheer the rising numbers. They flog data showing the percentage of the population with no insurance is declining. They boast about the plethora of choices consumers have for insurance.
Long ago buried are the promises the president made before Obamacare was signed into law in 2010. Remember, he guaranteed consumers could keep their doctor. A steely-eyed Mr. Obama assured Americans they would experience a $2,500 drop in their insurance premiums.
And, not least of all, the president pounded his bully pulpit and wagged his finger, committing to a price tag of less than $1 trillion for a decade of improved care that would forever change America, leaving no one without health insurance.
As usual, the facts on the ground have a way of unraveling the narrative ginned up by Mr. Obama and his willing accomplices in the media. Things are so bad that even Democrats are not running around bragging about how good Obamacare has been for Americans.
Here is a report on the annual physical for Obamacare:
The number of enrollees has failed to meet projections. At the beginning of 2015, there were 11.7 million Americans enrolled in Obamacare. After the enrollment period was completed, the number of insured started shrinking. Nearly two million people stopped paying premiums or lost their coverage. By June of last year, only 9.9 million people had insurance under the government plan, according to figures on the Obamacare website. When the enrollment period ended for 2016, there were 11.3 million people signed up, reported Health and Human Services (HHS). Each month more people drop out. You never see news coverage of that figure. In addition, Obamacare enrollment has never met the goals. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted there would be 24 million enrollees by 2016, which means the government failed to even reach half that number.
The cost of insurance is rising. Premiums for the three levels of insurance coverage under Obamacare have increased every year. The nationwide average hike last year was 2 percent, a misleading figure. In many cities, the costs spiked by double-digits. In Portland, rates for the silver plan (the mid-range coverage) skyrocketed 16.2 percent. In Albuquerque, the price tag leaped 11 percent. In Virginia, costs zoomed up 10.8 percent. Things are not looking any better for the future. Rates are projected to soar 17 percent in 2017 in California, according to the Los Angeles Times. The CBO figured the costs of Obamacare insurance premiums will climb six percent every year over the next decade.
The numbers of uninsured remain high. The Obama Administration likes to champion the idea that the number of uninsured are only 9.1 percent of the population under the age of 65. However, there are a number of independent sources with contradictory data. For example, Gallup polling organization found 11.9 percent of the population under 65 had no insurance. In 2008, the percentage of uninsured was 14.6 percent of the population. That means the number of uninsured has dropped by 3.5 percentage points in five years. Tax returns for the year 2014 show that 7.5 million Americans paid fines to the Internal Revenue Service rather than purchase insurance.
Consumers' health insurance choices are dwindling. Three of the largest insurance companies--Aetna, Humana and United Healthcare--have announced plans to exit the business in 2017. A number of insurance cooperatives have also pulled the plug on Obamacare plans. Avalere, a health care consulting firm, projects that more than one-third of the exchange market regions in the country will be stuck with just one health carrier next year. About 55 percent of the regions will have two. Unsustainable financial losses are driving health insurance providers to dump Obamacare. Industry experts maintain the dreary finances are a toxic mix of lower than expected enrollment and higher than anticipated claims.
Obamacare's costs have far exceeded estimates. The CBO's latest figure pegs the cost of Obamacare over the next decade at $1.34 trillion. This is an increase of $136 billion over the budget agency's predictions issued in 2015. In 2016, the total cost of Obamacare is estimated at $110 billion. One reason for the escalating costs is that 87 percent of those enrolled in one of the three Obamacare plans received some form of financial assistance from the federal government to help pay for coverage. As the cost of coverage climbs, so does the subsidy needed to help people buy insurance. Last year the government paid $38 billion in subsidies, a $23 billion increase from 2014.
By any measurement, Obamacare is sick. Americans were sold a bill of goods by Democrats, the president and the apparatchik media. Obamacare deserves an early death. However, don't expect it to succumb, despite all its ills.
President Ronald Reagan once famously said that a government program "is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." As usual, Mr. Reagan was right. Obamacare will have a lasting existence, no matter what you read and hear from do-nothing Republicans.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Immigration Reform Based on Facts Not Politics
A majority of Americans agree sweeping changes are needed in the current immigration system. However, there is no consensus on what steps need to be taken to fix the flawed process. A major reason for the discord is that too many Americans have little knowledge of immigration facts.
The state-controlled media and politicians have spread so much false information about immigration that a majority of Americans are ill-informed. Unless everyone can agree on the facts, there will never be a sensible solution on immigration reform which placates most Americans.
An exhaustive study by Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel conducted last year found more than one-half of Americans could not correctly estimate the number of immigrants living in the country nor could they accurately guesstimate the percentage of illegals.
There should be no dispute about immigration numbers. Plenty of research exists from credible sources. Despite that fact, politicians of both parties and the media continue to paint a far different picture of immigration than the reality.
Here are facts that no reasonable person can contest:
There are more immigrants living in America today than at any time in our history. The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-partisan, non-profit research group, used Census Bureau data to calculate there are 42.1 immigrants residing in the U.S. That represents 13.3 percent of the total population, the highest share in more than 105 years. (Current data goes back to 1850.) But even that figure does not tell the whole story. Immigrants and their U.S. born children now number 81 million, reports the Migration Policy Institute. That is 28 percent of the population. Between 2013 and 2014, the foreign-born population in the nation jumped by 1 million people or 2.5 percent. In 2014, 1.3 million foreign-born individuals moved to the U.S. During the last five years, America has taken in more immigrants than any similar period in the country's history.
The real problem in America is illegal immigration. Several immigration reform and research organizations have pegged the number of illegals living in the U.S. at between 11.0 million and 11.4 million. By most estimates, about 49 percent of illegals were born in Mexico. After America's economic crisis in 2008, Mexican immigration slowed dramatically. However, it has sharply risen again. From 2014 to 2015, more than 740,000 Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) flooded into the the United States, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. No doubt the influx can be at least partly attributed to President Obama's 2014 executive order directing federal agencies to refrain from deporting some four million adult immigrants living illegally in the U.S. While the media and politicians claim that most illegal immigrants only want work, the facts tell a different story. While illegal immigrants account for 3.5 percent of the population, they represent 36.7 percent of people convicted of crimes in 2014, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data. More than six in ten illegal immigrants use one or more of the state or federal welfare programs, including food stamps, Medicaid and school lunch programs. The non-partisan Federation of Immigration Reform estimated assistance to illegal immigrants costs federal, state and local governments about $113 billion annually.
If Congress could agree on these facts, then the solution would seem rather straightforward: The number of immigrants in the country has reached record levels, indicating there is no issue with the current process for obtaining legal status. However, illegal immigrants are continuing to flow into the country, creating problems which are costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
Here is a common-sense approach to solving America's legal and illegal immigration problems:
1. There is no need to build a fence along the southern border. There are better ways to spend the billions of dollars it would cost. The Border Patrol needs to be beefed up with additional staff and armed with sophisticated technology to guard against illegal entry into the U.S. Under the Obama Administration, the Border Patrol currently serves as little more than babysitters for those who enter the country illegally.
2. Anyone caught illegally entering the country should be immediately deported. Those aliens who attempt a second border crossing should be jailed and returned to their country of origin after serving time. Any American company employing an illegal immigrant would be subject to heavy fines. Sanctuary cities would be outlawed.
3. Persons living illegally in the U.S. would be allowed to apply for work visas. However, as a condition to obtaining a visa, the immigrant must begin the process of becoming a legal citizen. If the immigrant fails to make progress toward citizenship, he or she will face immediate deportation. Adult illegal immigrants would be denied welfare benefits unless they could prove they are looking for work.
4. Current immigration criteria would be changed to put those with special skills (scientific, doctoral degrees, software engineers, doctors, etc.) at the head of the line. They would have their applications for a temporary work visa and citizenship expedited.
America has a more than two-hundred year history of welcoming immigrants. Foreign born people built this country and shaped its destiny. Not one of the proposals listed above will interfere with America's tradition of accepting millions of new citizens.
Americans must demand sensible immigration reform and hold their elected representative along with the president responsible for delivering on their broken promises to pass a bill to remedy the problem.
The state-controlled media and politicians have spread so much false information about immigration that a majority of Americans are ill-informed. Unless everyone can agree on the facts, there will never be a sensible solution on immigration reform which placates most Americans.
An exhaustive study by Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel conducted last year found more than one-half of Americans could not correctly estimate the number of immigrants living in the country nor could they accurately guesstimate the percentage of illegals.
There should be no dispute about immigration numbers. Plenty of research exists from credible sources. Despite that fact, politicians of both parties and the media continue to paint a far different picture of immigration than the reality.
Here are facts that no reasonable person can contest:
There are more immigrants living in America today than at any time in our history. The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-partisan, non-profit research group, used Census Bureau data to calculate there are 42.1 immigrants residing in the U.S. That represents 13.3 percent of the total population, the highest share in more than 105 years. (Current data goes back to 1850.) But even that figure does not tell the whole story. Immigrants and their U.S. born children now number 81 million, reports the Migration Policy Institute. That is 28 percent of the population. Between 2013 and 2014, the foreign-born population in the nation jumped by 1 million people or 2.5 percent. In 2014, 1.3 million foreign-born individuals moved to the U.S. During the last five years, America has taken in more immigrants than any similar period in the country's history.
The real problem in America is illegal immigration. Several immigration reform and research organizations have pegged the number of illegals living in the U.S. at between 11.0 million and 11.4 million. By most estimates, about 49 percent of illegals were born in Mexico. After America's economic crisis in 2008, Mexican immigration slowed dramatically. However, it has sharply risen again. From 2014 to 2015, more than 740,000 Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) flooded into the the United States, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. No doubt the influx can be at least partly attributed to President Obama's 2014 executive order directing federal agencies to refrain from deporting some four million adult immigrants living illegally in the U.S. While the media and politicians claim that most illegal immigrants only want work, the facts tell a different story. While illegal immigrants account for 3.5 percent of the population, they represent 36.7 percent of people convicted of crimes in 2014, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data. More than six in ten illegal immigrants use one or more of the state or federal welfare programs, including food stamps, Medicaid and school lunch programs. The non-partisan Federation of Immigration Reform estimated assistance to illegal immigrants costs federal, state and local governments about $113 billion annually.
If Congress could agree on these facts, then the solution would seem rather straightforward: The number of immigrants in the country has reached record levels, indicating there is no issue with the current process for obtaining legal status. However, illegal immigrants are continuing to flow into the country, creating problems which are costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
Here is a common-sense approach to solving America's legal and illegal immigration problems:
1. There is no need to build a fence along the southern border. There are better ways to spend the billions of dollars it would cost. The Border Patrol needs to be beefed up with additional staff and armed with sophisticated technology to guard against illegal entry into the U.S. Under the Obama Administration, the Border Patrol currently serves as little more than babysitters for those who enter the country illegally.
2. Anyone caught illegally entering the country should be immediately deported. Those aliens who attempt a second border crossing should be jailed and returned to their country of origin after serving time. Any American company employing an illegal immigrant would be subject to heavy fines. Sanctuary cities would be outlawed.
3. Persons living illegally in the U.S. would be allowed to apply for work visas. However, as a condition to obtaining a visa, the immigrant must begin the process of becoming a legal citizen. If the immigrant fails to make progress toward citizenship, he or she will face immediate deportation. Adult illegal immigrants would be denied welfare benefits unless they could prove they are looking for work.
4. Current immigration criteria would be changed to put those with special skills (scientific, doctoral degrees, software engineers, doctors, etc.) at the head of the line. They would have their applications for a temporary work visa and citizenship expedited.
America has a more than two-hundred year history of welcoming immigrants. Foreign born people built this country and shaped its destiny. Not one of the proposals listed above will interfere with America's tradition of accepting millions of new citizens.
Americans must demand sensible immigration reform and hold their elected representative along with the president responsible for delivering on their broken promises to pass a bill to remedy the problem.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Political Divide: Why Can't We Just Get Along?
This political season has ignited a burning animosity that threatens to irreparably scorch the nation. Voters are angry, frightened, shocked and depressed. Partisanship among both Democrats and Republicans has made it nearly impossible for the next president to heal the divisions.
The divide is so bitter that some are calling it the most negative inflection point in nearly a quarter of a century of American politics. Whatever your political affiliation, the fact is you most likely are of the mind that the opposing party is vulgar, immoral, hateful and imbecilic.
These are not generalities. The opinions have been culled from the latest Pew Research poll on U.S. Politics and Policy taken in June. The research exposes the ugly side of American politics where neighbors and friends are reticent to discuss the election out of angst and loathing.
"...Today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger," Pew researchers noted in the summary of the nationwide survey. Both Republicans and Democrats say the opposition party makes them "afraid."
Negative voter opinions of political parties are not a new phenomena. What makes this year different is the harsh language party voters use in their descriptions of fellow Americans who view the world differently than they do.
Majorities of voters in both parties told researchers it is "stressful and frustrating" to have conversations about their differences. As a result, neighbor is turning against neighbor. Four in ten Republicans and Democrats say it would be easier to get along with a neighbor from the same party.
A closer examination of the data helps explain the antagonism. Republicans view Democrats as lazier than most Americans and generally immoral. On the other hand, Democrats think of Republicans as close minded and dishonest.
These partisan stereotypes appear to be ingrained in members of the two parties. However, this does not mean there are not genuine differences on policy.
Among Republicans, about 68 percent claim the Democratic Party's policies are harmful to the country. Not surprisingly, 62 percent of Democrats feel the same way about Republican programs. Majorities on both sides contend their party's plans are the main attraction for their affiliation.
But nearly as many Republicans and Democrats also make their choice of party association because of their disdain for policies of the opposition. In other words, their party identity hinges more on their impressions of the other party than it does of their own party.
The good news is that Pew's survey found that most Republicans and Democrats want compromise. The bad news: only on their terms. That helps explain why politicians are not the only ones to blame when issues are not resolved in Washington. The voters shoulder equal responsibility.
How do we break down the barriers of political partisanship?
One way is to have a friendship with someone from the other party. Researchers discovered that having a friend from the opposition party tended to soften a person's image of the competition. Associating with only your "kind" hardens your views against those who belong to the other party.
It also is more difficult to dehumanize a Republican or Democrat if you actually are friends with one.
Perhaps, it may be time to dissolve both political parties. Party affiliation carries with it certain expectations of beliefs and opinions that places limits on Americans' ability to objectively view issues. That makes it almost impossible to agree on even the most basic concepts.
Party labels are dividing America. The country needs unity more than it does political associations. In the name of harmony, there should be only one party with a myriad of factions, views and candidates. Call it the American Party.
That's something we should all be able to agree upon.
The divide is so bitter that some are calling it the most negative inflection point in nearly a quarter of a century of American politics. Whatever your political affiliation, the fact is you most likely are of the mind that the opposing party is vulgar, immoral, hateful and imbecilic.
These are not generalities. The opinions have been culled from the latest Pew Research poll on U.S. Politics and Policy taken in June. The research exposes the ugly side of American politics where neighbors and friends are reticent to discuss the election out of angst and loathing.
"...Today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger," Pew researchers noted in the summary of the nationwide survey. Both Republicans and Democrats say the opposition party makes them "afraid."
Negative voter opinions of political parties are not a new phenomena. What makes this year different is the harsh language party voters use in their descriptions of fellow Americans who view the world differently than they do.
Majorities of voters in both parties told researchers it is "stressful and frustrating" to have conversations about their differences. As a result, neighbor is turning against neighbor. Four in ten Republicans and Democrats say it would be easier to get along with a neighbor from the same party.
A closer examination of the data helps explain the antagonism. Republicans view Democrats as lazier than most Americans and generally immoral. On the other hand, Democrats think of Republicans as close minded and dishonest.
These partisan stereotypes appear to be ingrained in members of the two parties. However, this does not mean there are not genuine differences on policy.
Among Republicans, about 68 percent claim the Democratic Party's policies are harmful to the country. Not surprisingly, 62 percent of Democrats feel the same way about Republican programs. Majorities on both sides contend their party's plans are the main attraction for their affiliation.
But nearly as many Republicans and Democrats also make their choice of party association because of their disdain for policies of the opposition. In other words, their party identity hinges more on their impressions of the other party than it does of their own party.
The good news is that Pew's survey found that most Republicans and Democrats want compromise. The bad news: only on their terms. That helps explain why politicians are not the only ones to blame when issues are not resolved in Washington. The voters shoulder equal responsibility.
How do we break down the barriers of political partisanship?
One way is to have a friendship with someone from the other party. Researchers discovered that having a friend from the opposition party tended to soften a person's image of the competition. Associating with only your "kind" hardens your views against those who belong to the other party.
It also is more difficult to dehumanize a Republican or Democrat if you actually are friends with one.
Perhaps, it may be time to dissolve both political parties. Party affiliation carries with it certain expectations of beliefs and opinions that places limits on Americans' ability to objectively view issues. That makes it almost impossible to agree on even the most basic concepts.
Party labels are dividing America. The country needs unity more than it does political associations. In the name of harmony, there should be only one party with a myriad of factions, views and candidates. Call it the American Party.
That's something we should all be able to agree upon.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Media Coverup: Giving Hillary A Pass
Ever utterance of Donald Trump has become fodder for a media thrashing. To be fair, the Republican presidential candidate often has no one to blame but himself. At the same time, his opponent Democrat Hillary Clinton may be the least scrutinized candidate since Barrack Obama in 2008.
While Mr. Trump mixes it up almost daily with an unfriendly press, the heavily scripted Ms. Clinton shuns the media. She has not held a news conference in nearly 250 days. Halley's Comet appears in the sky more often than Ms. Clinton takes questions from a gaggle of news reporters.
The liberal media has dug into Mr. Trump's business and personal life with a vengeance. Unflattering stories have appeared in the usual Democrat-controlled media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Meanwhile, there seems to be no journalistic interest in Ms. Clinton's past.
Certainly, there are a bushel of scandals for an enterprising media to investigate about Ms. Clinton. However, the mainstream moguls have sold their journalistic souls to the Democrat cause. Big media has made no pretense about its support for Ms. Clinton and animosity toward Mr. Trump.
As a service to the faux journalists who populate today's media, here are five stories that are tailor made for an investigative team of reporters to examine:
Clinton Foundation
Three of the largest donations to the Clinton Foundation originated from Saudi Arabia, a country with some of the world's most repressive laws against women. The Kingdom of Saudi Foundation has handed over $10-$20 million in cash. Two of the wealthiest Saudi businessmen, Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi and Nasser Ibrahim Al-Rashid, have each contributed $1-$5 million. This data comes from the Clinton Foundation, which only lists ranges of donations instead of the actual dollar amount. Why does Ms. Clinton's foundation accept millions from countries which oppress women?
Clinton Speeches
Ms. Clinton gave three speeches during a four month period to Goldman Sachs, the leading global investment, banking, securities and investment management firm. She earned a staggering $675,000 for the private chats with Wall Street's elite bankers. Other banking giants also paid to hear Ms. Clinton, including UBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Since 2013, Ms.Clinton has raked in $21 million in speaking fees. Shouldn't Ms. Clinton be pressed by the media on her cozy relationship with the world's largest banks, especially since she has pledged to be tough on Wall Street's misdeeds?
State Department Email Probe
Mere days after the FBI and Justice Department whitewashed the investigation of Ms. Clinton's handling of classified material, the State Department announced it would resume its own probe of the same issue. The department had shelved its investigation after the FBI announced it was conducting its examination. State has promised to delve into whether Ms. Clinton and her staffers violated the department's rules for securing secret communications. If the department finds sufficient evidence of violations, it has the authority to revoke Ms. Clinton's security clearance. A vigilant media would be dogging the State Department for information about the investigation's progress because the president of the country must have access to classified information. The outcome matters.
Tax Issue
When the Clinton Foundation was caught fiddling with its books, it was forced to admit last year that it needed to amend its tax filings for the years 2010 through 2013. One of the egregious errors was the foundation's accounting of revenue for speeches given by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The money paid to the Clinton's was reported as charitable contributions. The fees should have been recognized as payments for services. While the foundation was forced to restate its tax filings, Ms. Clinton should have been required to amend her own tax documents. Did Ms. Clinton also reconcile her tax filings for the years 2010-2013 to include the earnings from speeches previously unreported and has she paid additional taxes?
Clinton Connections to LaFarge
Most Americans have never heard of the French company LaFarge for good reasons. The media has covered up allegations that Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge faces claims it channeled funds to ISIS. Ms. Clinton once served as a director of Lafarge and has done legal work for the firm. LaFarge is an annual donor to the Clinton Foundation. During Ms. Clinton's service on the board, LaFarge was fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for pollution violations in Alabama and was embroiled in a flap over its us of hazard waste to fuel cement plants in the U.S. Recently, LaFarge was implicated in negotiations with ISIS to allow the company to continue its operations in Syria. Why would Ms. Clinton associate with a company with such a dubious environmental record? Did her foundation accept donations from LaFarge even after it became public the French firm was funneling cash to terrorists?
Of course, the media cabal will not even taken a whiff of these potential scandals. Unfortunately, these are serious issues that matter about the integrity, honesty and qualifications of the nation's top officeholder. But a spat between Donald Trump and his latest victim is much more entertaining.
Hillary Clinton has already given the media its marching orders. They are to destroy Mr. Trump's character and portray him as unfit for the office. Don't expect the nation's press to deviate one iota from the Democrat candidate's script.
While Mr. Trump mixes it up almost daily with an unfriendly press, the heavily scripted Ms. Clinton shuns the media. She has not held a news conference in nearly 250 days. Halley's Comet appears in the sky more often than Ms. Clinton takes questions from a gaggle of news reporters.
The liberal media has dug into Mr. Trump's business and personal life with a vengeance. Unflattering stories have appeared in the usual Democrat-controlled media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Meanwhile, there seems to be no journalistic interest in Ms. Clinton's past.
Certainly, there are a bushel of scandals for an enterprising media to investigate about Ms. Clinton. However, the mainstream moguls have sold their journalistic souls to the Democrat cause. Big media has made no pretense about its support for Ms. Clinton and animosity toward Mr. Trump.
As a service to the faux journalists who populate today's media, here are five stories that are tailor made for an investigative team of reporters to examine:
Clinton Foundation
Three of the largest donations to the Clinton Foundation originated from Saudi Arabia, a country with some of the world's most repressive laws against women. The Kingdom of Saudi Foundation has handed over $10-$20 million in cash. Two of the wealthiest Saudi businessmen, Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi and Nasser Ibrahim Al-Rashid, have each contributed $1-$5 million. This data comes from the Clinton Foundation, which only lists ranges of donations instead of the actual dollar amount. Why does Ms. Clinton's foundation accept millions from countries which oppress women?
Clinton Speeches
Ms. Clinton gave three speeches during a four month period to Goldman Sachs, the leading global investment, banking, securities and investment management firm. She earned a staggering $675,000 for the private chats with Wall Street's elite bankers. Other banking giants also paid to hear Ms. Clinton, including UBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Since 2013, Ms.Clinton has raked in $21 million in speaking fees. Shouldn't Ms. Clinton be pressed by the media on her cozy relationship with the world's largest banks, especially since she has pledged to be tough on Wall Street's misdeeds?
State Department Email Probe
Mere days after the FBI and Justice Department whitewashed the investigation of Ms. Clinton's handling of classified material, the State Department announced it would resume its own probe of the same issue. The department had shelved its investigation after the FBI announced it was conducting its examination. State has promised to delve into whether Ms. Clinton and her staffers violated the department's rules for securing secret communications. If the department finds sufficient evidence of violations, it has the authority to revoke Ms. Clinton's security clearance. A vigilant media would be dogging the State Department for information about the investigation's progress because the president of the country must have access to classified information. The outcome matters.
Tax Issue
When the Clinton Foundation was caught fiddling with its books, it was forced to admit last year that it needed to amend its tax filings for the years 2010 through 2013. One of the egregious errors was the foundation's accounting of revenue for speeches given by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The money paid to the Clinton's was reported as charitable contributions. The fees should have been recognized as payments for services. While the foundation was forced to restate its tax filings, Ms. Clinton should have been required to amend her own tax documents. Did Ms. Clinton also reconcile her tax filings for the years 2010-2013 to include the earnings from speeches previously unreported and has she paid additional taxes?
Clinton Connections to LaFarge
Most Americans have never heard of the French company LaFarge for good reasons. The media has covered up allegations that Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge faces claims it channeled funds to ISIS. Ms. Clinton once served as a director of Lafarge and has done legal work for the firm. LaFarge is an annual donor to the Clinton Foundation. During Ms. Clinton's service on the board, LaFarge was fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for pollution violations in Alabama and was embroiled in a flap over its us of hazard waste to fuel cement plants in the U.S. Recently, LaFarge was implicated in negotiations with ISIS to allow the company to continue its operations in Syria. Why would Ms. Clinton associate with a company with such a dubious environmental record? Did her foundation accept donations from LaFarge even after it became public the French firm was funneling cash to terrorists?
Of course, the media cabal will not even taken a whiff of these potential scandals. Unfortunately, these are serious issues that matter about the integrity, honesty and qualifications of the nation's top officeholder. But a spat between Donald Trump and his latest victim is much more entertaining.
Hillary Clinton has already given the media its marching orders. They are to destroy Mr. Trump's character and portray him as unfit for the office. Don't expect the nation's press to deviate one iota from the Democrat candidate's script.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)