In an era when the media paints America as a hopelessly divided nation, there are a number of social and cultural issues where there is near unanimous agreement. As it turns out, these areas where Americans find consensus are the things that unite us as one nation.
Therefore, if you are searching for something to be grateful for this Thanksgiving, here are at least four reasons to feel better about these United States:
(Editor's Note: All the statistics used in this column were gleaned from Pew Research polling reports from 2007 through 2014.)
America is a highly religious nation: Ninety percent of the people profess they believe in God. Eight in ten claim they never doubt God's existence. A surprising 76 percent say prayer is an important part of their daily life. Large percentages of Americans agree about many religious beliefs and behaviors. That is not to suggest that faith is not under attack in America. Courts have forced crosses to be torn down in public places, mandated the removal of the Ten Commandments from buildings and banned the use of prayer in certain venues. Despite this legal aggression supported by a secular media, Americans have refused to give up their practice of religion or to reject God. In times of crisis, such as when the country was ruthlessly attacked on September 11th, Americans found shelter in their churches with fellow worshipers. They steadfastly cling to the old-fashioned notion that God watches over their country. It is comforting to live in a country of believers, even if our religious practices may differ. What is important is that God maintains a prominent place in American life.
Americans are proud of their military. More than eight in 10 Americans have a favorable opinion of the armed forces. In large numbers (78%), Americans believe that the members of the military contribute "a lot" to society's well being. In fact, in a survey of 10 occupational groups, American service members come out on top, beating clergy, medical doctors, teachers and scientists, to name a few. Interestingly, the occupational group that has suffered the biggest decline in prestige since the surveys began in 2009 is journalists. No surprise there. By contrast, Americans of every political stripe have always held high opinions of the military. That should not be taken for granted because in many countries the military are often viewed disparagingly. Because Americans support their service men and women, the military has always been a force to unite the country. There is nothing as stirring as watching average Americans applaud as service members board a plane, or stroll through an airport or pass in review.
Americans are patriotic. Popular culture would suggest patriotism is a quaint idea that no longer matters. However, for more than 20 years, surveys have found an overwhelming number of Americans consider themselves patriotic. The figure has held steady at 90 percent since 1987. Sixty-two percent of Americans display the flag at their homes, in their office or on their car. This brand of American patriotism is not only responsible for the largest volunteer military in the country's history, but it motivates ordinary citizens in ways that are often overlooked. Pride in country leads to extending a helping hand to neighbors, showing up at the polls, volunteering to clean up a river, standing up for good government and supporting the building of more schools. In countries where patriotism lags, people tend to be more invested in their day-to-day survival with little time or incentive to do something for the good of others. That's why patriotism matters.
Americans believe hard works pays off. Among all nations, the United States stands out as the country where most people believe the key to getting ahead in life is hard work. Almost eight in ten (73%) Americans, are convinced hard work leads to a better future. Perhaps, you think this is true of all people around the world. Not so. In Greece, only 21 per cent of the citizens think hard work benefits people. No wonder Greece is bankrupt and unemployment stands in double-digits. And other Europeans share the Greeks' sentiment. Italians and French also pooh-pooh the idea of hard work. They believe that knowing the right people is crucial to getting ahead in life. The work ethic of the American worker is legendary. Coupled with American ingenuity, it is the reason Americans are more productive, more efficient and more motivated. As a result, American workers enjoy a higher standard of living than their counterparts in other countries.
This Thanksgiving celebrate the things that make America unique. They are the glue that binds us together through good times and bad. May we always live in a nation that honors God, supports its military, takes pride in country and works hard to forge a better future.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Monday, November 17, 2014
Citizen Journalist: How One Man Exposed Obamacare
By all accounts, Rich Weinstein is the most unlikely person in America to ignite a firestorm that threatens to topple Obamacare. The unassuming Pennsylvanian is an investment adviser. He is not a reporter, yet he exposed the underhanded tactics used to bamboozle the public on health reform.
In a San Antonio radio interview, Weinstein recounted how his journalistic journey began when his health insurance was cancelled and he was forced to enroll in Obamacare. He decided to research the law. The more he learned about his new health care coverage, the more dismayed he became.
His legwork on the internet revealed provisions buried in the law's 2,000-plus pages that had escaped media attention. Then he uncovered a bombshell: a video of one of Obamacare's architects disclosing that the bill's obfuscation was deliberate and that passage of the law required opacity.
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," bragged Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."
The bombastic tirade was a gift that Weinstein decided to share with the news media last year. Not one media outlet, including The Washington Post, thought it was newsworthy. It wasn't until the video was posted online that the media could no longer ignore the powerful unmasking of political chicanery.
Gruber, after being taken to the woodshed by Democrats, quickly apologized on President Obama's personal television network MSNBC, explaining that he had been "speaking off the cuff." But then four more damning videos surfaced and Gruber crawled into academic hiding.
But this is not just a story about a crusade by a citizen journalist. Weinstein's lone effort to shine a light on the president's signature health care reform is an indictment of the nation's media for their failure to do their own investigation of the behind-the-scenes political shenanigans.
Those paragons of journalistic principle, The New York Times, The Washington Post and ABC, NBC and CBS news, allowed their own fawning support of President Obama to cloud their news judgement. They joined hands to ensure their reporting would burnish the image of the health care law.
Now they all look foolish. As do Democrats, who are now scrambling to cover up the deliberate con they hatched to pass the president's health law. In one toxic interview, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi huffed that she had not heard of Gruber and that he had nothing to do with the law.
But some enterprising reporters found videos of Ms. Pelosi suggesting that Gruber was THE expert on health care statistics. Other journalists discovered the California representative had also featured Gruber's role in shaping Obamacare on her own website in 2009. So much for transparency.
Embarrassed by Weinstein's journalism, the news media has adopted a policy of pooh-poohing Gruber's remarks as idle chatter about routine political back room maneuvering. The Washington Post set the tone with a blog report that Gruber's offhanded comments were much ado about nothing.
"…Gruber's comments, while damning, aren't exactly the most fertile political territory," an arrogant Post columnist opined. "That's because, while "stupidity of the American voter" is a pretty strong soundbite, Gruber's connection to the law takes some explaining."
In other words, The Washington Post also believes most people are too stupid to ferret out the linkage between Gruber and Obamacare, although there is public evidence that Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and helped craft the new health care law.
Gruber's skulduggery was handsomely rewarded by the federal government. In 2009, he pocketed nearly $400,000 through contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services. Yet Pelosi and presidential spokesman Josh Earnest continue to insist Gruber played no role in Obamacare.
Public logs, readily available to journalists, document that Gruber was a regular visitor to the White House and Congress. Records show Gruber made 19 visits to the White House and Capitol Hill from 2009 to June of this year.
Despite this evidence, President Obama has distanced himself from Gruber, calling him "some adviser, who never worked on our staff." He may not have been a staff member, but Gruber was paid by the very government that the president serves as chief executive.
The only stupid Americans in this saga are The Washington Post, Democrats, Jonathan Gruber and Nancy Pelosi. Most average people now understand they were duped by the president and his Democrat allies in order to saddle Americans with inferior government-dictated health care.
It took an ordinary citizen named Rich Weinstein to divulge the sleazy deception. He is the only hero in this political tragedy. The elitist Washington Post probably considers him stupid, too.
In a San Antonio radio interview, Weinstein recounted how his journalistic journey began when his health insurance was cancelled and he was forced to enroll in Obamacare. He decided to research the law. The more he learned about his new health care coverage, the more dismayed he became.
His legwork on the internet revealed provisions buried in the law's 2,000-plus pages that had escaped media attention. Then he uncovered a bombshell: a video of one of Obamacare's architects disclosing that the bill's obfuscation was deliberate and that passage of the law required opacity.
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," bragged Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."
The bombastic tirade was a gift that Weinstein decided to share with the news media last year. Not one media outlet, including The Washington Post, thought it was newsworthy. It wasn't until the video was posted online that the media could no longer ignore the powerful unmasking of political chicanery.
Gruber, after being taken to the woodshed by Democrats, quickly apologized on President Obama's personal television network MSNBC, explaining that he had been "speaking off the cuff." But then four more damning videos surfaced and Gruber crawled into academic hiding.
But this is not just a story about a crusade by a citizen journalist. Weinstein's lone effort to shine a light on the president's signature health care reform is an indictment of the nation's media for their failure to do their own investigation of the behind-the-scenes political shenanigans.
Those paragons of journalistic principle, The New York Times, The Washington Post and ABC, NBC and CBS news, allowed their own fawning support of President Obama to cloud their news judgement. They joined hands to ensure their reporting would burnish the image of the health care law.
Now they all look foolish. As do Democrats, who are now scrambling to cover up the deliberate con they hatched to pass the president's health law. In one toxic interview, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi huffed that she had not heard of Gruber and that he had nothing to do with the law.
But some enterprising reporters found videos of Ms. Pelosi suggesting that Gruber was THE expert on health care statistics. Other journalists discovered the California representative had also featured Gruber's role in shaping Obamacare on her own website in 2009. So much for transparency.
Embarrassed by Weinstein's journalism, the news media has adopted a policy of pooh-poohing Gruber's remarks as idle chatter about routine political back room maneuvering. The Washington Post set the tone with a blog report that Gruber's offhanded comments were much ado about nothing.
"…Gruber's comments, while damning, aren't exactly the most fertile political territory," an arrogant Post columnist opined. "That's because, while "stupidity of the American voter" is a pretty strong soundbite, Gruber's connection to the law takes some explaining."
In other words, The Washington Post also believes most people are too stupid to ferret out the linkage between Gruber and Obamacare, although there is public evidence that Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and helped craft the new health care law.
Gruber's skulduggery was handsomely rewarded by the federal government. In 2009, he pocketed nearly $400,000 through contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services. Yet Pelosi and presidential spokesman Josh Earnest continue to insist Gruber played no role in Obamacare.
Public logs, readily available to journalists, document that Gruber was a regular visitor to the White House and Congress. Records show Gruber made 19 visits to the White House and Capitol Hill from 2009 to June of this year.
Despite this evidence, President Obama has distanced himself from Gruber, calling him "some adviser, who never worked on our staff." He may not have been a staff member, but Gruber was paid by the very government that the president serves as chief executive.
The only stupid Americans in this saga are The Washington Post, Democrats, Jonathan Gruber and Nancy Pelosi. Most average people now understand they were duped by the president and his Democrat allies in order to saddle Americans with inferior government-dictated health care.
It took an ordinary citizen named Rich Weinstein to divulge the sleazy deception. He is the only hero in this political tragedy. The elitist Washington Post probably considers him stupid, too.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Midterms: How To Interpret The Election Results
The Big Red Tidal Wave swamped Democrats in the midterm elections as voters sent an unmistakable message: they want a change in the direction of their country. Exit polls confirmed two-thirds of voters believe President Obama's policies have placed the country on the wrong track.
Every major media outlet from the Associated Press to The New York Times tried to spin this election as a normal shift in power to be expected for presidents in their second term. But the size of the Republican landslide, including in state races, was too embarrassing to soft pedal as politics as usual.
Make no mistake about it: this was a shellacking of historic proportions for Democrats.
This election was about a deeply unpopular president whose polling numbers have nosedived. Even Democrats quarantined Obama from campaigning in their states and distanced themselves from his policies. In a surreal development, one Democrat refused to divulge if she voted for Obama.
The president set the tone for this election when he reminded everyone the midterm elections were about his policies. His pronouncement made every Democrat flinch. But the narcissistic Obama could not resist making this election about himself. His bluster doomed his party to a stinging defeat.
In fact, since Obama took up residence in the White House, Democrats have lost 69 House seats and 13 Senate seats with several midterm runoff elections still to be decided. Under Obama, Democrats have given up more seats than under any president since Harry Truman.
As soon as a Democrat ambush was evident, the media pirouetted into damage control. News pundits fabricated a narrative about the results being an indication voters wanted to end gridlock in Washington. Not a single exit poll supported that theory. Properly analyzed, the Republican sweep means:
1. Voters made it clear they want to stop the Obama agenda. Exit polls showed most voters opposed the president's policies. A majority of successful Republican candidates painted their Democrat opponents as rubber stamps for President Obama. While Americans are not opposed to compromise, they are not interested in political bargains that advance President Obama's programs.
2. The president's broken promises to heal the economy hurt Democrats. Exit polls showed that 45 percent of voters named the economy as the top issue in the election. Although Obama endlessly drones on about economic recovery, many Americans have not experienced any change in their personal fortunes or job outlook. Voters don't care about government GDP figures, unemployment numbers or job growth data. Workers have struggled as their wages have remained static, full time jobs have evaporated and business layoffs have mounted. That's the reality Washington has ignored.
3. The GOP should not read the results as an endorsement for the party brand. Few Republicans ran on issues, but instead forced Democrats to defend the president and his policies. This was not a campaign about bold ideas. In fact, there was a dearth of ideas in Democrat and Republican campaigns. The single issue was President Obama. Republicans now need to make their case on how their party is better equipped to govern. Opposition to Obama must take the form of creative ideas on issues important to Americans. The first step should be to announce a comprehensive legislative agenda early in January before the State of the Union address.
4. The midterms cannot be extrapolated to give Republicans an upper hand for 2016. The turnout for midterm elections, as documented here in this space last week, is very different than presidential contests. As the last two elections have shown, minorities and young people tend to stay home for midterms but turnout for presidential elections. The Republicans need to extend their reach to take advantage of the momentum they created in last week's election. Unless they do, the GOP faces an uphill battle because Democrats have won the same 18 "blue" states in six straight presidential elections, accounting for 242 electoral votes. That leaves Democrats needing only 28 more electoral votes to win the presidency. Those are daunting numbers to overcome.
5. The touted Clinton magic fizzled. Former President Bill Clinton campaigned relentlessly in his home state for Arkansas Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor. The incumbent senator lost as did Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley, who enjoyed the full-throated endorsement of Hillary Clinton. The former Secretary of State also backed Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, another loser. In all, her coattails were entangled with five losing candidates. This does not bode well for Mrs. Clinton, who has already been anointed by the media as a shoo-in for president in 2016. Based on the election results, the Clinton candidacy no longer enjoys an aura of invincibility or inevitability.
For his part, President Obama's post-election news conference made it clear he assumes no responsibility for the demise of his party. He defiantly clung to his defeated vision for America in the face of a bitter rebuke by voters. His self-denial made him seem pitifully equipped to lead the nation.
Six years ago, the president crowed about how "elections have consequences." Indeed, they do. For his final two years in office, President Obama will have to deal with a suddenly empowered opposition party, a dispirited Democrat minority and an angry electorate.
Obama has only to gaze in a mirror to find the culprit for the dismal outlook for the remainder of his presidency.
Every major media outlet from the Associated Press to The New York Times tried to spin this election as a normal shift in power to be expected for presidents in their second term. But the size of the Republican landslide, including in state races, was too embarrassing to soft pedal as politics as usual.
Make no mistake about it: this was a shellacking of historic proportions for Democrats.
This election was about a deeply unpopular president whose polling numbers have nosedived. Even Democrats quarantined Obama from campaigning in their states and distanced themselves from his policies. In a surreal development, one Democrat refused to divulge if she voted for Obama.
The president set the tone for this election when he reminded everyone the midterm elections were about his policies. His pronouncement made every Democrat flinch. But the narcissistic Obama could not resist making this election about himself. His bluster doomed his party to a stinging defeat.
In fact, since Obama took up residence in the White House, Democrats have lost 69 House seats and 13 Senate seats with several midterm runoff elections still to be decided. Under Obama, Democrats have given up more seats than under any president since Harry Truman.
As soon as a Democrat ambush was evident, the media pirouetted into damage control. News pundits fabricated a narrative about the results being an indication voters wanted to end gridlock in Washington. Not a single exit poll supported that theory. Properly analyzed, the Republican sweep means:
1. Voters made it clear they want to stop the Obama agenda. Exit polls showed most voters opposed the president's policies. A majority of successful Republican candidates painted their Democrat opponents as rubber stamps for President Obama. While Americans are not opposed to compromise, they are not interested in political bargains that advance President Obama's programs.
2. The president's broken promises to heal the economy hurt Democrats. Exit polls showed that 45 percent of voters named the economy as the top issue in the election. Although Obama endlessly drones on about economic recovery, many Americans have not experienced any change in their personal fortunes or job outlook. Voters don't care about government GDP figures, unemployment numbers or job growth data. Workers have struggled as their wages have remained static, full time jobs have evaporated and business layoffs have mounted. That's the reality Washington has ignored.
3. The GOP should not read the results as an endorsement for the party brand. Few Republicans ran on issues, but instead forced Democrats to defend the president and his policies. This was not a campaign about bold ideas. In fact, there was a dearth of ideas in Democrat and Republican campaigns. The single issue was President Obama. Republicans now need to make their case on how their party is better equipped to govern. Opposition to Obama must take the form of creative ideas on issues important to Americans. The first step should be to announce a comprehensive legislative agenda early in January before the State of the Union address.
4. The midterms cannot be extrapolated to give Republicans an upper hand for 2016. The turnout for midterm elections, as documented here in this space last week, is very different than presidential contests. As the last two elections have shown, minorities and young people tend to stay home for midterms but turnout for presidential elections. The Republicans need to extend their reach to take advantage of the momentum they created in last week's election. Unless they do, the GOP faces an uphill battle because Democrats have won the same 18 "blue" states in six straight presidential elections, accounting for 242 electoral votes. That leaves Democrats needing only 28 more electoral votes to win the presidency. Those are daunting numbers to overcome.
5. The touted Clinton magic fizzled. Former President Bill Clinton campaigned relentlessly in his home state for Arkansas Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor. The incumbent senator lost as did Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley, who enjoyed the full-throated endorsement of Hillary Clinton. The former Secretary of State also backed Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, another loser. In all, her coattails were entangled with five losing candidates. This does not bode well for Mrs. Clinton, who has already been anointed by the media as a shoo-in for president in 2016. Based on the election results, the Clinton candidacy no longer enjoys an aura of invincibility or inevitability.
For his part, President Obama's post-election news conference made it clear he assumes no responsibility for the demise of his party. He defiantly clung to his defeated vision for America in the face of a bitter rebuke by voters. His self-denial made him seem pitifully equipped to lead the nation.
Six years ago, the president crowed about how "elections have consequences." Indeed, they do. For his final two years in office, President Obama will have to deal with a suddenly empowered opposition party, a dispirited Democrat minority and an angry electorate.
Obama has only to gaze in a mirror to find the culprit for the dismal outlook for the remainder of his presidency.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Boko Haram: The Real War on Women
The kidnappings, rape and torture of women in Nigeria continues unabated, despite the Obama Administration's ballyhooed #BringBackOurGirls crusade on social media. Apparently, Islamic terrorists are not easily swayed by fustian hashtag slogans and waspish tweets on Twitter.
The silly campaign has failed to stem the wave of violence unleashed by the militant Islamist group Boko Haram operating in Africa's most populous country. These Muslin savages target Christian women and girls, threatening them with death and torture if they refuse to convert to Islam.
Human Rights Watch, an international organization that chronicles abuses, estimates that Boko Haram has killed at least 2,053 civilians in an about 95 attacks since the first half of this year. The religious mob has abducted more than 500 women and girls since 2009.
After a video was released in April showing 276 kidnapped girls, First Lady Michelle Obama championed the drive to declare hashtag war on Boko Haram as a way of calling attention to their utter disregard for human nights. The terrorists were unmoved by the social media uproar.
Since that sophomoric movement was launched, Boko Haram has stepped up its reign of terror in Nigeria. Reports documenting escalating violence and abuse have surfaced in recent weeks from women and girls who escaped from secret forest camps where they were imprisoned.
The Nigerian girls recounted chilling episodes of physical torture, rape and forced marriages. In some cases, the girls were used as bait to lure Christian men to their death at the hands of Boko Haram goons. Other victims were forced to take part in attacks led by their captors.
The terrorist organization has been around since 2009 when it launched military operations against the Nigerian government with the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Nigeria, home to 121 million Muslims. The adherents of Islam represent 70 percent of the nation's population.
The name Boko Haram is loosely translated as "Western Education is Forbidden," which helps explain why it wants to stop girls from attending school. According to intelligence reports, Boko Haram receives support from al Qaeda affiliates in Africa, including money, weapons and training.
Aububakar Shekau is the spiritual and military leader of the thuggish group. Not much is known about this ruthless insurgent, who has earned a $7 million bounty on his head, courtesy of the U.S. government. His history may be cloaked in mystery, but his cruelty is legendary.
For example, a video clip appeared of him yucking it up as he admitted kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls earlier this year. Shekau glared into the camera lens and defiantly stated:
"I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah. I will sell them off and marry them off." By all accounts, he has been true to his heinous threat.
The terrorists certainly have nothing to fear from the Obama Administration. Unless, of course, the bloodthirsty killers are intimidated by hashtags and empty threats. For an administration that has opposed the "war on women," their response in this case has not matched their outrage.
Meanwhile, Boko Haram continues to inflict punishment on innocent civilians. Just a few weeks ago, the gangsters abducted another 80 girls and women, who are condemned to endure unspeakable suffering. The administration's silence over this latest tragedy is deafening.
The silly campaign has failed to stem the wave of violence unleashed by the militant Islamist group Boko Haram operating in Africa's most populous country. These Muslin savages target Christian women and girls, threatening them with death and torture if they refuse to convert to Islam.
Human Rights Watch, an international organization that chronicles abuses, estimates that Boko Haram has killed at least 2,053 civilians in an about 95 attacks since the first half of this year. The religious mob has abducted more than 500 women and girls since 2009.
After a video was released in April showing 276 kidnapped girls, First Lady Michelle Obama championed the drive to declare hashtag war on Boko Haram as a way of calling attention to their utter disregard for human nights. The terrorists were unmoved by the social media uproar.
Since that sophomoric movement was launched, Boko Haram has stepped up its reign of terror in Nigeria. Reports documenting escalating violence and abuse have surfaced in recent weeks from women and girls who escaped from secret forest camps where they were imprisoned.
The Nigerian girls recounted chilling episodes of physical torture, rape and forced marriages. In some cases, the girls were used as bait to lure Christian men to their death at the hands of Boko Haram goons. Other victims were forced to take part in attacks led by their captors.
The terrorist organization has been around since 2009 when it launched military operations against the Nigerian government with the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Nigeria, home to 121 million Muslims. The adherents of Islam represent 70 percent of the nation's population.
The name Boko Haram is loosely translated as "Western Education is Forbidden," which helps explain why it wants to stop girls from attending school. According to intelligence reports, Boko Haram receives support from al Qaeda affiliates in Africa, including money, weapons and training.
Aububakar Shekau is the spiritual and military leader of the thuggish group. Not much is known about this ruthless insurgent, who has earned a $7 million bounty on his head, courtesy of the U.S. government. His history may be cloaked in mystery, but his cruelty is legendary.
For example, a video clip appeared of him yucking it up as he admitted kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls earlier this year. Shekau glared into the camera lens and defiantly stated:
"I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah. I will sell them off and marry them off." By all accounts, he has been true to his heinous threat.
The terrorists certainly have nothing to fear from the Obama Administration. Unless, of course, the bloodthirsty killers are intimidated by hashtags and empty threats. For an administration that has opposed the "war on women," their response in this case has not matched their outrage.
Meanwhile, Boko Haram continues to inflict punishment on innocent civilians. Just a few weeks ago, the gangsters abducted another 80 girls and women, who are condemned to endure unspeakable suffering. The administration's silence over this latest tragedy is deafening.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Midterm Elections: Old, White Voters Hold Key
Every pollster, political pundit and media practitioner has weighed in on the nation's midterm elections. Their predictions range from a Republican rout to a Democrat miracle. But their forecasts are exercises in conceit because this election hinges on voter turnout, not on traditional polling results.
Historically, fewer voters go to the polls during years when there is no presidential election. This has been true since the 1840's reversing a trend when midterm elections typically lured more voters than presidential contests. That changed when most states repealed laws requiring voters to own property.
In 2008's presidential election, 57.1 percent of the voting-age populace cast ballots. That was the highest level in four decades. Two years later for the midterms, 36.9 percent of the voting-age population trekked to the polls as the GOP reclaimed the majority in the House of Representatives
Voter turnout slipped to 53.7 percent in the 2012 presidential election. Pew Research, which conducts extensive voter surveys, has predicted that "a lot fewer people" will vote this midterm than did in 2012. If their estimate proves accurate, then Democrats are likely to take a beating at the polls.
Brown University researcher Brian Knight in a recent paper concluded the falloff in voter turnout for midterm elections usually benefits the party that does not hold the White House. He calls it a "presidential penalty" as voters use the mid-terms to express dissatisfaction with the Oval Office holder.
That cannot be good news for Democrats because in the most recent polls President Obama's approval ratings have tumbled to new lows.
As Knight's research indicates, the president's party almost always loses Congressional seats in the midterm elections, regardless of approval ratings. Since 1842, the party of the president has dropped seats in 40 of 43 midterm elections. The lone exceptions were the midterms of 1934, 1998 and 2002.
Some political observers claim the Republicans have a built-in advantage in turnout in the midterm elections. Their rationale is based on exit polling data that reveals midterms attract older and white voters to the polls in disproportionate numbers.
For example, in the last midterm election in 2010 exit polling shows that 21 percent of all voters were over the age of 65. By comparison, seniors comprised only 17 percent of voters in the 2012 presidential election. Voters under the age of 30 cast just 12 percent of the votes in the last midterms, but represented 19 percent of those who cast ballots in the presidential election.
The key for Republicans: in the last midterms 61 percent of those 65-and-older voted with the GOP candidate.
Republicans also have done better with whites in the midterms. For instance, in the 2010 midterms House GOP candidates captured 62 percent of the white vote, while Democrats got 38 percent. In the presidential election of 2012, Democrats did better with whites, winning 60 percent of their votes in Congressional races.
This midterm racial gap favors Republicans because turnout of whites is proportionately higher than non-whites, according to exit polls compiled by The New York Times and CNN. To underscore the point, whites represented 72 percent of all voters in the presidential election, but accounted for 77 percent in the 2010 midterms.
Forget the current polling data. Winners in next week's midterms will be decided by voter turnout. If the past is any indication of this election, then Republicans will enhance their majority in the House and will narrowly capture the Senate. If that happens, the GOP likely will have old, white voters to thank for their victory.
However, if the turnout skews differently than past midterms, then all bets are off.
Historically, fewer voters go to the polls during years when there is no presidential election. This has been true since the 1840's reversing a trend when midterm elections typically lured more voters than presidential contests. That changed when most states repealed laws requiring voters to own property.
In 2008's presidential election, 57.1 percent of the voting-age populace cast ballots. That was the highest level in four decades. Two years later for the midterms, 36.9 percent of the voting-age population trekked to the polls as the GOP reclaimed the majority in the House of Representatives
Voter turnout slipped to 53.7 percent in the 2012 presidential election. Pew Research, which conducts extensive voter surveys, has predicted that "a lot fewer people" will vote this midterm than did in 2012. If their estimate proves accurate, then Democrats are likely to take a beating at the polls.
Brown University researcher Brian Knight in a recent paper concluded the falloff in voter turnout for midterm elections usually benefits the party that does not hold the White House. He calls it a "presidential penalty" as voters use the mid-terms to express dissatisfaction with the Oval Office holder.
That cannot be good news for Democrats because in the most recent polls President Obama's approval ratings have tumbled to new lows.
As Knight's research indicates, the president's party almost always loses Congressional seats in the midterm elections, regardless of approval ratings. Since 1842, the party of the president has dropped seats in 40 of 43 midterm elections. The lone exceptions were the midterms of 1934, 1998 and 2002.
Some political observers claim the Republicans have a built-in advantage in turnout in the midterm elections. Their rationale is based on exit polling data that reveals midterms attract older and white voters to the polls in disproportionate numbers.
For example, in the last midterm election in 2010 exit polling shows that 21 percent of all voters were over the age of 65. By comparison, seniors comprised only 17 percent of voters in the 2012 presidential election. Voters under the age of 30 cast just 12 percent of the votes in the last midterms, but represented 19 percent of those who cast ballots in the presidential election.
The key for Republicans: in the last midterms 61 percent of those 65-and-older voted with the GOP candidate.
Republicans also have done better with whites in the midterms. For instance, in the 2010 midterms House GOP candidates captured 62 percent of the white vote, while Democrats got 38 percent. In the presidential election of 2012, Democrats did better with whites, winning 60 percent of their votes in Congressional races.
This midterm racial gap favors Republicans because turnout of whites is proportionately higher than non-whites, according to exit polls compiled by The New York Times and CNN. To underscore the point, whites represented 72 percent of all voters in the presidential election, but accounted for 77 percent in the 2010 midterms.
Forget the current polling data. Winners in next week's midterms will be decided by voter turnout. If the past is any indication of this election, then Republicans will enhance their majority in the House and will narrowly capture the Senate. If that happens, the GOP likely will have old, white voters to thank for their victory.
However, if the turnout skews differently than past midterms, then all bets are off.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Ebola: What the CDC Isn't Telling Americans
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has an undeserved cache. Many view the CDC as the country's premiere health organization on the front lines of battling infectious diseases, like Ebola. However, the truth is the CDC is just another dysfunctional government bureaucracy.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the CDC's main job is to dole out tax dollars to other agencies. Eighty-five percent of the agency's 2014 annual budget of $6.8 billion will be dispatched in the form of grants to state and local health organizations, global health groups and communities.
The CDC, which opened its doors in Atlanta in 1946, has mushroomed from an agency with a $10 million budget and 400 employees to a federal behemoth. The agency has 10,000 full-time staff members, employs 6,000 contractors and maintains 14 locations throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
Despite its size, agency is ill equipped to deal with a major outbreak such as the Ebola virus. The CDC has carved out its niche in the areas of disease surveillance, research funding, statistical reporting and dissemination of information. Response to infectious epidemics ranks far down its list of priorities.
That has become painfully obvious with each misstep and contradictory statement from CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, an appointee of President Obama who once ran the activist New York City Heath Department. His claim to fame was banning trans fats in restaurants.
Pathetically, Dr. Frieden has clung to the notion that his job is not to panic Americans. But in adhering to this mantra, he has failed in his duty to keep the nation fully informed with truthful information.
Here are some examples of what the CDC hasn't told Americans:
1. This outbreak of Ebola is the deadliest in recorded history. Ebola was first discovered in 1976 and the World Health Organization (WHO) has documented 25 outbreaks that have claimed 1,590 victims in the ensuing years. The current pandemic has killed more people than all the others combined. The most recent estimate from WHO is that 4,493 people have died from Ebola in seven countries since the latest epidemic began earlier this year. The director of WHO calls Ebola one of the "deadliest pathogens on Earth." Dr. Frieden told Americans not to worry because the U.S. medical system knows how to stop Ebola in its tracks.
2. The current Ebola epidemic is vastly different than past outbreaks. Stanford University reports past Ebola outbreaks were initially spread by human contact with infected chimpanzees and fruit bats. This time the pathogen has been transmitted in nearly all cases by human-to-human contact with bodily fluids and tissue. The mortality rate for those who contract the virus has been extremely high. Out of 8,997 confirmed cases of Ebola, nearly one-half (49.93%) have died, according to WHO. However, WHO predicts the mortality rate is likely to soar to 70 percent as the number of cases multiplies.
3. The U.S. allowed Ebola to come to its shores because it had no travel ban. The disease was confined to West Africa in the past. The hardest hit countries this year are Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. No one on U.S. soil had ever contracted Ebola until now. Once the virus arrived, America lost its status as a safe haven from Ebola. There are no medically approved vaccines to prevent the spread of Ebola. Two vaccines are being tested at this time but are not commercially available. Blood transfusions have proven effective in helping recent patients fight the virus. However, the blood donors have been Ebola survivors, a very small universe. Despite Dr. Frieden's assurances, once the virus is unleashed it is difficult to contain and to effectively treat.
4. Most U.S. hospitals are not equipped to deal with Ebola. A study this year by the American Journal of Infection Control found that more than one-third of all U.S. hospitals have no certified infection prevention specialist on staff. In addition, state and federal regulators issued citations for infection control deficiencies to more than 250 hospitals during an investigation conducted from 2011 through June of this year. As the Dallas hospital experience with Ebola patients has shown, special training, hazmat equipment and strict protocols are needed to deal with the infectious virus. One or more of those are lacking in most hospitals. Yet Dr. Frieden lectured Americans like little children, informing them that the U.S. medical system was prepared to handle Ebola cases.
4. The CDC has not made funding of infectious disease programs a priority. Desperate Democrats are bellyaching that Republicans cut appropriations to fight Ebola. In fact, President Obama's 2014 budget proposal for the CDC was $270 million less than the agency's funding request. The problem is the CDC has diverted funds from its program to fight infectious disease outbreaks to non-essential items. Under provisions in Obamacare, the CDC has received nearly $3 billion in additional funds in the last five years. Just six percent was earmarked for expanding epidemiology and lab capacity, two critical building blocks in the effort to curb infectious diseases. Meanwhile the agency has spent $517.3 million during those five years on community grant programs to improve sidewalks for walkers and bikers, increase access to grocery stores and to support local farmers. Yet Dr. Frieden maintains fighting infectious diseases is the agency's priority
The Pollyanna approach of the CDC and its director Dr. Frieden have made Americans less vigilant and more vulnerable. Allowing West Africans to travel freely to the U.S. was a mistake that led directly to the spread of the disease in this country. Continuing that policy is unconscionable. At last count, 30 nations had instituted travel bans while the Obama Administration has stubbornly refused.
Americans have been lulled into a false sense of security by the CDC, the president and their shills in the media, who keep reminding everyone that more people die of influenza than Ebola. Unlike the flu virus, Ebola is a deadly pathogen that is expanding and accelerating geographically. WHO predicts the number of cases may zoom to 10,000 a week in West Africa by December.
Now that Ebola has arrived in the U.S., an urgent response is demanded. Reassuring bromides from Dr. Frieden are not a deterrence to the spread of Ebola. Neither is the president's appointment of a Washington political hack to be Ebola Czar. That move is nothing more than window dressing.
The contagion that poses the biggest threat to Americans is the ineptness of the current administration, the CDC and the federal government in responding to this crisis.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the CDC's main job is to dole out tax dollars to other agencies. Eighty-five percent of the agency's 2014 annual budget of $6.8 billion will be dispatched in the form of grants to state and local health organizations, global health groups and communities.
The CDC, which opened its doors in Atlanta in 1946, has mushroomed from an agency with a $10 million budget and 400 employees to a federal behemoth. The agency has 10,000 full-time staff members, employs 6,000 contractors and maintains 14 locations throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
Despite its size, agency is ill equipped to deal with a major outbreak such as the Ebola virus. The CDC has carved out its niche in the areas of disease surveillance, research funding, statistical reporting and dissemination of information. Response to infectious epidemics ranks far down its list of priorities.
That has become painfully obvious with each misstep and contradictory statement from CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, an appointee of President Obama who once ran the activist New York City Heath Department. His claim to fame was banning trans fats in restaurants.
Pathetically, Dr. Frieden has clung to the notion that his job is not to panic Americans. But in adhering to this mantra, he has failed in his duty to keep the nation fully informed with truthful information.
Here are some examples of what the CDC hasn't told Americans:
1. This outbreak of Ebola is the deadliest in recorded history. Ebola was first discovered in 1976 and the World Health Organization (WHO) has documented 25 outbreaks that have claimed 1,590 victims in the ensuing years. The current pandemic has killed more people than all the others combined. The most recent estimate from WHO is that 4,493 people have died from Ebola in seven countries since the latest epidemic began earlier this year. The director of WHO calls Ebola one of the "deadliest pathogens on Earth." Dr. Frieden told Americans not to worry because the U.S. medical system knows how to stop Ebola in its tracks.
2. The current Ebola epidemic is vastly different than past outbreaks. Stanford University reports past Ebola outbreaks were initially spread by human contact with infected chimpanzees and fruit bats. This time the pathogen has been transmitted in nearly all cases by human-to-human contact with bodily fluids and tissue. The mortality rate for those who contract the virus has been extremely high. Out of 8,997 confirmed cases of Ebola, nearly one-half (49.93%) have died, according to WHO. However, WHO predicts the mortality rate is likely to soar to 70 percent as the number of cases multiplies.
3. The U.S. allowed Ebola to come to its shores because it had no travel ban. The disease was confined to West Africa in the past. The hardest hit countries this year are Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. No one on U.S. soil had ever contracted Ebola until now. Once the virus arrived, America lost its status as a safe haven from Ebola. There are no medically approved vaccines to prevent the spread of Ebola. Two vaccines are being tested at this time but are not commercially available. Blood transfusions have proven effective in helping recent patients fight the virus. However, the blood donors have been Ebola survivors, a very small universe. Despite Dr. Frieden's assurances, once the virus is unleashed it is difficult to contain and to effectively treat.
4. Most U.S. hospitals are not equipped to deal with Ebola. A study this year by the American Journal of Infection Control found that more than one-third of all U.S. hospitals have no certified infection prevention specialist on staff. In addition, state and federal regulators issued citations for infection control deficiencies to more than 250 hospitals during an investigation conducted from 2011 through June of this year. As the Dallas hospital experience with Ebola patients has shown, special training, hazmat equipment and strict protocols are needed to deal with the infectious virus. One or more of those are lacking in most hospitals. Yet Dr. Frieden lectured Americans like little children, informing them that the U.S. medical system was prepared to handle Ebola cases.
4. The CDC has not made funding of infectious disease programs a priority. Desperate Democrats are bellyaching that Republicans cut appropriations to fight Ebola. In fact, President Obama's 2014 budget proposal for the CDC was $270 million less than the agency's funding request. The problem is the CDC has diverted funds from its program to fight infectious disease outbreaks to non-essential items. Under provisions in Obamacare, the CDC has received nearly $3 billion in additional funds in the last five years. Just six percent was earmarked for expanding epidemiology and lab capacity, two critical building blocks in the effort to curb infectious diseases. Meanwhile the agency has spent $517.3 million during those five years on community grant programs to improve sidewalks for walkers and bikers, increase access to grocery stores and to support local farmers. Yet Dr. Frieden maintains fighting infectious diseases is the agency's priority
The Pollyanna approach of the CDC and its director Dr. Frieden have made Americans less vigilant and more vulnerable. Allowing West Africans to travel freely to the U.S. was a mistake that led directly to the spread of the disease in this country. Continuing that policy is unconscionable. At last count, 30 nations had instituted travel bans while the Obama Administration has stubbornly refused.
Americans have been lulled into a false sense of security by the CDC, the president and their shills in the media, who keep reminding everyone that more people die of influenza than Ebola. Unlike the flu virus, Ebola is a deadly pathogen that is expanding and accelerating geographically. WHO predicts the number of cases may zoom to 10,000 a week in West Africa by December.
Now that Ebola has arrived in the U.S., an urgent response is demanded. Reassuring bromides from Dr. Frieden are not a deterrence to the spread of Ebola. Neither is the president's appointment of a Washington political hack to be Ebola Czar. That move is nothing more than window dressing.
The contagion that poses the biggest threat to Americans is the ineptness of the current administration, the CDC and the federal government in responding to this crisis.
Monday, October 13, 2014
ISIS: World's Bloodiest, Brutal Savages
The world has come to know the the blood thirsty jihadists savaging Iraqi citizens as the Islamic State. But that nom de guerre has lulled many into believing their cause is about religion when in fact they are the worst barbaric scourge to be unleashed on the world since Nazi Germany.
While the American media debates whether to call the thugs ISIS or ISIL, news outlets in this country have failed in their duty to document the sheer evil of men who ruthlessly rape women and children, slaughter entire villages of people and commit all manner of horrific atrocities.
Forget the acronym feud. These are cold-blooded killers who use Islam as an excuse to destroy towns, unmercifully attack schools and demolish hospitals. They behead, crucify, amputate and disfigure their victims. The cruelty of these butchers knows no human bounds.
The news media in other countries, especially the United Kingdom, have published pictures and posted disturbing videos online to show the depth of these killers' savagery. One peek at these images would repulse most Americans. But people need to view the horror to appreciate the hateful curse of ISIS.
In one graphic video, a vicious mob operating under the cover of darkness knocks on the door of a Sunni police major in Iraq. When the policeman answers, the gangsters blindfold and handcuff the startled victim. Then they carve off his head with a knife as the cameras capture the ghoulish scene.
Another demonic video shows about 15 Iraqi young men frog-marched to a ditch, hands bound behind their backs. The victims are forced to kneel. Then a firing squad of about 20 triggermen discharge a barrage of AK-47 gunfire. Their execution complete, the murderers hoist their weapons in celebration.
These depraved killings have gone unreported in the U.S. because the media do not want to inflame Americans, most of whom currently do not support using ground troops against these heartless killers. When the beheading of an American journalist fueled patriotic anger, the media switched tactics.
For the most part, the American media now have chosen to cover the carnage by relying on the sanitized Department of State briefings from spokesperson Jen Psaki, the queen of obfuscation and sophistry. Her ambiguity is eclipsed only by her equivocation.
It is a sad state of affairs when the United Nations publishes more reliable information about the deadly campaign than the United States government.
The UN estimates that 9,341 civilians have been murdered and 17,386 wounded in the bloody offensive that has terrorized Iraqi since the year began. These figures do not include the killings in the bloodstained provinces in Syria where ISIS controls large swathes of territory.
The UN High Commission for Human Rights has documented countless depraved acts and abuses from the war-torn area in Iraq. For instance, as many as 2,500 women and children have been captured, subjected to sexual attacks and sold into slavery for $10 a head by extremist militants.
The commission has uncovered what it calls increasing attacks against Christians and Muslins. One eyewitness in the village of Kobani in Syria told UN investigators of "women being raped and their hearts cut out of their chests and left on the tops of their bodies."
In addition, there have been confirmed reports of mass execution sites and makeshift graves, according to Human Rights Watch. Many of the dead were sadistically gunned down for refusing to renounce their faith. Implausibly, not one single prominent Muslin leader has condemned the violence.
The killing wastelands of Iraq and Syria stand as an indictment of America's lack of willingness to engage an enemy that has publicly vowed to destroy this nation. The Islamic State, or whatever euphemism you want to call these cut throats, should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.
The world cannot stand by while women, children and men are exterminated. Humankind did once before and 6 million Jews perished at the hands of evil madmen. How high must the death toll rise before America and the world act decisively to rid the the planet of this latest terror?
While the American media debates whether to call the thugs ISIS or ISIL, news outlets in this country have failed in their duty to document the sheer evil of men who ruthlessly rape women and children, slaughter entire villages of people and commit all manner of horrific atrocities.
Forget the acronym feud. These are cold-blooded killers who use Islam as an excuse to destroy towns, unmercifully attack schools and demolish hospitals. They behead, crucify, amputate and disfigure their victims. The cruelty of these butchers knows no human bounds.
The news media in other countries, especially the United Kingdom, have published pictures and posted disturbing videos online to show the depth of these killers' savagery. One peek at these images would repulse most Americans. But people need to view the horror to appreciate the hateful curse of ISIS.
In one graphic video, a vicious mob operating under the cover of darkness knocks on the door of a Sunni police major in Iraq. When the policeman answers, the gangsters blindfold and handcuff the startled victim. Then they carve off his head with a knife as the cameras capture the ghoulish scene.
Another demonic video shows about 15 Iraqi young men frog-marched to a ditch, hands bound behind their backs. The victims are forced to kneel. Then a firing squad of about 20 triggermen discharge a barrage of AK-47 gunfire. Their execution complete, the murderers hoist their weapons in celebration.
These depraved killings have gone unreported in the U.S. because the media do not want to inflame Americans, most of whom currently do not support using ground troops against these heartless killers. When the beheading of an American journalist fueled patriotic anger, the media switched tactics.
For the most part, the American media now have chosen to cover the carnage by relying on the sanitized Department of State briefings from spokesperson Jen Psaki, the queen of obfuscation and sophistry. Her ambiguity is eclipsed only by her equivocation.
It is a sad state of affairs when the United Nations publishes more reliable information about the deadly campaign than the United States government.
The UN estimates that 9,341 civilians have been murdered and 17,386 wounded in the bloody offensive that has terrorized Iraqi since the year began. These figures do not include the killings in the bloodstained provinces in Syria where ISIS controls large swathes of territory.
The UN High Commission for Human Rights has documented countless depraved acts and abuses from the war-torn area in Iraq. For instance, as many as 2,500 women and children have been captured, subjected to sexual attacks and sold into slavery for $10 a head by extremist militants.
The commission has uncovered what it calls increasing attacks against Christians and Muslins. One eyewitness in the village of Kobani in Syria told UN investigators of "women being raped and their hearts cut out of their chests and left on the tops of their bodies."
In addition, there have been confirmed reports of mass execution sites and makeshift graves, according to Human Rights Watch. Many of the dead were sadistically gunned down for refusing to renounce their faith. Implausibly, not one single prominent Muslin leader has condemned the violence.
The killing wastelands of Iraq and Syria stand as an indictment of America's lack of willingness to engage an enemy that has publicly vowed to destroy this nation. The Islamic State, or whatever euphemism you want to call these cut throats, should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.
The world cannot stand by while women, children and men are exterminated. Humankind did once before and 6 million Jews perished at the hands of evil madmen. How high must the death toll rise before America and the world act decisively to rid the the planet of this latest terror?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)