Never has a deal between two nations been greeted with such polar opposites as the Iran nuclear pact. In America, a truculent President Obama and a fawning media called the pact a historic milestone aimed at normalizing relations. Across the world, chants of "Death to America" rang out in Iran.
Therein, lies the problem with the Iran nuclear deal, trumpeted by a president desperate to burnish his legacy. The painful lesson, which America should have learned by now, is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. No deal, no matter how ironclad, is destined to unravel once sanctions are removed.
Make no mistake about it, Iran is a terrorist nation. The president's Central Intelligence Agency calls the country a "state sponsor of terrorism" in the world. The nation is ruled by a mullah, an unelected supreme religious leader. Iranians are subjected to strict religious laws that suppress women.
The country of 80 million mostly Muslims enjoy no freedom of the press. The CIA calls Iran a main source of sex trafficking and forced labor. The nation is a primary transshipment route for heroin to Europe. It supports some of the most brutal terror groups in the world, including Hezbollah.
Iran has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it cannot be trusted to abide by its promises to use nuclear facilities only for peaceful means. The independent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded as far back as 2003 that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
Past efforts by the IAEA to conduct inspections of nuclear facilities were rebuffed by Iran. Yet President Obama defends the new accord based on a provision for timely inspections. The whole deal hinges on an Iranian assurance the country will abide by this guarantee.
In the run-up to the bargain, President Obama repeatedly promised a final agreement with Iran would include "anytime, anywhere, 24/7 access" to the country's nuclear facilities. That provision is missing from the agreement. It has been replaced by a watered-down inspection timetable.
Notwithstanding the media's portrayal of the deal, no enforceable agreement actually exists today. There is only a broad outline of a compromise. That's why there have been dueling fact-sheets from Iran and the U.S. about what commitments each side has made.
The last time a Democrat president signed a similar nuclear agreement it ended in disaster. President Bill Clinton inked an accord with North Korea in 1994, designed to derail that nation's nuclear ambitions. Inspections by the IAEA were a key component of the deal.
Like the Iranian agreement, the media heralded the pact as ground-breaking because it would alter the relations between North Korea and the U.S., promoting lasting harmony and peace. Some Republicans opposed the agreement, but their voices were drowned out by the appeasement crowd.
As most know, the agreement collapsed almost as soon as it began. Once sanctions against North Korea were lifted, inspections became contentious. Enmity turned to open hostility after the CIA established evidence that North Korea was constructing a facility to develop nuclear weapons.
Today, by most estimates, North Korea has anywhere from 10 to 15 nuclear bombs. The lesson is clear: you cannot negotiate in good faith with untrustworthy regimes. The deal with Iran has no more chance of succeeding than the agreement with North Korea.
Despite Obama's assurances, the agreement will not improve relations with Iran. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said as much two days ago. He went on Iranian state television to announce his country would continue its support for Hezbollah, Syria and other terrorist regimes.
Obama and his media puppets slam critics of the nuclear deal for favoring force over diplomacy with Iran. This is a canard the president uses to brush off honest concerns about his negotiated compromise. No politician on either side of the aisle has argued for armed conflict with Iran.
The U.S. should increase, not reduce, its sanctions against an Iranian government that refuses to halt its aggression around the world. The president should demand the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program as a condition of a deal and include anytime, anywhere inspections to verify compliance.
If the Iranians won't agree to those terms, then the country will remain isolated with a crippled economy and simmering discontent from young people discouraged by declining prospects for their future. Eventually, the country will collapse under its own oppressive weight.
The president likes to chide critics that his deal with Iran is better than no agreement. That argument hardly is an endorsement for the pact. Congress should soundly reject the Obama capitulation because it is unenforceable and does not halt Iran's efforts to build an nuclear arsenal.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Sunday, July 12, 2015
The Immigration Shell Game
The senseless murder of a 32-year old San Francisco women has fanned a national debate over crime and illegal immigration. Tragically, her death at the hands of an illegal immigrant could have been prevented. The city of San Francisco sheltered the alleged assailant in direct violation of federal law.
Despite these facts, the mainstream media has chosen to ignore the culpability of San Francisco's politicians. Instead, the Obama Administration's lapdogs have trained their vitriol on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who had the gall to dredge up the issue of immigrant crime.
Whether you agree or not with Trump's remarks, the media eruption is nothing more than a shell game designed to shift the spotlight from the incendiary issue of sanctuary cities. There are more than 200 cities in 32 states and the District of Columbia that give safe harbor to illegal immigrants.
Starting in 1998, these American cities have justified their sanctuary laws under the guise of protecting "immigrant rights." In practice, these cities allow illegal immigrants to avoid detection and deportation. However, most have gone a step further, refusing to collaborate with the feds.
In 1996, Congress approved the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which requires local governments to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on immigration issues, including the arrest and detainment of illegals.
San Francisco, like many other sanctuary cities, has refused to hand over convicted felons who are in the country illegally as part of their broad sanctuary policy. The alleged murderer in San Francisco had been found guilty of seven felonies and deported to Mexico five times. He was a known criminal.
After the San Francisco homicide, an ICE official confirmed that the department had "lodged an immigration decree asking to be notified" before the illegal felon was released. The agency's request to the city was "not honored," according to ICE spokesperson Virginia Kice.
In other words, ICE demanded that the illegal immigrant be handed over to the agency for removal from the country. The City of San Francisco denied the request. This is not an isolated incident as the Obama Administration and the media have attempted to portray.
The immigration enforcement agency issued a report last year that cites an increase in jurisdictions failing to comply with requests to detain law breakers. In 2014, the agency removed 86,923 convicted felons from the United States. That number would have been higher if cities had cooperated.
The federal government's own statistics confirm that 10,516 requests to detain felons were denied just by California sanctuary cities between January 1, 2014 and June 19, 2015. These numbers were supplied by ICE, not some anti-immigration group as Democrats often claim.
Department of Homeland Security records show than in a single eight-month period last year, these sanctuary jurisdictions released 8,100 illegal immigrants who were deportable because of their criminal records. A total of 1,900 were later rearrested 4,300 times on 7,500 offenses.
The homicide by a deportable illegal immigrant in San Francisco is not an isolated case. For the years 2010 through 2014, ICE figures reveal that 121 illegal immigrants held by the agency for crimes but eventually released went on to commit "homicide-related offenses."
Illegal immigrant crime is not a fiction created by Donald Trump. It is real, but the mainstream media and Democrats, especially the Obama Administration, have a vested interest in covering up the facts because their political agenda includes blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Addressing the crime issue will be difficult as long as sanctuary cities are allowed to skirt federal law and protect illegal immigrant felons from detention and deportation.
Sanctuary cities are protected by powerful, well-funded political interest organizations, including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the League of United Latin American Citizens.
These activist groups, supported by big corporate donors and Democrats, have bullied politicians into turning their cities into havens for illegal immigrants. Often their efforts have been backed by misguided church groups, especially the Catholic bishops and local priests.
These ideological zealots and the cities who appease them are aiding and abetting criminals. If they oppose the federal statute that mandates cooperation on immigration issues, then they should work to change the law. Ordinary Americans don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow.
Insanity has replaced the rule of law on immigration. The federal government has stood by and allowed this to happen. The Justice Department has every legal right to shut down the sanctuary cities. But that will never happen as long as President Obama is in office.
Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, will remain breeding grounds for illegal immigrant gangs, drug cartels and human trafficking. Citizens are put at risk by politicians more interested in the next election than in public safety. This is unconscionable even for a compassionate society.
How many more Americans will have to be murdered before their government enforces its own laws, requiring cities to cooperate with federal authorities?
Every candidate running for president of the United States should be required to answer that question.
Despite these facts, the mainstream media has chosen to ignore the culpability of San Francisco's politicians. Instead, the Obama Administration's lapdogs have trained their vitriol on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who had the gall to dredge up the issue of immigrant crime.
Whether you agree or not with Trump's remarks, the media eruption is nothing more than a shell game designed to shift the spotlight from the incendiary issue of sanctuary cities. There are more than 200 cities in 32 states and the District of Columbia that give safe harbor to illegal immigrants.
Starting in 1998, these American cities have justified their sanctuary laws under the guise of protecting "immigrant rights." In practice, these cities allow illegal immigrants to avoid detection and deportation. However, most have gone a step further, refusing to collaborate with the feds.
In 1996, Congress approved the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which requires local governments to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on immigration issues, including the arrest and detainment of illegals.
San Francisco, like many other sanctuary cities, has refused to hand over convicted felons who are in the country illegally as part of their broad sanctuary policy. The alleged murderer in San Francisco had been found guilty of seven felonies and deported to Mexico five times. He was a known criminal.
After the San Francisco homicide, an ICE official confirmed that the department had "lodged an immigration decree asking to be notified" before the illegal felon was released. The agency's request to the city was "not honored," according to ICE spokesperson Virginia Kice.
In other words, ICE demanded that the illegal immigrant be handed over to the agency for removal from the country. The City of San Francisco denied the request. This is not an isolated incident as the Obama Administration and the media have attempted to portray.
The immigration enforcement agency issued a report last year that cites an increase in jurisdictions failing to comply with requests to detain law breakers. In 2014, the agency removed 86,923 convicted felons from the United States. That number would have been higher if cities had cooperated.
The federal government's own statistics confirm that 10,516 requests to detain felons were denied just by California sanctuary cities between January 1, 2014 and June 19, 2015. These numbers were supplied by ICE, not some anti-immigration group as Democrats often claim.
Department of Homeland Security records show than in a single eight-month period last year, these sanctuary jurisdictions released 8,100 illegal immigrants who were deportable because of their criminal records. A total of 1,900 were later rearrested 4,300 times on 7,500 offenses.
The homicide by a deportable illegal immigrant in San Francisco is not an isolated case. For the years 2010 through 2014, ICE figures reveal that 121 illegal immigrants held by the agency for crimes but eventually released went on to commit "homicide-related offenses."
Illegal immigrant crime is not a fiction created by Donald Trump. It is real, but the mainstream media and Democrats, especially the Obama Administration, have a vested interest in covering up the facts because their political agenda includes blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Addressing the crime issue will be difficult as long as sanctuary cities are allowed to skirt federal law and protect illegal immigrant felons from detention and deportation.
Sanctuary cities are protected by powerful, well-funded political interest organizations, including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the League of United Latin American Citizens.
These activist groups, supported by big corporate donors and Democrats, have bullied politicians into turning their cities into havens for illegal immigrants. Often their efforts have been backed by misguided church groups, especially the Catholic bishops and local priests.
These ideological zealots and the cities who appease them are aiding and abetting criminals. If they oppose the federal statute that mandates cooperation on immigration issues, then they should work to change the law. Ordinary Americans don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow.
Insanity has replaced the rule of law on immigration. The federal government has stood by and allowed this to happen. The Justice Department has every legal right to shut down the sanctuary cities. But that will never happen as long as President Obama is in office.
Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, will remain breeding grounds for illegal immigrant gangs, drug cartels and human trafficking. Citizens are put at risk by politicians more interested in the next election than in public safety. This is unconscionable even for a compassionate society.
How many more Americans will have to be murdered before their government enforces its own laws, requiring cities to cooperate with federal authorities?
Every candidate running for president of the United States should be required to answer that question.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Attention Republicans: Stop Making Stupid Mistakes
Republicans have no shortage of candidates for the White House. There are former governors. Sitting U.S. Senators. A retired United States Air Force Colonel. An accomplished female chief executive officer. An ophthalmologist and one of the premier neurosurgeons in the country.
It's an impressive and growing list. But pundits are worried the field is too large and unwieldy. They fear a fiercely competitive race will leave the eventual presidential contender's reputation battered. The nominee's campaign war chest will be empty. Those are legitimate concerns.
However, the alternative is to allow the Republican establishment to hand-pick a nominee. Better for the party to let voters decide, even if it is messy and potentially divisive. Sure the media will exploit the diversity of views among candidates, focusing on the most bombastic comments.
But the biggest issue facing Republicans is their penchant for making the same mistakes in the last two elections. Whoever emerges as the GOP standard bearer will be doomed to electoral failure unless the party changes its approach to the primaries and the general election.
Here are three stupid mistakes the Republicans cannot afford to repeat this time around if the party hopes to reclaim the Oval Office:
1. Stop all the personal back-biting in the primaries. During the last two presidential primaries, Republican candidates spent the warm-up for the general election trashing each other. The bitter process sabotaged the presidential nominee's stature. In both cases, the Democrat opponent Barrack Obama took advantage of the GOP's guerrilla warfare. As one example, Republican Newt Gingrich unmercifully attacked Mitt Romney in 2012 in the South Carolina primary, zeroing in on his wealth and alleged unethical business tactics. The verbal mugging mortally wounded Romney, despite his having the nomination all but sewn up. During the general election, Obama's operatives seized the theme and ravaged Romney's character. Romney never fully recovered. This time every single GOP candidate should take a pledge not to employ personal attacks during the primary. Instead, they all should focus on Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat nominee. Clinton is the enemy, not fellow Republicans. The candidate that best demonstrates he or she is unafraid to torpedo Clinton's record and her personal conduct should be awarded the nomination. The last two Republican presidential nominees lacked the combativeness it takes to win a cutthroat election.
2. Stop caring what The New York Times writes. The last two general election cycles Republican candidates have pandered to the liberal media, softening their positions on critical issues in an effort to curry favor. It doesn't work. And it doesn't matter what The New York Times thinks anyway. Consider this: the three largest liberal media print outlets The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have a combined daily circulation of 2,728,635 in a nation of more than 300 million people. They have no influence on elections any more. Catering to the liberal media has never helped a Republican candidate in the last 25 years. Even the big three television networks' nightly news shows are no longer relevant. The latest figures show about 22.1 million people watch one of the three evening news programs and audiences are dwindling. Meanwhile, social media, especially Facebook, has become a news powerhouse. For example, the Pew Research Center found that 30 percent of Facebook's 1.44 billion monthly users get their news from the social media Goliath. President Obama effectively used social media to reach the young and minorities. GOP candidates need to spend more time and money on social media. Ignore the current media dinosaurs.
3. Stop focusing the communications effort on old white men. Here are some illuminating facts compiled on the last presidential election by the Roper Center for Opinion Research. Romney carried both white men and senior citizens by sizable margins. He won white males 59 to 39 percent. Romney did equally well with voters over the age of 50, winning by a five point spread. Romney even won independents 50 to 45 percent. But he still lost. Obama made up the difference with minorities, racking up huge margins with African-Americans (93 to 6 percent) and Hispanics (71 to 27 percent). Equally as important, Obama decisively carried the youth vote (ages 18-29). The president had a 60 to 37 percent advantage. That margin coupled with an increase in young voters help swing the election for Obama. Republicans must change those dynamics if they are to recapture the presidency. They cannot ignore blacks and Hispanics, ceding the vote to the Democrat. Part of the answer is to use social media to reach potential voters. However, it also means tailoring communications to a younger generation. But, let's face it, it will take more than a youthful message. These voters are naturally attracted to hip looking and sounding candidates. Yes, it is superficial, but winning is all that matters. Just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney.
GOP faithful need to stow their fears about the number of candidates who are seeking the nomination. That will be sorted out by the voters. However, if those running for the nation's highest office repeat the same mistakes of the past, they will gift-wrap the election for Hillary Clinton.
If Republicans have not learned their lesson by now, then the GOP is destined to extend its current losing streak.
It's an impressive and growing list. But pundits are worried the field is too large and unwieldy. They fear a fiercely competitive race will leave the eventual presidential contender's reputation battered. The nominee's campaign war chest will be empty. Those are legitimate concerns.
However, the alternative is to allow the Republican establishment to hand-pick a nominee. Better for the party to let voters decide, even if it is messy and potentially divisive. Sure the media will exploit the diversity of views among candidates, focusing on the most bombastic comments.
But the biggest issue facing Republicans is their penchant for making the same mistakes in the last two elections. Whoever emerges as the GOP standard bearer will be doomed to electoral failure unless the party changes its approach to the primaries and the general election.
Here are three stupid mistakes the Republicans cannot afford to repeat this time around if the party hopes to reclaim the Oval Office:
1. Stop all the personal back-biting in the primaries. During the last two presidential primaries, Republican candidates spent the warm-up for the general election trashing each other. The bitter process sabotaged the presidential nominee's stature. In both cases, the Democrat opponent Barrack Obama took advantage of the GOP's guerrilla warfare. As one example, Republican Newt Gingrich unmercifully attacked Mitt Romney in 2012 in the South Carolina primary, zeroing in on his wealth and alleged unethical business tactics. The verbal mugging mortally wounded Romney, despite his having the nomination all but sewn up. During the general election, Obama's operatives seized the theme and ravaged Romney's character. Romney never fully recovered. This time every single GOP candidate should take a pledge not to employ personal attacks during the primary. Instead, they all should focus on Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat nominee. Clinton is the enemy, not fellow Republicans. The candidate that best demonstrates he or she is unafraid to torpedo Clinton's record and her personal conduct should be awarded the nomination. The last two Republican presidential nominees lacked the combativeness it takes to win a cutthroat election.
2. Stop caring what The New York Times writes. The last two general election cycles Republican candidates have pandered to the liberal media, softening their positions on critical issues in an effort to curry favor. It doesn't work. And it doesn't matter what The New York Times thinks anyway. Consider this: the three largest liberal media print outlets The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have a combined daily circulation of 2,728,635 in a nation of more than 300 million people. They have no influence on elections any more. Catering to the liberal media has never helped a Republican candidate in the last 25 years. Even the big three television networks' nightly news shows are no longer relevant. The latest figures show about 22.1 million people watch one of the three evening news programs and audiences are dwindling. Meanwhile, social media, especially Facebook, has become a news powerhouse. For example, the Pew Research Center found that 30 percent of Facebook's 1.44 billion monthly users get their news from the social media Goliath. President Obama effectively used social media to reach the young and minorities. GOP candidates need to spend more time and money on social media. Ignore the current media dinosaurs.
3. Stop focusing the communications effort on old white men. Here are some illuminating facts compiled on the last presidential election by the Roper Center for Opinion Research. Romney carried both white men and senior citizens by sizable margins. He won white males 59 to 39 percent. Romney did equally well with voters over the age of 50, winning by a five point spread. Romney even won independents 50 to 45 percent. But he still lost. Obama made up the difference with minorities, racking up huge margins with African-Americans (93 to 6 percent) and Hispanics (71 to 27 percent). Equally as important, Obama decisively carried the youth vote (ages 18-29). The president had a 60 to 37 percent advantage. That margin coupled with an increase in young voters help swing the election for Obama. Republicans must change those dynamics if they are to recapture the presidency. They cannot ignore blacks and Hispanics, ceding the vote to the Democrat. Part of the answer is to use social media to reach potential voters. However, it also means tailoring communications to a younger generation. But, let's face it, it will take more than a youthful message. These voters are naturally attracted to hip looking and sounding candidates. Yes, it is superficial, but winning is all that matters. Just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney.
GOP faithful need to stow their fears about the number of candidates who are seeking the nomination. That will be sorted out by the voters. However, if those running for the nation's highest office repeat the same mistakes of the past, they will gift-wrap the election for Hillary Clinton.
If Republicans have not learned their lesson by now, then the GOP is destined to extend its current losing streak.
Monday, June 29, 2015
The American Flag: Colors You Can Depend Upon
It is ironic that there is a simmering debate over the symbolism of a flag as Americans prepare to celebrate the Fourth of July, a day for displaying our nation's colors. Like the Confederate flag, Old Glory has not escaped criticism and has often been the object of scorn, too.
Many times in the nation's history, desecrating the American flag has been a popular form of protest both at home and abroad. The red-white-and-blue banner has been burned, stomped, shredded, ripped and spat upon. Yet it still flutters undaunted from standards across the U.S. and overseas.
The colors of the flag have stood the test of time. Since 1777, when it was officially adopted, the banner has undergone a series of revisions. But its colors have remained intact, a scared reminder of our founding fathers vision for a new country built on the cornerstone of the rights of a free people.
Those colors were not chosen by happenstance. The hues were selected after much deliberation, according to Charles Thompson, the secretary to the First Continental Congress. Thompson, born in Ireland, emigrated with his Protestant family to the colonies to escape religious persecution.
He opposed British rule and became a patriot in the cause to chisel a new nation. His name appears on many early historic documents, such as the Declaration of Independence. Thompson was a trusted ally of a host of America's revolutionary heroes, including George Washington.
In writing about the American flag, Thompson penned the following: "white signifies purity and innocence; red, hardiness and valor; blue, the color of the Chief (God); and the broad band above the stripes signifies vigilance, perseverance and justice."
When Thompson jotted those words, this country was far different from today. His description would have been saluted by most in America. In today's era of political correctness, many would object to Thompson's characterization of the flag as militaristic, religiously offensive and jingoistic.
Some would call that a sign of progress or tolerance. However, it is a sad commentary on the current state of affairs. America's colors, once a proud badge for every citizen, are viewed by a growing number of Americans as a symbol of a past best forgotten because of the country's perceived sins.
But in the throes of great national despair, the flag still serves as a rallying point for the nation. Think back to the horrific events of September 11th, Flags sprouted on churches, on office buildings, in front yards and on highway overpasses. It united Americans in their resolve to rebound from the attacks.
Let's hope it doesn't take another dark day to remind Americans that Old Glory still represents freedom. The plethora of diverse and often contentious views expressed by Americans are the fruits of a nation founded on the right of free speech. That freedom even extends to dishonoring the flag.
Americans have died under the banner of the flag protecting the country and securing the freedom of others facing oppression. The flag has also proudly flown in times of peace and triumph. It is a symbol of everything that is admired about America.
Charles Thompson's narrative about the virtues of the flag's colors ring true even today. This is still a country of hardy individuals, who are vigilant and persevering, even in the face of economic, cultural and constitutional challenges. They are bound by a common duty to each other.
Take the opportunity this Fourth of July to show your colors. Fly the flag as a symbol of hope and liberty to many abroad and to citizens of the United States. There is no flag like the red-white-and-blue because no other nation has done more to protect and defend human rights than America.
May that grand old flag forever wave over a free people.
Many times in the nation's history, desecrating the American flag has been a popular form of protest both at home and abroad. The red-white-and-blue banner has been burned, stomped, shredded, ripped and spat upon. Yet it still flutters undaunted from standards across the U.S. and overseas.
The colors of the flag have stood the test of time. Since 1777, when it was officially adopted, the banner has undergone a series of revisions. But its colors have remained intact, a scared reminder of our founding fathers vision for a new country built on the cornerstone of the rights of a free people.
Those colors were not chosen by happenstance. The hues were selected after much deliberation, according to Charles Thompson, the secretary to the First Continental Congress. Thompson, born in Ireland, emigrated with his Protestant family to the colonies to escape religious persecution.
He opposed British rule and became a patriot in the cause to chisel a new nation. His name appears on many early historic documents, such as the Declaration of Independence. Thompson was a trusted ally of a host of America's revolutionary heroes, including George Washington.
In writing about the American flag, Thompson penned the following: "white signifies purity and innocence; red, hardiness and valor; blue, the color of the Chief (God); and the broad band above the stripes signifies vigilance, perseverance and justice."
When Thompson jotted those words, this country was far different from today. His description would have been saluted by most in America. In today's era of political correctness, many would object to Thompson's characterization of the flag as militaristic, religiously offensive and jingoistic.
Some would call that a sign of progress or tolerance. However, it is a sad commentary on the current state of affairs. America's colors, once a proud badge for every citizen, are viewed by a growing number of Americans as a symbol of a past best forgotten because of the country's perceived sins.
But in the throes of great national despair, the flag still serves as a rallying point for the nation. Think back to the horrific events of September 11th, Flags sprouted on churches, on office buildings, in front yards and on highway overpasses. It united Americans in their resolve to rebound from the attacks.
Let's hope it doesn't take another dark day to remind Americans that Old Glory still represents freedom. The plethora of diverse and often contentious views expressed by Americans are the fruits of a nation founded on the right of free speech. That freedom even extends to dishonoring the flag.
Americans have died under the banner of the flag protecting the country and securing the freedom of others facing oppression. The flag has also proudly flown in times of peace and triumph. It is a symbol of everything that is admired about America.
Charles Thompson's narrative about the virtues of the flag's colors ring true even today. This is still a country of hardy individuals, who are vigilant and persevering, even in the face of economic, cultural and constitutional challenges. They are bound by a common duty to each other.
Take the opportunity this Fourth of July to show your colors. Fly the flag as a symbol of hope and liberty to many abroad and to citizens of the United States. There is no flag like the red-white-and-blue because no other nation has done more to protect and defend human rights than America.
May that grand old flag forever wave over a free people.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
The Clever Pope and the Gullible Media
The American media has been circling like vultures for months in anticipation of Pope Francis' pronouncement on climate change. Never before have journalists waited with such feverish anticipation for a simple letter from a 78-year old, white-clad pontiff.
When the news finally broke, the media erupted into a chorus of full-throated "hosannas." Finally, someone in religious authority stepped into the breach of the debate over the environment and declared that climate change was real and likely caused by humans.
Forget scientific rigor. This is the pope, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. Despite his lack of scientific credentials, he is the moral authority that liberals have needed to shore up their effort to legitimize climate models as gospel truth. Now there can no longer be debate.
As a result of his encyclical (a fancy word for a papal letter), Pope Francis is being celebrated in the media as a theological giant. A man untethered to the past, a modern eminence whose beliefs are in sync with a secular world's point of view. All hail Pope Francis.
But this Argentine pope has a way of tantalizing the media with solemn assurances of theological evolution, only to follow with a course correction that obliterates the original message. Those praising the pope today are cautioned to wait a few months before leaping on the papal bandwagon.
For example, in 2013 the pope caused quite a stir over the church's position on gay marriage. Asked about homosexuality, the pontiff replied, "Who am I to judge?" The media greeted the quote with headlines breathlessly proclaiming the Catholic Church had changed its stance on same sex marriage.
After news coverage faded, Pope Francis made it clear the church rejected the idea of gay marriage, calling it "anthropological regression." He went further, declaring gay adoption to be off limits, too. His words wilted on the theological vine without so much as a nod from the media.
On another occasion, this same pope told reporters that Catholics should not feel compelled to breed "like rabbits." This was greeted as earth-shattering evidence of a new church attitude on contraceptives. Later, Pope Francis quietly reaffirmed the decades-old ban on artificial birth control.
This has become a familiar pattern for Pope Francis. He signals shifts in the church's policy with clever quotes that a gullible media heralds as new dogma. But this is just part of the pope's genuine outreach to convince people the church wants to be more inclusive.
To make his point, Pope Francis has adopted a conciliatory tone on controversial subjects. He doesn't condemn a gay person. At the same time, he has not changed his viewpoint on traditional marriage. The media hasn't caught on yet. Journalists are convinced he is the liberal pope they have wanted.
That's why Catholics and non-Catholics alike are advised to not overreact to the pope's position on climate change. His words have a way of sounding like fundamental tenets when the pope is only acknowledging the other side of a moral issue. This is clear to those who have read his papal letter.
Pope Francis wants to be viewed as a transformative figurehead. He got rid of the ghastly pope-mobile. He shunned the luxurious papal apartments for a more modest residence. He washed the feet of a Muslim woman. He has a Twitter account, for God's sake.
But these are only symbols of change. The real test will be what Pope Francis not only says but what doctrinal changes he authors in the coming months and years. If the church's teachings remain intact, the media's praise for Pope Francis' manifestos will quickly turn into withering criticism.
Today's papal saint could become tomorrow's holy theological terror.
When the news finally broke, the media erupted into a chorus of full-throated "hosannas." Finally, someone in religious authority stepped into the breach of the debate over the environment and declared that climate change was real and likely caused by humans.
Forget scientific rigor. This is the pope, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. Despite his lack of scientific credentials, he is the moral authority that liberals have needed to shore up their effort to legitimize climate models as gospel truth. Now there can no longer be debate.
As a result of his encyclical (a fancy word for a papal letter), Pope Francis is being celebrated in the media as a theological giant. A man untethered to the past, a modern eminence whose beliefs are in sync with a secular world's point of view. All hail Pope Francis.
But this Argentine pope has a way of tantalizing the media with solemn assurances of theological evolution, only to follow with a course correction that obliterates the original message. Those praising the pope today are cautioned to wait a few months before leaping on the papal bandwagon.
For example, in 2013 the pope caused quite a stir over the church's position on gay marriage. Asked about homosexuality, the pontiff replied, "Who am I to judge?" The media greeted the quote with headlines breathlessly proclaiming the Catholic Church had changed its stance on same sex marriage.
After news coverage faded, Pope Francis made it clear the church rejected the idea of gay marriage, calling it "anthropological regression." He went further, declaring gay adoption to be off limits, too. His words wilted on the theological vine without so much as a nod from the media.
On another occasion, this same pope told reporters that Catholics should not feel compelled to breed "like rabbits." This was greeted as earth-shattering evidence of a new church attitude on contraceptives. Later, Pope Francis quietly reaffirmed the decades-old ban on artificial birth control.
This has become a familiar pattern for Pope Francis. He signals shifts in the church's policy with clever quotes that a gullible media heralds as new dogma. But this is just part of the pope's genuine outreach to convince people the church wants to be more inclusive.
To make his point, Pope Francis has adopted a conciliatory tone on controversial subjects. He doesn't condemn a gay person. At the same time, he has not changed his viewpoint on traditional marriage. The media hasn't caught on yet. Journalists are convinced he is the liberal pope they have wanted.
That's why Catholics and non-Catholics alike are advised to not overreact to the pope's position on climate change. His words have a way of sounding like fundamental tenets when the pope is only acknowledging the other side of a moral issue. This is clear to those who have read his papal letter.
Pope Francis wants to be viewed as a transformative figurehead. He got rid of the ghastly pope-mobile. He shunned the luxurious papal apartments for a more modest residence. He washed the feet of a Muslim woman. He has a Twitter account, for God's sake.
But these are only symbols of change. The real test will be what Pope Francis not only says but what doctrinal changes he authors in the coming months and years. If the church's teachings remain intact, the media's praise for Pope Francis' manifestos will quickly turn into withering criticism.
Today's papal saint could become tomorrow's holy theological terror.
Monday, June 15, 2015
The Government's Cruel Tax on the Dead
President Ronald Reagan famously said the government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few words. "If it moves, tax it," he laughed. But he could have added, Washington's insatiable appetite for Americans' money includes taxing things that don't budge, such as dead people.
Your government, not content with emptying your pockets while you are still breathing, uses its greedy hands to seize a large portion of your life's savings and other property after the undertaker has lowered your corpse into the earth.
Appropriately, this form of confiscation is known as the death tax. However, the government prefers to euphemistically refer to it as an estate tax because it promotes the idea that the levy applies only to grand mansions and obscene fortunes.
For that reason, many Americans never worry about this odious tax. They erroneously assume it only impacts those rich fat cats Democrats love to demagogue. The dirty little secret is that the death tax's grisly tentacles touch far more farmers, ranchers and small business owners than the wealthy.
First, a history lesson is in order. A form of the death tax was collected as far back as 1797 on bequests left by individuals. It ranged from 25 cents to $100, depending on the size of the inheritance. The tax was repealed in 1802 and reinstated and abolished over the decades.
The modern death tax was enacted in 1916. Currently, individuals with estates worth more than $5.43 million, or couples with $10.87 million in assets, are socked with a 40 percent tax. Additionally, 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, double dip, assessing their own death tax.
Democrats claim this is some form of social justice. Nonsense. This is nothing more than a way to punish the successful, while stoking animosity and envy toward the wealthy. No amount of justification for the tax, however, changes the reality that most super rich avoid paying the levy.
Those with means use a range of legal gambits to circumvent the death tax. Armed with accountants, lawyers and financial advisers, they use insurance policies, gift transfers, complex trusts and tax free investments to enable them to pass on their wealth to their families and charities.
That's the irony of the death tax. Democrat propaganda is aimed at convincing the uniformed and their sheep-like followers that anyone opposed to the tax is looking out for the evil rich, not the middle class. The facts, of course, offer a totally different picture.
It is hard-working entrepreneurs, dedicated farmers, risk-taking small business owners and dogged ranchers who are hit the hardest. They have spent their entire lives building businesses for their offspring to operate at their death, only to find out the government snatches 40 percent of it.
As a result, their children and grandchildren are forced to sell off hefty chunks of the inheritance just to pay the bloodthirsty Internal Revenue Service. In the end, they are left with a shell of the original land or business. More often, their only option is to get rid of the entire inherited estate.
The death tax issue looms large on the radar in states like North Dakota and Texas, where drilling for shale oil has suddenly propelled the value of rural farms. What was once fallow farm land, is worth millions of dollars. That is creating worries for farmers who want to leave their land to their families.
For once, a few in Washington appear to be attuned to their plight. In April, the House of Representatives approved a bill to repeal the death tax, which has generated $269 billion over the last 10 years. It was approved on a vote of 240-179, largely along party lines.
Naturally, President Obama acrimoniously accused Republicans of catering to the wealthy by eliminating the tax. The narcissistic president couldn't resist adding , "I don't need a tax cut." Well, the rest of us don't live rent-free in a mansion, fly on government aircraft and have a personal chef.
Despite the House vote, the death tax repeal faces an uncertain future in the Senate. At last count, there were 53 Senators who supported the legislation. Seven more are needed to get the law changed.
No family should have to visit the undertaker and the tax collector on the same day. Make your voice heard on this issue before it's too late. One day your children, grandchildren or even great grandchildren will thank you for your foresight.
Your government, not content with emptying your pockets while you are still breathing, uses its greedy hands to seize a large portion of your life's savings and other property after the undertaker has lowered your corpse into the earth.
Appropriately, this form of confiscation is known as the death tax. However, the government prefers to euphemistically refer to it as an estate tax because it promotes the idea that the levy applies only to grand mansions and obscene fortunes.
For that reason, many Americans never worry about this odious tax. They erroneously assume it only impacts those rich fat cats Democrats love to demagogue. The dirty little secret is that the death tax's grisly tentacles touch far more farmers, ranchers and small business owners than the wealthy.
First, a history lesson is in order. A form of the death tax was collected as far back as 1797 on bequests left by individuals. It ranged from 25 cents to $100, depending on the size of the inheritance. The tax was repealed in 1802 and reinstated and abolished over the decades.
The modern death tax was enacted in 1916. Currently, individuals with estates worth more than $5.43 million, or couples with $10.87 million in assets, are socked with a 40 percent tax. Additionally, 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, double dip, assessing their own death tax.
Democrats claim this is some form of social justice. Nonsense. This is nothing more than a way to punish the successful, while stoking animosity and envy toward the wealthy. No amount of justification for the tax, however, changes the reality that most super rich avoid paying the levy.
Those with means use a range of legal gambits to circumvent the death tax. Armed with accountants, lawyers and financial advisers, they use insurance policies, gift transfers, complex trusts and tax free investments to enable them to pass on their wealth to their families and charities.
That's the irony of the death tax. Democrat propaganda is aimed at convincing the uniformed and their sheep-like followers that anyone opposed to the tax is looking out for the evil rich, not the middle class. The facts, of course, offer a totally different picture.
It is hard-working entrepreneurs, dedicated farmers, risk-taking small business owners and dogged ranchers who are hit the hardest. They have spent their entire lives building businesses for their offspring to operate at their death, only to find out the government snatches 40 percent of it.
As a result, their children and grandchildren are forced to sell off hefty chunks of the inheritance just to pay the bloodthirsty Internal Revenue Service. In the end, they are left with a shell of the original land or business. More often, their only option is to get rid of the entire inherited estate.
The death tax issue looms large on the radar in states like North Dakota and Texas, where drilling for shale oil has suddenly propelled the value of rural farms. What was once fallow farm land, is worth millions of dollars. That is creating worries for farmers who want to leave their land to their families.
For once, a few in Washington appear to be attuned to their plight. In April, the House of Representatives approved a bill to repeal the death tax, which has generated $269 billion over the last 10 years. It was approved on a vote of 240-179, largely along party lines.
Naturally, President Obama acrimoniously accused Republicans of catering to the wealthy by eliminating the tax. The narcissistic president couldn't resist adding , "I don't need a tax cut." Well, the rest of us don't live rent-free in a mansion, fly on government aircraft and have a personal chef.
Despite the House vote, the death tax repeal faces an uncertain future in the Senate. At last count, there were 53 Senators who supported the legislation. Seven more are needed to get the law changed.
No family should have to visit the undertaker and the tax collector on the same day. Make your voice heard on this issue before it's too late. One day your children, grandchildren or even great grandchildren will thank you for your foresight.
Monday, June 8, 2015
CPI Hoax: How the Feds Mask Inflation
Like many government statistics, the Consumer Price Index, has been manipulated by the bureaucrats to render it inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. Once CPI was a proxy measurement of inflation, but today it is disconnected from the actual price increases experienced by consumers.
According to the Bureau of Labor, the index is supposed to be "a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of goods and services." If that sounds like government gobbledygook, it is. Simply put, the CPI is supposed to measure the cost of living.
Over the past 30 years, the BLS has altered the formula it uses to calculate the CPI at least 20 times. As part of the new methodology devised by the bureau, the cost of food and energy have been deemphasized in determining the cost of living metric.
What makes this diabolical is those two components are among the most volatile. As every consumer knows, spikes in food and energy prices can leave the family budget in tatters. Yet in its infinite wisdom, the BLS no longer includes the full impact of these items in the index.
To understand the issue, it helps to know how the bureau collects and analyzes the data. The government uses samples from urban areas to collect price data. About 15,000 families nationwide are selected to participate in a point-of-purchase survey to learn what goods and services are being bought.
Once the data is organized, the bureau picks more than 200 items and weights them according to how many and how often the products and services were purchased. Over time, the methodology has changed to put less emphasis on food and fuel prices used to calculate the cost of living.
What would motivate the BLS to make such a move? The answer can be found in the way the federal government uses the CPI. For example, Social Security payments are tied to inflation. So are benefits for retired military personnel, disabled veterans and federal government pensioners.
As the cost of living increases, these payments and benefits are supposed to be adjusted upward. But that's only in theory. The problem is that the current methodology engineered by government bureaucrats understates real inflation, negating the need to increase payments to vets and others.
Stagnant inflation helps reduce the impact on the federal budget. But in real terms it hurts seniors and military veterans because their payments have less purchasing power and their benefits do not keep up with the mounting cost of medical care.
The Federal Reserve Bank also uses inflation as a key ingredient in determining monetary policy. Its stated goal is to keep inflation at two percent or less over the long run. One reason the Fed has kept interest rates low is because inflation has remained tepid.
However, the Fed uses a more reliable inflation tool. Instead of the CPI, it looks to another gauge, the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index or PCE. The measurement uses business surveys, rather than less reliable consumer surveys. The formula also adjusts for changes in consumer behavior.
Interest rates effect every American. When interest rates are low, saving money is less attractive, borrowing is cheaper and consumer spending usually rises. Conversely, when interest rates spike, savers earn more on deposits and borrowing becomes expensive, which discourages spending.
There are also political reasons for the government to tinker with the CPI. Rising inflation numbers never reflect well on the administration in power. It most likely cost President Jimmy Carter a second term. When he left office in 1981, inflation stood at a whopping 10.3 percent.
With today's oil prices temporarily in free fall, conventional wisdom says inflation is low. However, spiraling food costs continue to take a larger chunk out of family budgets. Food prices in the United States climbed nearly seven percent last year. That's inflation under any definition.
Even as food prices zoomed during the last 12 months, the official inflation rate averaged 1.6 percent for 2014 as measured by the CPI. That underscores the disassociation between the government index and the cost of living experienced by most Americans.
To address the situation, Congress should demand that the bureaucrats in the BLS include the full impact of food and gasoline prices in calculating the cost of living. It is no longer acceptable to let unaccountable federal workers tamper with a critical measurement that impacts many Americans.
According to the Bureau of Labor, the index is supposed to be "a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of goods and services." If that sounds like government gobbledygook, it is. Simply put, the CPI is supposed to measure the cost of living.
Over the past 30 years, the BLS has altered the formula it uses to calculate the CPI at least 20 times. As part of the new methodology devised by the bureau, the cost of food and energy have been deemphasized in determining the cost of living metric.
What makes this diabolical is those two components are among the most volatile. As every consumer knows, spikes in food and energy prices can leave the family budget in tatters. Yet in its infinite wisdom, the BLS no longer includes the full impact of these items in the index.
To understand the issue, it helps to know how the bureau collects and analyzes the data. The government uses samples from urban areas to collect price data. About 15,000 families nationwide are selected to participate in a point-of-purchase survey to learn what goods and services are being bought.
Once the data is organized, the bureau picks more than 200 items and weights them according to how many and how often the products and services were purchased. Over time, the methodology has changed to put less emphasis on food and fuel prices used to calculate the cost of living.
What would motivate the BLS to make such a move? The answer can be found in the way the federal government uses the CPI. For example, Social Security payments are tied to inflation. So are benefits for retired military personnel, disabled veterans and federal government pensioners.
As the cost of living increases, these payments and benefits are supposed to be adjusted upward. But that's only in theory. The problem is that the current methodology engineered by government bureaucrats understates real inflation, negating the need to increase payments to vets and others.
Stagnant inflation helps reduce the impact on the federal budget. But in real terms it hurts seniors and military veterans because their payments have less purchasing power and their benefits do not keep up with the mounting cost of medical care.
The Federal Reserve Bank also uses inflation as a key ingredient in determining monetary policy. Its stated goal is to keep inflation at two percent or less over the long run. One reason the Fed has kept interest rates low is because inflation has remained tepid.
However, the Fed uses a more reliable inflation tool. Instead of the CPI, it looks to another gauge, the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index or PCE. The measurement uses business surveys, rather than less reliable consumer surveys. The formula also adjusts for changes in consumer behavior.
Interest rates effect every American. When interest rates are low, saving money is less attractive, borrowing is cheaper and consumer spending usually rises. Conversely, when interest rates spike, savers earn more on deposits and borrowing becomes expensive, which discourages spending.
There are also political reasons for the government to tinker with the CPI. Rising inflation numbers never reflect well on the administration in power. It most likely cost President Jimmy Carter a second term. When he left office in 1981, inflation stood at a whopping 10.3 percent.
With today's oil prices temporarily in free fall, conventional wisdom says inflation is low. However, spiraling food costs continue to take a larger chunk out of family budgets. Food prices in the United States climbed nearly seven percent last year. That's inflation under any definition.
Even as food prices zoomed during the last 12 months, the official inflation rate averaged 1.6 percent for 2014 as measured by the CPI. That underscores the disassociation between the government index and the cost of living experienced by most Americans.
To address the situation, Congress should demand that the bureaucrats in the BLS include the full impact of food and gasoline prices in calculating the cost of living. It is no longer acceptable to let unaccountable federal workers tamper with a critical measurement that impacts many Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)