Hours after a tragic rail crash in Philadelphia, tawdry Democrats bombarded the media with irresponsible claims that Republicans were to blame for the Amtrak accident. Democrats pointed fingers at the GOP for slicing funding for Amtrak in a House vote on the very day of the derailment.
"It is deeply troubling that my Republican colleagues defeated an amendment to fully fund Amtrak just hours after this tragic rail crash," huffed Democrat Rep. Nita Lowey of New York. She contended that the Congress was "starving Amtrak of funding."
Her remarks and those of her brethren represent a new low in demagoguery, even for Democrats. Amtrak's financials had nothing to do with an engineer's decision to rev up his locomotive to 106-miles per hour as the train approached a curve with a 50-mile per hour speed limit.
Far from "starving" Amtrak, the American tax payer has forked over $66 billion to subsidize the national passenger railroad service since it was launched in 1970. Despite increases in passenger revenues, Amtrak has continued to lose money in every single year of its existence.
In its most recent fiscal year, red ink flowed again as Amtrak posted a $227 million operating loss. Amtrak uses a clever accounting scheme to hide their real losses. If it were a public company, Amtrak's deficit would have topped $1.1 billion after depreciation and other non-cash items that it excludes.
After every financial report, Amtrak's executives chatter about its glowing prospects. While its losses have narrowed in recent years, the railroad still requires millions of dollars in taxpayer funding. At its inception, lawmakers envisioned the railroad would one day stand on its own without federal subsidies.
That will never happen as long as it continues to operate as a quasi-government agency, much like the U.S. Postal System. Amtrak is long overdue for an overhaul.
For one thing, the passenger rail system is too large to ever be profitable. Amtrak operates more than 300 trains each day over 21,300 miles of track with connections to 500 destinations in 46 states. However, with few exceptions, most of Amtrak's routes are money-losers.
An examination of Amtrak's latest fiscal results underscores the problem. Amtrak actually turned a $496.7 million operating profit from its routes in the Northeast Corridor, which stretches from Washington, D.C. to Boston. The profit eclipsed the previous year's net of $390.1 million.
However, Amtrak's long-distance routes outside the Northeast Corridor dug a deep financial hole for the railroad. Operating losses hit $507.5 million. Ridership on long-distance trains has barely inched up over the years, while the Northeast Corridor has enjoyed a 7.5 million bump in passengers.
As a first step, Amtrak executives need to lop off unprofitable routes, much like the airlines have done. In the past, there has been little political will to reduce services, particularly in rural areas. That must change if Amtrak is ever to become a self-sustaining operation that doesn't need a government handout.
Once that is achieved, Amtrak should re-price its remaining routes. The railroad's rates for service need to more closely mirror its costs. Instead, what Amtrak has done is to continue to raise ticket prices on its profitable routes to subsidize the money losers. As rates continue to increase, ridership will suffer.
Amtrak, like the U.S. Postal System, also has a lousy reputation for service. Just over three-fourths of its trains ran on schedule in 2014. Instead of improving each year, its on-time performance is slipping. By focusing on service, Amtrak could attract more passengers.
In terms of its costs, Amtrak has a long way to go. The railroad's labor costs are out of line with its revenues, accounting for 50 percent of its expenses. Overly generous benefits need to be pared and Amtrak must reduce its personnel to achieve cost savings that will allow it stop the hemorrhaging.
Even with these changes, Amtrak still faces financial hurdles. For example, massive infusions of cash are required to update the aging tracks that Amtrak owns. Without upgrades, Amtrak will never be able to offer high-speed rail service that could build ridership and revenues.
Instead of trying to turn the latest rail disaster into a political advantage, Democrats need to join hands with Republicans to produce a plan to privatize Amtrak and to open passenger rail service to increased competition. That's the only way to snip Amtrak's dependence on taxpayers.
Yeah, that likely won't happen either.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Monday, May 25, 2015
Memorial Day: A Union General's Vision
The bloodiest conflict in American history became the impetus for one of the country's most solemn observances. Known originally as Decoration Day, it was an occasion for festooning soldiers graves with flowers and for reciting prayers. Small flags often garnished the cemetery plots.
The tradition, begun in the 1860's, honored those who died in the American Civil War. Official estimates of that era calculated that 620,000 young men lost their lives in the struggle that sometimes pitted brother against brother. Historians today put the unofficial death toll closer to 850,000.
The casualties represented roughly two percent of the country's entire population. At the height of the war, which lasted from 1861 until April of 1865, there were more than 3.2 million Union and Confederate soldiers waging battles across 34 states (the number at the start of the war.)
It was a brutal conflict where an estimated 1.5 million people were either killed, wounded, captured or reported missing. For every three soldiers killed in battle, five more died of disease. The physical and psychological damage inflicted by the violent war was keenly felt for many decades.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the nation's first national cemeteries sprouted in cities and towns. The first official celebration of Decoration Day took place in Waterloo, New York, on May 5, 1866. The observance had its roots years earlier in 1862, thanks to the efforts of a Union general.
General John A. Logan, leader of a group called the Northern Civil War Veterans, urged a nationwide day of remembrance for those who had perished in the nation's great war. He suggested the "strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died" defending their country.
A few of the states remaining in the Union heeded Logan's clarion call. Loosely organized events were held in scattered towns and hamlets. The states of the Confederacy honored their dead separately. It wasn't until after World War I that all the states held joint nationwide remembrances on the same day.
On the first official Decoration Day in 1866, General James Garfield spoke eloquently at the Arlington National Cemetery, where more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers are buried. A crowd of 5,000 attended the service, a large gathering considering the hardships of travel of that era.
With the passage of time, the commemoration became known as Memorial Day to honor those who died in subsequent wars. In 1968, Congress passed a law establishing Memorial Day as the last Monday in May. But it wasn't until 1971, that it officially became a federal holiday.
Today the country honors the more than 1.2 million soldiers who have died in the nation's wars. While the Civil War deaths still represent the majority of those killed, not many Americans are aware of that fact. Most memorials today honor the 405,399 soldiers who died in World War II.
Often forgotten are the 116,516 Americans who lost their lives in World War I. The Vietnam War's death toll was 58,209. The Korean War terminated 36,516 American lives. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added 6,626 lives to the list of casualties.
None of those statistics tell the real story of Memorial Day. It is a day to remember with reverence each and every service man and woman who sacrificed their lives for the United States. They all deserve a grateful nation's thanks.
Take time today to visit a war memorial or a cemetery. Touch the name of a fallen soldier etched in stone or marble. Bow your head and voice a silent prayer. Remember the name of that soldier and keep that individual near to your heart.
The tradition, begun in the 1860's, honored those who died in the American Civil War. Official estimates of that era calculated that 620,000 young men lost their lives in the struggle that sometimes pitted brother against brother. Historians today put the unofficial death toll closer to 850,000.
The casualties represented roughly two percent of the country's entire population. At the height of the war, which lasted from 1861 until April of 1865, there were more than 3.2 million Union and Confederate soldiers waging battles across 34 states (the number at the start of the war.)
It was a brutal conflict where an estimated 1.5 million people were either killed, wounded, captured or reported missing. For every three soldiers killed in battle, five more died of disease. The physical and psychological damage inflicted by the violent war was keenly felt for many decades.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the nation's first national cemeteries sprouted in cities and towns. The first official celebration of Decoration Day took place in Waterloo, New York, on May 5, 1866. The observance had its roots years earlier in 1862, thanks to the efforts of a Union general.
General John A. Logan, leader of a group called the Northern Civil War Veterans, urged a nationwide day of remembrance for those who had perished in the nation's great war. He suggested the "strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died" defending their country.
A few of the states remaining in the Union heeded Logan's clarion call. Loosely organized events were held in scattered towns and hamlets. The states of the Confederacy honored their dead separately. It wasn't until after World War I that all the states held joint nationwide remembrances on the same day.
On the first official Decoration Day in 1866, General James Garfield spoke eloquently at the Arlington National Cemetery, where more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers are buried. A crowd of 5,000 attended the service, a large gathering considering the hardships of travel of that era.
With the passage of time, the commemoration became known as Memorial Day to honor those who died in subsequent wars. In 1968, Congress passed a law establishing Memorial Day as the last Monday in May. But it wasn't until 1971, that it officially became a federal holiday.
Today the country honors the more than 1.2 million soldiers who have died in the nation's wars. While the Civil War deaths still represent the majority of those killed, not many Americans are aware of that fact. Most memorials today honor the 405,399 soldiers who died in World War II.
Often forgotten are the 116,516 Americans who lost their lives in World War I. The Vietnam War's death toll was 58,209. The Korean War terminated 36,516 American lives. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added 6,626 lives to the list of casualties.
None of those statistics tell the real story of Memorial Day. It is a day to remember with reverence each and every service man and woman who sacrificed their lives for the United States. They all deserve a grateful nation's thanks.
Take time today to visit a war memorial or a cemetery. Touch the name of a fallen soldier etched in stone or marble. Bow your head and voice a silent prayer. Remember the name of that soldier and keep that individual near to your heart.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Obama's Unprecedented Media Censorship
President Obama swept into office in 2008 on a tide of promises, including a commitment to usher in a new era of unprecedented transparency. Even before his first year in office had drawn to a close, he discarded his vow of openness and adopted a hostile policy of government censorship.
In a blink of an eye, Obama and his team clamped down on the media's access to government records. In its first year, the secretive administration denied 466,872 media requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), double the rejections in the last year under President George W. Bush.
Since that time, the administration has made few meaningful improvements, according to a recent analysis of federal data by the Associated Press (AP). The news gathering organization has documented that the rejection of FIOA requests has skyrocketed in the last few years.
In March of this year, the AP's analysis of FIOA requests lodged with 100 federal agencies found the Obama Administration responded to even fewer than in past years. The government either censored or denied access to 250,581 requests, which represented 39 percent of all applications for information.
Furthermore, the AP reported that the government's own data verified that the backlog of unanswered requests for information had swollen 55 percent. There are more than 200,000 requisitions gathering dust in agencies' files. There are another 215,584 appeals that have been lost in the bureaucracy.
By way of explanation, the Freedom of Information Act, signed into law in 1966, provides for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased documents and information under the control of the government. Although the law contains exemptions, it mandates greater access to federal records.
In its coverage of the administration's secrecy, the AP noted that Obama's government had "set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them" in 2014. Obama's reaction to the report was to dispatch his mouthpieces to deny the interpretation of his government's data.
But secrecy isn't the only weapon the president has used to shield his administration from legitimate news coverage. His minions have launched attacks on news media critical of its policies, vigorously prosecuted journalists who attempted to expose wrongdoing and criminalized federal whistle blowers.
Instead of transparency, President Obama's record for accessibility, openness and honest communications has been the worst since President Richard Nixon. That analysis is not a Republican talking-point. It is the conclusion of the Committee to Protect Journalists.
The prestigious committee, an independent, non-profit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, has taken the Obama Administration to task for its heavy-handed treatment of the media's efforts to uncover government information and its lack of transparency.
In a scathing report issued in 2013 that was covered up by the mainstream media, the committee had this to say about the administration's dealings with the media: 'the war on leaks and other efforts to control the information are the most aggressive since the Nixon administration.'
James Goodlae, the former general counsel of The New York Times, chastised the president for attempting to "criminalize the reporting of national security information." Under Obama, the Department of Justice has pursued journalists who have relied on government leaks for stories.
Last year, thirty eight leading media organizations scolded the administration for its increased reticence. These influential media groups, including the Society of Professional Journalists, called on the administration to end "politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies."
As one example of the administration's overzealous persecution, the Justice Department has relentlessly dogged James Risen, The New York Times reporter who is accused of using information from a Central Intelligence Agency source to write an article about an attempt to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
This is the same administration that clandestinely subpoenaed and seized the telephone records of more than 100 Associated Press reporters in its Washington Bureau and elsewhere to determine the source of leaks to the wire service. That Nixonian action had a chilling impact on Washington news sources.
Like many promises Obama made before his election, he has thumbed his nose at his pledge of running the "most transparent administration in history." His record is shameful. Journalists who cover the administration should have the last word on the subject.
The New York Times David Sanger recently assessed the Obama government as the "most closed, control-freak administration" he has ever covered. Listen and you will be able to hear a loud chorus of "Amens" echoing in newsrooms across America.
In a blink of an eye, Obama and his team clamped down on the media's access to government records. In its first year, the secretive administration denied 466,872 media requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), double the rejections in the last year under President George W. Bush.
Since that time, the administration has made few meaningful improvements, according to a recent analysis of federal data by the Associated Press (AP). The news gathering organization has documented that the rejection of FIOA requests has skyrocketed in the last few years.
In March of this year, the AP's analysis of FIOA requests lodged with 100 federal agencies found the Obama Administration responded to even fewer than in past years. The government either censored or denied access to 250,581 requests, which represented 39 percent of all applications for information.
Furthermore, the AP reported that the government's own data verified that the backlog of unanswered requests for information had swollen 55 percent. There are more than 200,000 requisitions gathering dust in agencies' files. There are another 215,584 appeals that have been lost in the bureaucracy.
By way of explanation, the Freedom of Information Act, signed into law in 1966, provides for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased documents and information under the control of the government. Although the law contains exemptions, it mandates greater access to federal records.
In its coverage of the administration's secrecy, the AP noted that Obama's government had "set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them" in 2014. Obama's reaction to the report was to dispatch his mouthpieces to deny the interpretation of his government's data.
But secrecy isn't the only weapon the president has used to shield his administration from legitimate news coverage. His minions have launched attacks on news media critical of its policies, vigorously prosecuted journalists who attempted to expose wrongdoing and criminalized federal whistle blowers.
Instead of transparency, President Obama's record for accessibility, openness and honest communications has been the worst since President Richard Nixon. That analysis is not a Republican talking-point. It is the conclusion of the Committee to Protect Journalists.
The prestigious committee, an independent, non-profit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, has taken the Obama Administration to task for its heavy-handed treatment of the media's efforts to uncover government information and its lack of transparency.
In a scathing report issued in 2013 that was covered up by the mainstream media, the committee had this to say about the administration's dealings with the media: 'the war on leaks and other efforts to control the information are the most aggressive since the Nixon administration.'
James Goodlae, the former general counsel of The New York Times, chastised the president for attempting to "criminalize the reporting of national security information." Under Obama, the Department of Justice has pursued journalists who have relied on government leaks for stories.
Last year, thirty eight leading media organizations scolded the administration for its increased reticence. These influential media groups, including the Society of Professional Journalists, called on the administration to end "politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies."
As one example of the administration's overzealous persecution, the Justice Department has relentlessly dogged James Risen, The New York Times reporter who is accused of using information from a Central Intelligence Agency source to write an article about an attempt to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
This is the same administration that clandestinely subpoenaed and seized the telephone records of more than 100 Associated Press reporters in its Washington Bureau and elsewhere to determine the source of leaks to the wire service. That Nixonian action had a chilling impact on Washington news sources.
Like many promises Obama made before his election, he has thumbed his nose at his pledge of running the "most transparent administration in history." His record is shameful. Journalists who cover the administration should have the last word on the subject.
The New York Times David Sanger recently assessed the Obama government as the "most closed, control-freak administration" he has ever covered. Listen and you will be able to hear a loud chorus of "Amens" echoing in newsrooms across America.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Genome: Emergence of Precision Medicine
Twelve years ago the Human Genome Project, an international collaborative research effort, made headlines with the mapping of every gene that exists in human beings. It remains one of the most stunning scientific achievements in world history, comparable to America's moon landing.
Studies performed at 20 universities and research centers in six countries, including the U.S., produced complex details about the structure, organization and function of an estimated 20,500 human genes. Each human has a unique set of more than three billion pairs of these genes.
Once the intricate mapping was completed, scientists had a blueprint of the order or sequence of genomes in the body. For the first time, researchers were able to generate linkage maps, which allowed them to track inherited genetic diseases over generations.
With massive amounts of data in hand, the real work of science began. How to use this voluminous amount of data to treat, prevent and cure disease? Within a few years, the first fruits of the Human Genome Project were harvested when scientists used the information to improve the treatment of cancer.
Today many patients with cancer are having their own genes mapped, which helps researchers predict how these individuals will respond to chemotherapy drugs. Doctors can also ascertain which drugs might produce the least side effects for patients.
Gene data allows oncological specialists to target the specific molecular mechanism of a cancer tumor with drug treatments. Their goal is to be able to identify the right drug for the right patient at the right time. Before the Human Genome Project, this would have been all but impossible.
Some genes have already been identified as predictive of certain diseases. For example, researchers have pinpointed the mutated genes that often are found in women with breast cancer. With this information, doctors can screen women for the genes and recommend a proactive treatment and a health regiment.
Cancer isn't the only disease where genome sequencing has proved beneficial to patients. Tests can be used as a tool to detect, identify and quantify viruses. Increased data obtained from next-generation sequencing is providing insights into genomic components that underlie cardiac diseases.
Armed with genome data, doctors can prescribe individual approaches for disease treatment and prevention which take into account the genes, environment and lifestyle of each person. This is the antithesis of medicine's one size fits all approach.
Testing might not help every person, especially healthy individuals with no family history of disease. Nonetheless, if gene mutations were identified in only two or three percent of the population, that would mean 10 million Americans would have advance warning about the potential for disease.
The good news is that the costs for individual genome sequencing is plummeting. Twelve years ago the price tag was $1 billion. In the intervening years, the expense has nosedived to about $5,000. However, new advancements in technology are driving the costs closer to $1,000.
One American company, Illumina, has been on the cutting edge of developing tools and systems for large-scale analysis of genetic variations and functions. The firm's extensive line of sequencing systems are advancing the understanding of genetics and health.
Illumina, headquartered in San Diego, has rolled out a fleet of new products that feature the next generation sequencing (NGS). The systems offer more speed and scalability which enables researchers to study genomes at a level never before possible.
Employing the sophisticated technology, specialists are able to figure out the order of DNA nucleotides, or bases, in a genome order. Even with the data, scientists must still decode the genome sequence to understand the relationship and interaction of genes.
Less costly technology is making genome sequencing more accessible and practical for more researchers. That means more studies, experiments, trials and research will be launched as the data becomes more affordable and ubiquitous.
Human genome sequencing offers great promise for the treatment and prevention of disease. In the future, an annual physical at the doctor's office may include a whole genome sequencing for the patient. Just twelve years ago that would have seemed like a preposterous idea.
Studies performed at 20 universities and research centers in six countries, including the U.S., produced complex details about the structure, organization and function of an estimated 20,500 human genes. Each human has a unique set of more than three billion pairs of these genes.
Once the intricate mapping was completed, scientists had a blueprint of the order or sequence of genomes in the body. For the first time, researchers were able to generate linkage maps, which allowed them to track inherited genetic diseases over generations.
With massive amounts of data in hand, the real work of science began. How to use this voluminous amount of data to treat, prevent and cure disease? Within a few years, the first fruits of the Human Genome Project were harvested when scientists used the information to improve the treatment of cancer.
Today many patients with cancer are having their own genes mapped, which helps researchers predict how these individuals will respond to chemotherapy drugs. Doctors can also ascertain which drugs might produce the least side effects for patients.
Gene data allows oncological specialists to target the specific molecular mechanism of a cancer tumor with drug treatments. Their goal is to be able to identify the right drug for the right patient at the right time. Before the Human Genome Project, this would have been all but impossible.
Some genes have already been identified as predictive of certain diseases. For example, researchers have pinpointed the mutated genes that often are found in women with breast cancer. With this information, doctors can screen women for the genes and recommend a proactive treatment and a health regiment.
Cancer isn't the only disease where genome sequencing has proved beneficial to patients. Tests can be used as a tool to detect, identify and quantify viruses. Increased data obtained from next-generation sequencing is providing insights into genomic components that underlie cardiac diseases.
Armed with genome data, doctors can prescribe individual approaches for disease treatment and prevention which take into account the genes, environment and lifestyle of each person. This is the antithesis of medicine's one size fits all approach.
Testing might not help every person, especially healthy individuals with no family history of disease. Nonetheless, if gene mutations were identified in only two or three percent of the population, that would mean 10 million Americans would have advance warning about the potential for disease.
The good news is that the costs for individual genome sequencing is plummeting. Twelve years ago the price tag was $1 billion. In the intervening years, the expense has nosedived to about $5,000. However, new advancements in technology are driving the costs closer to $1,000.
One American company, Illumina, has been on the cutting edge of developing tools and systems for large-scale analysis of genetic variations and functions. The firm's extensive line of sequencing systems are advancing the understanding of genetics and health.
Illumina, headquartered in San Diego, has rolled out a fleet of new products that feature the next generation sequencing (NGS). The systems offer more speed and scalability which enables researchers to study genomes at a level never before possible.
Employing the sophisticated technology, specialists are able to figure out the order of DNA nucleotides, or bases, in a genome order. Even with the data, scientists must still decode the genome sequence to understand the relationship and interaction of genes.
Less costly technology is making genome sequencing more accessible and practical for more researchers. That means more studies, experiments, trials and research will be launched as the data becomes more affordable and ubiquitous.
Human genome sequencing offers great promise for the treatment and prevention of disease. In the future, an annual physical at the doctor's office may include a whole genome sequencing for the patient. Just twelve years ago that would have seemed like a preposterous idea.
Monday, May 4, 2015
"Hands Up, Don't Shoot" and Other Lies
As images of smoldering police cars and rock-throwing punks in Baltimore went viral, many Americans were reminded of the race riots that metastasized across the country during the Civil Rights era. Those were dark days for the nation, marked by toxic rhetoric and overzealous police.
Since that era, the United States has enjoyed a period of relative racial calm. There have been occasional incidents, but cities have not erupted in violence. That now appears to be changing as race relations have deteriorated after a handful of high-profile police shootings.
In the wake of these episodes, the media, race-baiters such as Al Sharpton, the Justice Department and President Obama have helped fan the flames of discord instead of calling for peace, justice and patience. They all share in the blame for the angry outbursts that have scarred American cities.
The most notorious case was the shooting of African-American Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in August of last year. Immediately, the media and those with racial agendas declared the officer guilty of murder, although the facts remained in dispute.
In the aftermath, a media portrayed Brown as a "gentle" giant who raised his hands and pleaded with the officer, "I don't have a gun." Protestors took to the streets of Ferguson chanting, "Hands Up. Don't Shoot." That slogan became a rallying cry for those with axes to grind against police.
The president, Attorney General Holder and Al Sharpton all weighed in on the incident even before all the facts were known. Their words often were critical of police and demanded justice for the victim. This fueled more anger and protests, which eventually spiraled out of control in Ferguson.
When a grand jury refused to indict the white police officer Darren Wilson, the media was incredulous. Indignation turned to hatred and unruly crowds burned and looted the city. Their hopes of a conviction had been raised by those who spread the falsehood about "Hands up. Don't Shoot."
Turns out eyewitnesses who started the "Hands Up. Don't Shoot" narrative were thoroughly discredited by police. In fact, on March 4 of this year, even Holder's Department of Justice issued a report saying there was no credible evidence of those words ever being uttered by Michael Brown.
Yet today there are still those who use the slogan to tar police as killers of black suspects. Just like there are race hustlers whose con includes the claim police shooting victims are mainly black. That is patently untrue.
According to a nationwide study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research showed that 44 percent of police homicide victims are white, 32 percent black and 20 percent Hispanic. In a three-year period, there were 2,002 police homicides out of almost 40 million arrests.
Ferguson should have been a lesson for those responsible for stirring up passions before the facts are vetted. But politically-motivated partisans could not resist beating the drums of animosity in the death of African-American Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police.
While the investigation into Gray's death was underway, the mob mentality ruled in the streets of Baltimore. Guilt was presumed and thugs went on a rampage in Baltimore, hurling rocks at police, breaking windows, setting cars on fire and storming the streets. Neighborhoods were destroyed.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake exacerbated the incendiary circumstances by ordering police to stand down and allow the unruly mob to run amok. Although she tried to walk back her statement, police sources confirmed her orders were to give space to those who "wished to destroy."
Instead of taking its time to conduct a thorough investigation, State Attorney Marylyn Mosby announced criminal charges against six cops in rapid fashion, claiming they were responsible for Gray's fatal spine injury while in police custody.
After the charges were announced, renowned civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz was critical of the due process exercised by the state attorney. "Today had nothing to do with justice. Today was crowd control. Everything was motivated by a threat of riots and a desire to prevent riots," he said.
Dershowitz also lambasted Baltimore's mayor. "The mayor outrageously said we're going to get justice for the victim, the family and people of Baltimore, never mentioning the defendants. Under our Constitution, the only people who are entitled to justice are the defendants."
The famed lawyer is right. Of course, that matters not one wit to the president, his Justice Department, the Al Sharpton's of the world or a media invested in promoting racial divisions. They have shown no interest in the Constitution or justice. They want the police punished, regardless of the facts.
It is time to hold the media and others accountable. Instead of pointing fingers and leaping to conclusions, the so-called leaders should be out front pleading for calm and reason. It would also help matters if everyone told the truth for a change.
Since that era, the United States has enjoyed a period of relative racial calm. There have been occasional incidents, but cities have not erupted in violence. That now appears to be changing as race relations have deteriorated after a handful of high-profile police shootings.
In the wake of these episodes, the media, race-baiters such as Al Sharpton, the Justice Department and President Obama have helped fan the flames of discord instead of calling for peace, justice and patience. They all share in the blame for the angry outbursts that have scarred American cities.
The most notorious case was the shooting of African-American Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in August of last year. Immediately, the media and those with racial agendas declared the officer guilty of murder, although the facts remained in dispute.
In the aftermath, a media portrayed Brown as a "gentle" giant who raised his hands and pleaded with the officer, "I don't have a gun." Protestors took to the streets of Ferguson chanting, "Hands Up. Don't Shoot." That slogan became a rallying cry for those with axes to grind against police.
The president, Attorney General Holder and Al Sharpton all weighed in on the incident even before all the facts were known. Their words often were critical of police and demanded justice for the victim. This fueled more anger and protests, which eventually spiraled out of control in Ferguson.
When a grand jury refused to indict the white police officer Darren Wilson, the media was incredulous. Indignation turned to hatred and unruly crowds burned and looted the city. Their hopes of a conviction had been raised by those who spread the falsehood about "Hands up. Don't Shoot."
Turns out eyewitnesses who started the "Hands Up. Don't Shoot" narrative were thoroughly discredited by police. In fact, on March 4 of this year, even Holder's Department of Justice issued a report saying there was no credible evidence of those words ever being uttered by Michael Brown.
Yet today there are still those who use the slogan to tar police as killers of black suspects. Just like there are race hustlers whose con includes the claim police shooting victims are mainly black. That is patently untrue.
According to a nationwide study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research showed that 44 percent of police homicide victims are white, 32 percent black and 20 percent Hispanic. In a three-year period, there were 2,002 police homicides out of almost 40 million arrests.
Ferguson should have been a lesson for those responsible for stirring up passions before the facts are vetted. But politically-motivated partisans could not resist beating the drums of animosity in the death of African-American Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police.
While the investigation into Gray's death was underway, the mob mentality ruled in the streets of Baltimore. Guilt was presumed and thugs went on a rampage in Baltimore, hurling rocks at police, breaking windows, setting cars on fire and storming the streets. Neighborhoods were destroyed.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake exacerbated the incendiary circumstances by ordering police to stand down and allow the unruly mob to run amok. Although she tried to walk back her statement, police sources confirmed her orders were to give space to those who "wished to destroy."
Instead of taking its time to conduct a thorough investigation, State Attorney Marylyn Mosby announced criminal charges against six cops in rapid fashion, claiming they were responsible for Gray's fatal spine injury while in police custody.
After the charges were announced, renowned civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz was critical of the due process exercised by the state attorney. "Today had nothing to do with justice. Today was crowd control. Everything was motivated by a threat of riots and a desire to prevent riots," he said.
Dershowitz also lambasted Baltimore's mayor. "The mayor outrageously said we're going to get justice for the victim, the family and people of Baltimore, never mentioning the defendants. Under our Constitution, the only people who are entitled to justice are the defendants."
The famed lawyer is right. Of course, that matters not one wit to the president, his Justice Department, the Al Sharpton's of the world or a media invested in promoting racial divisions. They have shown no interest in the Constitution or justice. They want the police punished, regardless of the facts.
It is time to hold the media and others accountable. Instead of pointing fingers and leaping to conclusions, the so-called leaders should be out front pleading for calm and reason. It would also help matters if everyone told the truth for a change.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Clinton Cash: Liberal Vultures Circling Hillary
Those baggy pants suits aren't the only thing sullying Hillary Clinton's image these days. A string of embarrassing revelations about the double-dealing Clinton Foundation has tarnished whatever sheen remained of the Clinton mystique. Now she faces the reality that party liberals are feeding the frenzy.
After Hillary dodged the email scandal, most Democrats' faith was restored in the Clinton game plan of bullying the media into submission. The scalding news coverage of the deleted emails quickly evaporated under a barrage of Clinton denials. But this latest imbroglio is a political game changer.
The difference is that the liberal media, led by ultra-left The New York Times, has decided that Hillary's candidacy will end in failure next November. Many left-leaning groups, like Common Cause, agree. They are secretly campaigning for a more liberal Democrat in the Obama-mold to carry the banner.
How else can you explain the media's sudden about-face from Clinton clones to Hillary hyper critics?
The New York Times revealed how the tax-exempt Clinton Foundation hauled in cash from foreign governments and their surrogates while Hillary as Secretary of State dealt with issues these donors had vested interests in pursuing with the United States.
That liberal bastion The Washington Post followed the sleazy trail of money from the governments of Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Algeria that flooded into the Clinton Foundation. Hillary huddled with the Algerian prime minister after her foundation cashed a $500,000 check from Algeria, the paper reported.
The stench was so malodorous that liberal Common Cause demanded an independent audit of donations to the Clinton Foundation. Their plea came on the heels of an investigation by Reuters news service that uncovered numerous errors in the foundation's IRS reports about foreign donations.
Under pressure, the foundation on Sunday admitted it "made mistakes" and promised to refile reports to correct the inaccuracies. Even before that admission of guilt, Hillary stepped down from the foundation and claimed her charity would no longer accept money from countries that discriminate against women.
Despite her transparent efforts to save face, Hillary's critics on the left are having none of it. They recognize a wounded candidate when they see one. And they understand these latest disclosures are only the tip of what is a large iceberg looming beneath the murky Clinton surface.
For example, the media still hasn't gotten its claws into the Clinton Foundation records on expenses. Between 2009 and 2012, the foundation shelled out $110 million in salaries and benefits, $25 million in travel on private jets, and $290 million in other expenses, including such items as housing.
In 2013, Hillary, Bill and daughter Chelsea racked up $8.448 million in travel costs on behalf of the foundation. That kind of lavish spending will soon catch the interest of the media. That same year, 2013, the foundation raised an astounding $144.4 million for its coffers.
If that doesn't set off alarms, consider that a measly 15 percent of the $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation from 2009-2012 went to grants. The rest was gobbled up by expenses. That is 85 percent of the money that poured into the Clinton money machine.
Liberal Democrats can read the handwriting. Hillary and her vapor trail of skunk-smelling scandals will doom Democrats next November. They want someone with less baggage and an individual that doesn't just lean left, but teeters on the liberal ledge. Someone to carry on the Obama legacy.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a darling of the uber left, remains adamant she will not seek the Democrat presidential nomination. But the media is doing all it can to deep-six Hillary to pave the way for a draft-Warren effort.
Perhaps, Hillary will somehow resurrect her campaign from her stinking garbage pile. But as she herself once said, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
For once, Hillary Clinton is right. Only her abrupt departure from the presidential race will erase the scent of a certain Democrat defeat.
After Hillary dodged the email scandal, most Democrats' faith was restored in the Clinton game plan of bullying the media into submission. The scalding news coverage of the deleted emails quickly evaporated under a barrage of Clinton denials. But this latest imbroglio is a political game changer.
The difference is that the liberal media, led by ultra-left The New York Times, has decided that Hillary's candidacy will end in failure next November. Many left-leaning groups, like Common Cause, agree. They are secretly campaigning for a more liberal Democrat in the Obama-mold to carry the banner.
How else can you explain the media's sudden about-face from Clinton clones to Hillary hyper critics?
The New York Times revealed how the tax-exempt Clinton Foundation hauled in cash from foreign governments and their surrogates while Hillary as Secretary of State dealt with issues these donors had vested interests in pursuing with the United States.
That liberal bastion The Washington Post followed the sleazy trail of money from the governments of Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Algeria that flooded into the Clinton Foundation. Hillary huddled with the Algerian prime minister after her foundation cashed a $500,000 check from Algeria, the paper reported.
The stench was so malodorous that liberal Common Cause demanded an independent audit of donations to the Clinton Foundation. Their plea came on the heels of an investigation by Reuters news service that uncovered numerous errors in the foundation's IRS reports about foreign donations.
Under pressure, the foundation on Sunday admitted it "made mistakes" and promised to refile reports to correct the inaccuracies. Even before that admission of guilt, Hillary stepped down from the foundation and claimed her charity would no longer accept money from countries that discriminate against women.
Despite her transparent efforts to save face, Hillary's critics on the left are having none of it. They recognize a wounded candidate when they see one. And they understand these latest disclosures are only the tip of what is a large iceberg looming beneath the murky Clinton surface.
For example, the media still hasn't gotten its claws into the Clinton Foundation records on expenses. Between 2009 and 2012, the foundation shelled out $110 million in salaries and benefits, $25 million in travel on private jets, and $290 million in other expenses, including such items as housing.
In 2013, Hillary, Bill and daughter Chelsea racked up $8.448 million in travel costs on behalf of the foundation. That kind of lavish spending will soon catch the interest of the media. That same year, 2013, the foundation raised an astounding $144.4 million for its coffers.
If that doesn't set off alarms, consider that a measly 15 percent of the $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation from 2009-2012 went to grants. The rest was gobbled up by expenses. That is 85 percent of the money that poured into the Clinton money machine.
Liberal Democrats can read the handwriting. Hillary and her vapor trail of skunk-smelling scandals will doom Democrats next November. They want someone with less baggage and an individual that doesn't just lean left, but teeters on the liberal ledge. Someone to carry on the Obama legacy.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a darling of the uber left, remains adamant she will not seek the Democrat presidential nomination. But the media is doing all it can to deep-six Hillary to pave the way for a draft-Warren effort.
Perhaps, Hillary will somehow resurrect her campaign from her stinking garbage pile. But as she herself once said, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
For once, Hillary Clinton is right. Only her abrupt departure from the presidential race will erase the scent of a certain Democrat defeat.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Evil Rich People Rip Off the Middle Class
The mainstream media and President Obama are on a propaganda mission to brainwash Americans into believing that Republicans are to blame for the shrinking middle class and income inequality. Their deliberate disinformation campaign is designed to set the agenda for the 2016 presidential election.
Their messaging, buttressed by government data, dredges up all the old canards about how the hard-working middle class has been swindled out of income while the top five percent of rich Americans are wallowing in ill-gotten cash. Their arguments are dripping with envy, deceit and prejudice.
If America was blessed with real journalists, Obama's indoctrination would be exposed as political claptrap rather than a factual representation. But the media has invested six years in propping up President Obama and it has no intention of abandoning their oracle.
In this debate, numbers can be used to prove almost anything, but the difference is deciphering the data to clarify the meaning. A number without an explanation is just a figure. To bring some transparency to the issue, here are some indisputable facts being ignored by the media:
There is no universally recognized definition of middle class. In fact, surveys find the majority of Americans believe they are middle class. One reason for the confusion is there are a myriad of ways to define lower, middle and upper class. Just to mention a few: household income, total wealth, median income, pre-tax and after-tax incomes and real income including federal benefits. Using any one of these methodologies to compute income will produce either lower or higher dollar amounts for each household. That's why politicians prefer using the term "middle class" because it is elusive to define. Middle class is more perception than reality for average Americans.
The middle class has lost ground under President Obama. By any measurement, the so-called middle class is worse off under the president who claims he is fighting for them. Take median household income. When Obama was anointed president, the median income was $56,290. In 2013, the last year for which figures are available, that number had shrunk to $52,250. Another popular measure is per capita income, which includes the earnings of all Americans. The nation's per capita income was $29,849 when Obama become the commander-in-chief, but by 2013 it had dipped to $28,184. There is not a single measurement that shows the plight of the middle class has improved under the president's policies.
The middle class has not suffered the most in the recession. The Congressional Budget Office earlier this year published new findings about income levels for Americans. Their conclusion: Since 2000, pre-tax and after-tax incomes among Americans in the bottom 90 percent of income distribution have improved, while the top one percent of earners' real incomes have fallen. The data shows the after-tax income of those in the bottom fifth have increased 20 percent while the top one-percent have dipped four percent, according to CBO calculations. That may seem like nonsense to those who consume news from the mainstream media. However, the top one percent saw the biggest percentage shrinkage of their income during the recession. On average, their before-and-after tax incomes slid more than one-third. It is easy to understand why. Just 10 percent of American households own 80 percent of the stocks. They lost millions in wealth when the markets cratered. With the rebound in the stock market, they have recorded hefty gains.
Those evil rich people are not awash in money. President Obama has made it his mission in life to paint rich people as billionaires with lavish lifestyles, complete with personal chefs and sleek jets. It plays well to those with low education and the simpleminded. But using Bureau of Census figures, the top five percent of earners in the U.S. are those with incomes starting at $196,000. Many of them are small business people. There are only 513 people in the U.S. with a billion dollars or more in wealth, according to the latest Forbes Magazine rankings. Most of those in the top five percent earn far less than $1 million. Even if the top five percent of earners paid every single dime they earned in taxes, it would still not enable the U.S. government to balance the budget.
The irony of the president's carping about middle class distress and burgeoning income inequality should not be lost on Americans. The middle class has done worse under the current administration than any in history. The income gap has widened with Obama at the helm.
His policies are squarely to blame. More families are dropping from the ranks of the middle class into poverty. The biggest factors are the loss of jobs and long-term unemployment. Extending unemployment insurance, an Obama imperative, has led to the growing numbers of long term unemployed.
Obama's signature health care reform has caused many businesses, especially those with less than 50 employees, to slash hours and lay off workers. Nearly 300 large business have reduced hours for employees to get below the 32-hour threshold mandated in Obamacare.
As already illustrated, the wealthiest Americans have benefited from a sustained stock market rise, fueled by the Federal Reserve's easy money policies. Obama has appointed members to the Fed board who are determined to keep interest rates unnaturally low, which drives more investment in stocks.
Yet somehow Obama fails to grasp how his policies have helped to create the very situation he finds so detestable. The president could learn from Reaganomics. Under Ronald Reagan, middle class families saw their real incomes grow by an average of 12.6 percent during the boom that lasted from 1982 until 1989.
The media may believe President Obama is the smartest man in the room. But if he was, he would know how dumb it is to double-down on failed policies and expect a different result.
The irony of the president's carping about middle class distress and burgeoning income inequality should not be lost on Americans. The middle class has done worse under the current administration than any in history. The income gap has widened with Obama at the helm.
His policies are squarely to blame. More families are dropping from the ranks of the middle class into poverty. The biggest factors are the loss of jobs and long-term unemployment. Extending unemployment insurance, an Obama imperative, has led to the growing numbers of long term unemployed.
Obama's signature health care reform has caused many businesses, especially those with less than 50 employees, to slash hours and lay off workers. Nearly 300 large business have reduced hours for employees to get below the 32-hour threshold mandated in Obamacare.
As already illustrated, the wealthiest Americans have benefited from a sustained stock market rise, fueled by the Federal Reserve's easy money policies. Obama has appointed members to the Fed board who are determined to keep interest rates unnaturally low, which drives more investment in stocks.
Yet somehow Obama fails to grasp how his policies have helped to create the very situation he finds so detestable. The president could learn from Reaganomics. Under Ronald Reagan, middle class families saw their real incomes grow by an average of 12.6 percent during the boom that lasted from 1982 until 1989.
The media may believe President Obama is the smartest man in the room. But if he was, he would know how dumb it is to double-down on failed policies and expect a different result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)