His ranks one of the world's richest people. He spreads money around like manure in American political campaigns. He backs social causes ranging from legalization of marijuana to open borders and euthanasia. He views himself as a messianic figure who wants to reshape America in his image.
The mystery multi-billionaire is George Soros, born 86-years ago in Budapest, Hungary. He immigrated to the U.S. in 1956 and has amassed a personal fortune estimated this year to have eclipsed $25 billion. He heads up a large hedge fund and has an unsavory business reputation.
He made his fortune by shorting the British currency in 1992, earning him the title of the Man Who Broke the Bank of England. In 1997, Soros was called a "villain" by the Malaysian prime minister after he nearly destroyed the nation's economy through currency manipulation.
His financial entanglements usually end up damaging others. An activist in Thailand once labelled Soros a "kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from people." He was convicted of insider trading in France and was fined $2.9 million by his native Hungary for illegal market manipulation.
This month an Israeli resources company filed a $10 billion lawsuit against Soros in New York Federal Court, accusing him of meddling in politics in the West African country of Guinea in order to prevent the firm from obtaining a lucrative contract.
This is the man who now pulls the strings in the Democratic Party. He funneled $21 million to Democrat candidates during the 2016 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets, a non-profit that tracks political donations. Over the years, he has spent close to $100 million to support Democrats.
He also is among the top bundlers, rich fund raisers who solicit donations from their pals and collect the money for the candidate. In the period from 1990 to 2016, he bundled $28 million in campaign contributions for the coffers of Democrat candidates, calculates Open.Secrets.
In 2008, Soros forked over a stunning $5 billion to the Democratic National Committee. A man can buy a lot of influence with dollar signs that add up to billions. It was no coincidence that 2008 was the year that Barrack Obama won the Democratic nomination, upsetting favored Hillary Clinton.
His political largess extends to 187 organizations in the country that support liberal causes, giving him enormous power and leverage. He has plowed millions into groups such as Media Matters for America, an organization that aims to silence Fox News and conservative radio talk radio.
Soros has pored millions more into Moveon.org, which has been at the forefront of organizing protests against then-candidate and now President Trump. The recent Women's March in Washington had ties to at least 50 organizations that are financially connected to Soros.
He prefers to operate out of public view, using his financial muscle and the web of philanthropic and liberal groups he supports to do his bidding. No Democrat could raise sufficient funding for a national campaign without the political and financial backing of the Godfather, George Soros.
But Soros has ambitions that extend beyond controlling the Democrat Party. He has branched out into media, building a large share holding in Time Warner, which owns CNN. Soros also has direct ties to 30 mainstream media organizations, reports Media Research Center.
High-level executives from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, ABC and the Associated Press serve on Soros-funded organizations, the Media Research Center has documented. Soros wants increased clout with news outlets that peddle propaganda to Americans.
The man's power and influence are unparalleled. It begs the question: Should any one American be allowed to monopolize America's political landscape? The country's founders would have shouted "absolutely not." Now Americans must decide if that want one-man rule.
Monday, May 15, 2017
Monday, May 8, 2017
Six Firms That Control American Media
Six giant media corporations control most of what Americans watch, read and hear. These business behemoths produce more than 90 percent of all news and entertainment available in the United States. As a result, consumers are left with the illusion of choice instead of real alternatives.
As recently as 1983, roughly 90 percent of the American media was owned by 50 companies. In the intervening years, waves of mergers and acquisitions have produced a near monopoly. Meanwhile, federal regulators napped through the sea change without raising an eyebrow.
The mammoth media and entertainment firms are: Comcast, Walt Disney Company, 21st Century Fox, Time Warner, Viacom and CBS Corporation. The companies' annual revenues collectively are more than $100 billion. Total market capitalization for the firms is about $500 billion.
These jumbo corporations own NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, ABC, ESPN, Fox, DreamWorks Animation, CNN, HBO, Cinemax, CBS, Showtime, Paramount Pictures, Nickelodeon, TNT and Warner Brothers Pictures, to mention just a few assets.
There is not enough room in this space to list every media and entertainment company the six own. Included in the asset mix are magazines, book publishers, children's television channels, amusement parks, professional sports teams, websites, radio stations and music production companies.
The concentration of power is unprecedented. You wind up with about 300 executives at six Herculean conglomerates making all the decisions about the information and entertainment that influences many Americans' political and social attitudes.
Having such a monopoly clustered in relatively few hands might not be bad if they acted and reported independently. The reality is that the six march in lockstep with each other, particularly when it comes to political agenda. Fox may be the lone exception, but be advised to reserve judgement.
Research reveals the political action committees and corporate executives at the super-sized six favor Democratic candidates and their positions. Comcast Corporation, perhaps the most politically active of the bunch, has been a regular contributor to both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton.
Comcast, which owns NBC and the Spanish language network Telemundo, has dished out more than $31 million in political contributions since 1990, including $7 million in 2016. The size of its political largess dwarfs the other five members of the Big Six Club.
Time Warner, which owns CNN and HBO, doled out $2.3 million in 2016 in political donations, almost exclusively to Democrats. The company padded Ms. Clinton's campaign coffers with $550,000 and raised $2.2 million for Barrack Obama's two campaigns.
CBS and Disney hand out political donations through their Political Action Committees (PAC). Both are spendthrifts compared to Time Warner and Comcast, each totaling about $200,000 in donations. A review of their reports reveals both have overwhelmingly favored Democrats over Republicans.
The surprise of the lot is 21st Century Fox. James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of the enterprise, has contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. However, in the most recent election cycle the Fox PAC spent $325,000, with the GOP getting 55 percent.
(As a side note, James and brother Lachlan Murdoch will one day inherit the mantle of leadership at Fox when their 84-year old father Rupert steps down. The brothers are far more liberal than Rupert and some analysts are predicting Fox News will join the Democrat echo chamber in the media.)
For the record, the contribution figures cited above were reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, independent non-profit that collects and disseminates information on the influence of money on politics and national policy. The center also tracks companies' lobbying costs.
Each one of the elephantine outfits has influential lobbying organizations which actively exert pressure on Congress and the executive branch.
The Samson Six have logged nearly $500 million in lobbying expenses since 1990. Comcast is the biggest spender, reporting $167 million in lobby costs during that time frame. Since 2009, Time Warner has ponied up $80 million to lobby in Washington.
This toxic mix of media and political cash should concern Americans worried about unbiased news reporting. Media businesses have the same right as other firms to be involved in the political process. Nonetheless, their activities still raise questions about political advocacy prejudicing media decisions.
As recently as 1983, roughly 90 percent of the American media was owned by 50 companies. In the intervening years, waves of mergers and acquisitions have produced a near monopoly. Meanwhile, federal regulators napped through the sea change without raising an eyebrow.
The mammoth media and entertainment firms are: Comcast, Walt Disney Company, 21st Century Fox, Time Warner, Viacom and CBS Corporation. The companies' annual revenues collectively are more than $100 billion. Total market capitalization for the firms is about $500 billion.
These jumbo corporations own NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, ABC, ESPN, Fox, DreamWorks Animation, CNN, HBO, Cinemax, CBS, Showtime, Paramount Pictures, Nickelodeon, TNT and Warner Brothers Pictures, to mention just a few assets.
There is not enough room in this space to list every media and entertainment company the six own. Included in the asset mix are magazines, book publishers, children's television channels, amusement parks, professional sports teams, websites, radio stations and music production companies.
The concentration of power is unprecedented. You wind up with about 300 executives at six Herculean conglomerates making all the decisions about the information and entertainment that influences many Americans' political and social attitudes.
Having such a monopoly clustered in relatively few hands might not be bad if they acted and reported independently. The reality is that the six march in lockstep with each other, particularly when it comes to political agenda. Fox may be the lone exception, but be advised to reserve judgement.
Research reveals the political action committees and corporate executives at the super-sized six favor Democratic candidates and their positions. Comcast Corporation, perhaps the most politically active of the bunch, has been a regular contributor to both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton.
Comcast, which owns NBC and the Spanish language network Telemundo, has dished out more than $31 million in political contributions since 1990, including $7 million in 2016. The size of its political largess dwarfs the other five members of the Big Six Club.
Time Warner, which owns CNN and HBO, doled out $2.3 million in 2016 in political donations, almost exclusively to Democrats. The company padded Ms. Clinton's campaign coffers with $550,000 and raised $2.2 million for Barrack Obama's two campaigns.
CBS and Disney hand out political donations through their Political Action Committees (PAC). Both are spendthrifts compared to Time Warner and Comcast, each totaling about $200,000 in donations. A review of their reports reveals both have overwhelmingly favored Democrats over Republicans.
The surprise of the lot is 21st Century Fox. James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of the enterprise, has contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. However, in the most recent election cycle the Fox PAC spent $325,000, with the GOP getting 55 percent.
(As a side note, James and brother Lachlan Murdoch will one day inherit the mantle of leadership at Fox when their 84-year old father Rupert steps down. The brothers are far more liberal than Rupert and some analysts are predicting Fox News will join the Democrat echo chamber in the media.)
For the record, the contribution figures cited above were reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, independent non-profit that collects and disseminates information on the influence of money on politics and national policy. The center also tracks companies' lobbying costs.
Each one of the elephantine outfits has influential lobbying organizations which actively exert pressure on Congress and the executive branch.
The Samson Six have logged nearly $500 million in lobbying expenses since 1990. Comcast is the biggest spender, reporting $167 million in lobby costs during that time frame. Since 2009, Time Warner has ponied up $80 million to lobby in Washington.
This toxic mix of media and political cash should concern Americans worried about unbiased news reporting. Media businesses have the same right as other firms to be involved in the political process. Nonetheless, their activities still raise questions about political advocacy prejudicing media decisions.
Monday, May 1, 2017
Democrats' Mantra: Tax Cuts Are Evil
From the second President Trump unveiled his plan to reduce federal income taxes, the Democrat clucking began. The party of Resistance discharged a stream of negatives. The plan will enrich the wealthy. It will rob the poor. The middle class will get shafted. Tax cuts are evil, evil, evil.
If all this sounds familiar, it's because Democrats dip into their bag of class warfare tricks and pull out the same arguments every time the GOP floats the idea of tax cuts. Their thesis becomes the media narrative, creating an illusion that not a single American wants lower taxes, except the fat cats.
The Tax Policy Center, an virtual arm of the Democrat Party supported by Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, rushed to judgment on Mr. Trump's plan. Without waiting for the details to be hashed out in Congress, the center howled the government would lose $6.2 trillion in revenue.
That last counterfeit claim is a hackneyed favorite of Democrats. It is factual that not all tax cuts hike government revenues. However, evidence exists that many have lined the government's coffers.Those are never mentioned by demagogue Democrats in their anti-tax sermons.
For instance, the federal tax rate for the top one percent was reduced in 1997. Despite the drop, individual tax revenues rose 9.8 percent that year. In the following year, tax receipts climbed 10.6 percent. Tax rates fell but the government took in more money. Amazing.
The same scenario played out in 1997-1998 when corporate income taxes were sliced. During the period, income tax revenues actually increased by 28.3 percent the first year and 8.2 percent the following year. Jobs and investments grew. Corporations and individuals benefited.
The Mother of All tax cuts occurred in 1981 when President Reagan wielded a meat axe to the federal tax tables. The jobless rate was 9.6 percent when he took office. When he left, it had dipped to 5.3 percent. Government revenues soared 82 percent from 1981 to 1989. The economy roared.
In every one of the instances cited above, the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) predictions about tax revenues were off the mark. Keep that in mind when you start reading and hearing about the CBO's dire predictions about revenue shortfalls and soaring deficits triggered by the Trump plan.
The CBO, which supports Congress' budget process, has a long history of being wrong. The bureaucrats are experts at crunching numbers, but their assumptions often fail to correctly gauge the economic activity fueled by reducing taxes for individuals and corporations.
Mr. Trump's tax plan needs to be fleshed out in Congress before it can be fairly assessed. The basic outline requires added specificity. But it is a step in the right direction. Americans will benefit from simplification with fewer tax brackets. Many will pay less in federal taxes.
There will be increased child care tax breaks for couples. The tax marginal tax rate will drop for upper income earners who pay the lion's share of revenues collected by the government. Despite the benefits, don't expect the Democrats or the lapdog media to embrace the plan.
The Resistance is banking on Americans' ignorance and gullibility about taxes to win the argument. Class envy is their weapon of choice. Soak the rich is their battle cry. Lost in all the rancor will be a rational discussion of how tax policy can jump start America's weakling economy.
If all this sounds familiar, it's because Democrats dip into their bag of class warfare tricks and pull out the same arguments every time the GOP floats the idea of tax cuts. Their thesis becomes the media narrative, creating an illusion that not a single American wants lower taxes, except the fat cats.
The Tax Policy Center, an virtual arm of the Democrat Party supported by Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, rushed to judgment on Mr. Trump's plan. Without waiting for the details to be hashed out in Congress, the center howled the government would lose $6.2 trillion in revenue.
That last counterfeit claim is a hackneyed favorite of Democrats. It is factual that not all tax cuts hike government revenues. However, evidence exists that many have lined the government's coffers.Those are never mentioned by demagogue Democrats in their anti-tax sermons.
For instance, the federal tax rate for the top one percent was reduced in 1997. Despite the drop, individual tax revenues rose 9.8 percent that year. In the following year, tax receipts climbed 10.6 percent. Tax rates fell but the government took in more money. Amazing.
The same scenario played out in 1997-1998 when corporate income taxes were sliced. During the period, income tax revenues actually increased by 28.3 percent the first year and 8.2 percent the following year. Jobs and investments grew. Corporations and individuals benefited.
The Mother of All tax cuts occurred in 1981 when President Reagan wielded a meat axe to the federal tax tables. The jobless rate was 9.6 percent when he took office. When he left, it had dipped to 5.3 percent. Government revenues soared 82 percent from 1981 to 1989. The economy roared.
In every one of the instances cited above, the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) predictions about tax revenues were off the mark. Keep that in mind when you start reading and hearing about the CBO's dire predictions about revenue shortfalls and soaring deficits triggered by the Trump plan.
The CBO, which supports Congress' budget process, has a long history of being wrong. The bureaucrats are experts at crunching numbers, but their assumptions often fail to correctly gauge the economic activity fueled by reducing taxes for individuals and corporations.
Mr. Trump's tax plan needs to be fleshed out in Congress before it can be fairly assessed. The basic outline requires added specificity. But it is a step in the right direction. Americans will benefit from simplification with fewer tax brackets. Many will pay less in federal taxes.
There will be increased child care tax breaks for couples. The tax marginal tax rate will drop for upper income earners who pay the lion's share of revenues collected by the government. Despite the benefits, don't expect the Democrats or the lapdog media to embrace the plan.
The Resistance is banking on Americans' ignorance and gullibility about taxes to win the argument. Class envy is their weapon of choice. Soak the rich is their battle cry. Lost in all the rancor will be a rational discussion of how tax policy can jump start America's weakling economy.
Monday, April 24, 2017
A Survivor's Story: Riding Rings Around Cancer
America's celebrities are lionized in the media. They are idolized by an adoring public. But there are far more courageous people who deserve the spotlight. One such man is Allan Kokinda. He absorbed every crushing punch the pugnacious disease cancer delivered and survived.
The 54-year old San Antonio motorcycle repairman suffered through 34 brutal operations, debilitating chemotherapy treatments and endless medical setbacks for eight agonizing years. No one would have blamed him if he had given up. But Allan refused to quit. He kicked cancer's butt.
In 2007, Allan was diagnosed with Osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer that attacked his head. What began as persistent rash on his forehead nearly ended his life. Three metal plates were inserted into his head. Infections dogged him, leading to more surgeries to embed new plates.
The surgeries left Allan's head disfigured. He draped covers over the mirrors in his house. He avoided looking at his reflection in any surface. He remembers that despair was his constant companion during cancer's siege. His mental and physical suffering were crippling.
"It just wore me out," Allan recalls. "I had no energy. I gained a lot of weight because I was inactive. I was shocked one day when the doctors told me I wasn't going to die. I was shocked because I never thought that I was going to die."
Doctors at the UT Health San Antonio/Cancer Center treated Allan's disease. Their care and expertise helped Allan survive the dreadful trial no human should be asked to endure. Allan stubbornly shunned surrender. "I won't forget the day they told me I was cancer free," he smiles.
He received the good news in 2015. During his exhaustive treatments, Allan often daydreamed about riding his bicycle during high school and college years. He had no car back then, so the bike was his only mode of transportation. He literally grew up on a bike.
After some soul searching, Allan decided to get back on the bike. His sister picked up a bicycle for $100 and Allan was set. He began with leisurely rides around San Antonio. The exercise, along with an improved diet, paid off. He shed 50 pounds. For the first time in years, he had energy.
With each day, Allan boosted his endurance. Then one day he struck out for the Big Bend area near El Paso, a daunting round-trip challenge of 1,000 miles. After successfully completing the jaunt, he dreamt big. Less than a year removed from cancer, he would undertake an epic journey.
He plotted a route that would take him through 24 states and included visits to 18 National Parks. His plan was to go all the way up to Niagara Falls and into Canada. It was an incredible leap of faith for a guy who had no formal long-distance bike training.
He outfitted his bike with fatter tires and equipment for a more efficient gear ratio He added saddlebags. He stuffed the bags with clothes, provisions and camping gear. After a few goodbyes, Allan embarked on a grueling trek across America's midsection. Just Allan and his bike.
He pedaled. And pedaled. And pedaled. It took him four days just to cross the Texas state line. He kept pumping his legs until he had racked up 7,052 miles during an arduous four-month journey that circled back to San Antonio. He had few creature comforts, camping out under the stars.
Along the way, he had the opportunity to meet other cancer survivors. They swapped stories and shared the scars that only cancer survivors can comprehend. "I hope my story was an inspiration to other people," he modestly says. "That was one of my motivations."
Allan Kokinda is already sketching plans for his next biking trip. "I love the freedom of the road and I am healthier than I have been in decades," he reveals. His bout with cancer remains fresh in his mind. But each day Allan draws strength from his terrible ordeal.
"I get so much joy from biking," Allan tells people. "Riding through America blew me away. Each new vista was more beautiful than the last."
America has always needed heroes. We bask in their feats of greatness. However, there are many heroes hidden among us who remain invisible. That describes Allan Kokinda. His inspirational battle against cancer has earned him the right to be called a genuine American hero.
The 54-year old San Antonio motorcycle repairman suffered through 34 brutal operations, debilitating chemotherapy treatments and endless medical setbacks for eight agonizing years. No one would have blamed him if he had given up. But Allan refused to quit. He kicked cancer's butt.
In 2007, Allan was diagnosed with Osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer that attacked his head. What began as persistent rash on his forehead nearly ended his life. Three metal plates were inserted into his head. Infections dogged him, leading to more surgeries to embed new plates.
The surgeries left Allan's head disfigured. He draped covers over the mirrors in his house. He avoided looking at his reflection in any surface. He remembers that despair was his constant companion during cancer's siege. His mental and physical suffering were crippling.
"It just wore me out," Allan recalls. "I had no energy. I gained a lot of weight because I was inactive. I was shocked one day when the doctors told me I wasn't going to die. I was shocked because I never thought that I was going to die."
Doctors at the UT Health San Antonio/Cancer Center treated Allan's disease. Their care and expertise helped Allan survive the dreadful trial no human should be asked to endure. Allan stubbornly shunned surrender. "I won't forget the day they told me I was cancer free," he smiles.
He received the good news in 2015. During his exhaustive treatments, Allan often daydreamed about riding his bicycle during high school and college years. He had no car back then, so the bike was his only mode of transportation. He literally grew up on a bike.
After some soul searching, Allan decided to get back on the bike. His sister picked up a bicycle for $100 and Allan was set. He began with leisurely rides around San Antonio. The exercise, along with an improved diet, paid off. He shed 50 pounds. For the first time in years, he had energy.
With each day, Allan boosted his endurance. Then one day he struck out for the Big Bend area near El Paso, a daunting round-trip challenge of 1,000 miles. After successfully completing the jaunt, he dreamt big. Less than a year removed from cancer, he would undertake an epic journey.
He plotted a route that would take him through 24 states and included visits to 18 National Parks. His plan was to go all the way up to Niagara Falls and into Canada. It was an incredible leap of faith for a guy who had no formal long-distance bike training.
He outfitted his bike with fatter tires and equipment for a more efficient gear ratio He added saddlebags. He stuffed the bags with clothes, provisions and camping gear. After a few goodbyes, Allan embarked on a grueling trek across America's midsection. Just Allan and his bike.
He pedaled. And pedaled. And pedaled. It took him four days just to cross the Texas state line. He kept pumping his legs until he had racked up 7,052 miles during an arduous four-month journey that circled back to San Antonio. He had few creature comforts, camping out under the stars.
Along the way, he had the opportunity to meet other cancer survivors. They swapped stories and shared the scars that only cancer survivors can comprehend. "I hope my story was an inspiration to other people," he modestly says. "That was one of my motivations."
Allan Kokinda is already sketching plans for his next biking trip. "I love the freedom of the road and I am healthier than I have been in decades," he reveals. His bout with cancer remains fresh in his mind. But each day Allan draws strength from his terrible ordeal.
"I get so much joy from biking," Allan tells people. "Riding through America blew me away. Each new vista was more beautiful than the last."
America has always needed heroes. We bask in their feats of greatness. However, there are many heroes hidden among us who remain invisible. That describes Allan Kokinda. His inspirational battle against cancer has earned him the right to be called a genuine American hero.
Monday, April 17, 2017
Assimilation: Press Two For Spanish
America was once the world's melting pot. Immigrants from all over the world flooded into the country in pursuit of freedom and opportunity. They were grateful for America's open arms and respectful of their new country's traditions.
During the Industrial Revolution, waves of Italians, Irish, Germans, Poles and Czechs pored into the U.S. They mastered English and eagerly adopted American customs. They were proud of their heritage, but they identified as Americans without any hyphenation. There were no Polish-Americans.
Today's immigrants feel less of a connection with their new homeland, particularly those of Hispanic origin. There are 55 million Hispanics living in the United States, comprising 17.3 percent of the population. They are the nation's largest and fastest growing immigrant segment.
Those statistics were compiled by the non-partisan Pew Research Center, which analyzed data collected in the latest U.S. Census. The term Hispanic, as defined in the census, includes people who self-identify as Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and other Spanish cultures.
In its analysis, Pew researchers revealed that 52 percent of Hispanic immigrants identify with their country of origin rather than with the United States. About 65 percent of those Hispanics are of Mexican ancestry, according to the data.
In its report, Pew discovered that only 21 percent of all Hispanics choose the term "American" to describe themselves. Among first generation Hispanics, only eight percent consider themselves Americans. And 48 percent of third-generation Hispanics are likely to claim the label of American.
Why haven't Hispanics followed the example of millions of past immigrants?
Language may help explain the dichotomy. According to 2013 U.S. Census data reviewed by Pew Research, there are at least 12.5 million Hispanics living in the United States who are "not proficient" in English. A subset of this group, 3.2 million Hispanics, speak no English.
One caveat should be noted about the Pew analysis of Census data. Hispanics self-reported their language proficiency. There was no test administered to validate their answers. That has led to speculation that the data actually may understate the English proficiency of Hispanics.
As evidence that may be the case, consider the number of companies and government agencies that offer Spanish language options for customers and clients. Almost every voice activated call system in use has a "Press Two For Spanish" option for those who want to conduct business in that language.
In addition, many businesses and government organizations offer printed materials in Spanish and employ bilingual customer representatives.The number of companies advertising in Spanish has quadrupled over the last 20 years.
Despite the research, it is patently unfair to stereotype Hispanics. Many Hispanics, including both Mexicans and Cubans, have bear hugged American culture, served with distinction in the military and made notable contributions in business, the arts, science, politics and other fields.
They are as American as any native. However, there still is a wide swath of Hispanics who do not share their enthusiasm for their adopted country.
There are some progressives who believe it is America that needs to adapt to the influx of new immigrants. They argue the old-model of assimilation is outdated in a multi-cultural world. America should be a salad bowl, a mixture of different cultures that live together but have nothing in common.
However, many who subscribe to this theory refuse to acknowledge that a common language is one of the ties that bind a people and a nation. Ending that tradition to accommodate each culture will make assimilation more difficult and produce a more divided nation.
During the Industrial Revolution, waves of Italians, Irish, Germans, Poles and Czechs pored into the U.S. They mastered English and eagerly adopted American customs. They were proud of their heritage, but they identified as Americans without any hyphenation. There were no Polish-Americans.
Today's immigrants feel less of a connection with their new homeland, particularly those of Hispanic origin. There are 55 million Hispanics living in the United States, comprising 17.3 percent of the population. They are the nation's largest and fastest growing immigrant segment.
Those statistics were compiled by the non-partisan Pew Research Center, which analyzed data collected in the latest U.S. Census. The term Hispanic, as defined in the census, includes people who self-identify as Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and other Spanish cultures.
In its analysis, Pew researchers revealed that 52 percent of Hispanic immigrants identify with their country of origin rather than with the United States. About 65 percent of those Hispanics are of Mexican ancestry, according to the data.
In its report, Pew discovered that only 21 percent of all Hispanics choose the term "American" to describe themselves. Among first generation Hispanics, only eight percent consider themselves Americans. And 48 percent of third-generation Hispanics are likely to claim the label of American.
Why haven't Hispanics followed the example of millions of past immigrants?
Language may help explain the dichotomy. According to 2013 U.S. Census data reviewed by Pew Research, there are at least 12.5 million Hispanics living in the United States who are "not proficient" in English. A subset of this group, 3.2 million Hispanics, speak no English.
One caveat should be noted about the Pew analysis of Census data. Hispanics self-reported their language proficiency. There was no test administered to validate their answers. That has led to speculation that the data actually may understate the English proficiency of Hispanics.
As evidence that may be the case, consider the number of companies and government agencies that offer Spanish language options for customers and clients. Almost every voice activated call system in use has a "Press Two For Spanish" option for those who want to conduct business in that language.
In addition, many businesses and government organizations offer printed materials in Spanish and employ bilingual customer representatives.The number of companies advertising in Spanish has quadrupled over the last 20 years.
Despite the research, it is patently unfair to stereotype Hispanics. Many Hispanics, including both Mexicans and Cubans, have bear hugged American culture, served with distinction in the military and made notable contributions in business, the arts, science, politics and other fields.
They are as American as any native. However, there still is a wide swath of Hispanics who do not share their enthusiasm for their adopted country.
There are some progressives who believe it is America that needs to adapt to the influx of new immigrants. They argue the old-model of assimilation is outdated in a multi-cultural world. America should be a salad bowl, a mixture of different cultures that live together but have nothing in common.
However, many who subscribe to this theory refuse to acknowledge that a common language is one of the ties that bind a people and a nation. Ending that tradition to accommodate each culture will make assimilation more difficult and produce a more divided nation.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Sin of Omission: Cover Up of SpyGate
The nation's mainstream media and Democrats are engaged in a major cover up of the most explosive scandal since Watergate. Their collaboration is aimed at concealing the truth about the previous administration's covert plan to spy on President Trump's transition team.
Leaks and news reports have surfaced in recent days alleging former Obama officials shared secret intelligence on members of President Trump's inner circle during the months before his inauguration. Former administration officials and Democrats have been quick to shrug off the charges.
Susan Rice, the former president's National Security Advisor, performed a reprise of her role in the Benghazi video transgression as the surrogate of deconstruction. Appearing on PBS, an indignant Ms. Rice claimed she knew "nothing about" the Trump surveillance charges. That was on March 22.
On April 4, Ms. Rice reappeared on the airwaves with an alternative version of the truth. This time Ms. Rice did not deny knowledge of the surveillance, but insisted she "leaked nothing to nobody" about the data collection. It was a telling use of a double-negative by an Oxford College graduate.
Ms. Rice tightroped her way through the interview to avoid prosecution. It is a felony punishable by up to ten years in federal prison to leak classified intelligence information. Someone in government leaked highly sensitive communications to the press about ex-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
In her tortured explanation, Ms. Rice attempted to portray 'unmasking' as a routine practice, which it is not. Democrats leaped to her defense, suggesting that any collection of intelligence on Mr. Trump's associates was inadvertent. That claim stretches the bounds of credulity.
"Unmasking" is intelligence community "speak" for revealing the identities of U.S. citizens who are unintentionally spied on by the government's electronic monitoring of foreign targets. National security officials routinely receive reports with the names of Americans redacted (blacked out).
The process of unmasking must be requested by authorized administration officials and forwarded to the NSA, FBI or CIA. An extensive paper trail should exist, including the names of officials who asked for the identities to be revealed. Safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized unmasking.
The FBI has the authority to request the records and follow the paper trail to determine the source of the leak. The agency also is one of the few government organizations with the power to grant an unmasking request. Yet FBI Director James Comey has been reticent to investigate the leak.
Not coincidentally, eight days before he left office, Mr. Obama worked behind the scenes to change the way surveillance was shared. He widened the list of administration officials who could view the raw NSA intelligence in a move to ensure the Russian-Trump issue would survive beyond his term.
This bombshell never made the front pages of any newspapers and was ignored by nearly every television network. The coverage stands in stark contrast to the media's inflammatory reporting on the widely debunked charges that the Trump campaign collaborated with the Russians in the election.
The same hypocrisy applies to Democrats, who have insisted on a plethora of probes to plow every rabbit hole to find the missing link between Trump and the Russians. Yet not a single Democrat appears interested in learning why a cloak-and-dagger operation targeted team Trump.
Spying on Americans is a breach of the public trust of the government's security apparatus. Depending on the circumstances it may also be a federal crime. If there has been no wrongdoing by the previous administration, Democrats should welcome the opportunity to clear the air.
The fact that Democrats and the media are concealing the scandal is a troubling sign the truth may expose the misuse of sensitive intelligence for political reasons. Republicans should demand an independent counsel be appointed to determine if there were flagrant violations of federal law.
Leaks and news reports have surfaced in recent days alleging former Obama officials shared secret intelligence on members of President Trump's inner circle during the months before his inauguration. Former administration officials and Democrats have been quick to shrug off the charges.
Susan Rice, the former president's National Security Advisor, performed a reprise of her role in the Benghazi video transgression as the surrogate of deconstruction. Appearing on PBS, an indignant Ms. Rice claimed she knew "nothing about" the Trump surveillance charges. That was on March 22.
On April 4, Ms. Rice reappeared on the airwaves with an alternative version of the truth. This time Ms. Rice did not deny knowledge of the surveillance, but insisted she "leaked nothing to nobody" about the data collection. It was a telling use of a double-negative by an Oxford College graduate.
Ms. Rice tightroped her way through the interview to avoid prosecution. It is a felony punishable by up to ten years in federal prison to leak classified intelligence information. Someone in government leaked highly sensitive communications to the press about ex-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
In her tortured explanation, Ms. Rice attempted to portray 'unmasking' as a routine practice, which it is not. Democrats leaped to her defense, suggesting that any collection of intelligence on Mr. Trump's associates was inadvertent. That claim stretches the bounds of credulity.
"Unmasking" is intelligence community "speak" for revealing the identities of U.S. citizens who are unintentionally spied on by the government's electronic monitoring of foreign targets. National security officials routinely receive reports with the names of Americans redacted (blacked out).
The process of unmasking must be requested by authorized administration officials and forwarded to the NSA, FBI or CIA. An extensive paper trail should exist, including the names of officials who asked for the identities to be revealed. Safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized unmasking.
The FBI has the authority to request the records and follow the paper trail to determine the source of the leak. The agency also is one of the few government organizations with the power to grant an unmasking request. Yet FBI Director James Comey has been reticent to investigate the leak.
Not coincidentally, eight days before he left office, Mr. Obama worked behind the scenes to change the way surveillance was shared. He widened the list of administration officials who could view the raw NSA intelligence in a move to ensure the Russian-Trump issue would survive beyond his term.
This bombshell never made the front pages of any newspapers and was ignored by nearly every television network. The coverage stands in stark contrast to the media's inflammatory reporting on the widely debunked charges that the Trump campaign collaborated with the Russians in the election.
The same hypocrisy applies to Democrats, who have insisted on a plethora of probes to plow every rabbit hole to find the missing link between Trump and the Russians. Yet not a single Democrat appears interested in learning why a cloak-and-dagger operation targeted team Trump.
Spying on Americans is a breach of the public trust of the government's security apparatus. Depending on the circumstances it may also be a federal crime. If there has been no wrongdoing by the previous administration, Democrats should welcome the opportunity to clear the air.
The fact that Democrats and the media are concealing the scandal is a troubling sign the truth may expose the misuse of sensitive intelligence for political reasons. Republicans should demand an independent counsel be appointed to determine if there were flagrant violations of federal law.
Monday, April 3, 2017
America's Growing Cult of Death
With little fanfare, two more states legalized physician assisted suicide late last year. Colorado and the District of Columbia joined Oregon, Washington, Montana, California and Vermont on the list of jurisdictions that allow individuals to end their lives by lethal means.
These seven states are at the forefront of an propaganda campaign to remove the stigma from the polarizing issue of physician assisted suicide. Proponents have adopted new language, preaching dying with dignity and relief from chronic suffering as socially acceptable reasons to terminate life.
The advocates know that are gradually winning what once was an uphill political battle. The latest Pew Research polling shows that Americans are almost evenly split on the issue. The data reveals 47 percent of Americans favor physician assisted suicide, while 49 percent oppose the idea.
Any discussion of the issue requires a definition of terms. Most states allow individuals to sign a "Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)," order which makes it legal to suspend cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In some circumstances, patients may consent to unhooking feeding tubes or respirators.
The measures cited above are generally accepted by most Americans and physicians. However, active euthanasia means deliberately ending a patient's life, usually by administering toxic drugs. In many cases, the doctor prescribes the drug and the patient ingests it without a physician present.
The American Medical Association, despite media reports to the contrary, continues to strongly oppose physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Their disapproval has been seconded by the American Academy of Medical Ethics. Physicians are dedicated to saving lives, not killing.
Oregon become the first state to enact legislation on physician assisted suicide in 1997. Their experience serves as a cautionary tale of the ethical slippery slope. Each year the number of patients given lethal doses of medication has increased, quadrupling since 1997.
The most common reasons patients cited for their end-of-life decision was loss of autonomy, and the decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, according to data. Most patients who elect to die have no prescribing physician present when they ingest the drug.
Worldwide, more countries are joining the euthanasia bandwagon. One of the pioneers is the Netherlands, which authorized medical euthanasia in 2002. Since its inauguration, the number of physician assisted suicides has risen five-fold. In 2015, there were 5,500 people terminated.
Over the years the Dutch have radically extended the death regime to allow people with "social isolation or loneliness" to end their lives with the assistance of a physician. A recent case caused an international furor when a 41-year-old alcoholic was euthanized to escape his drinking problem.
To facilitate the increasing demand in the Netherlands, the Dutch have authorized mobile euthanasia units to roam the streets on call in the event a family doctor refuses to give a lethal drug dose to a patient. Increasingly, people are choosing to die without an explicit end of life request.
Some Dutch are reportedly carrying cards in their purses and wallets that say, "Do Not Euthanize Me," in case they are in an accident or taken to a hospital in a state of unconsciousness. It is a grisly reminder of what can happen once your give doctors the right to kill another human being.
Before physician assisted suicide becomes another "right" sanctioned by the American judicial system, the country needs to have a thorough airing of the dangers of allowing the practice. States with euthanasia laws have lax reporting standards, making it difficult to find factual data.
Whatever your views on euthanasia, more data and statistics are needed to address legitimate moral and ethical questions. Until all the facts are known about current state experiences with physician assisted suicide, Americans would be best served to remain skeptical about the practice.
These seven states are at the forefront of an propaganda campaign to remove the stigma from the polarizing issue of physician assisted suicide. Proponents have adopted new language, preaching dying with dignity and relief from chronic suffering as socially acceptable reasons to terminate life.
The advocates know that are gradually winning what once was an uphill political battle. The latest Pew Research polling shows that Americans are almost evenly split on the issue. The data reveals 47 percent of Americans favor physician assisted suicide, while 49 percent oppose the idea.
Any discussion of the issue requires a definition of terms. Most states allow individuals to sign a "Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)," order which makes it legal to suspend cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In some circumstances, patients may consent to unhooking feeding tubes or respirators.
The measures cited above are generally accepted by most Americans and physicians. However, active euthanasia means deliberately ending a patient's life, usually by administering toxic drugs. In many cases, the doctor prescribes the drug and the patient ingests it without a physician present.
The American Medical Association, despite media reports to the contrary, continues to strongly oppose physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Their disapproval has been seconded by the American Academy of Medical Ethics. Physicians are dedicated to saving lives, not killing.
Oregon become the first state to enact legislation on physician assisted suicide in 1997. Their experience serves as a cautionary tale of the ethical slippery slope. Each year the number of patients given lethal doses of medication has increased, quadrupling since 1997.
The most common reasons patients cited for their end-of-life decision was loss of autonomy, and the decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, according to data. Most patients who elect to die have no prescribing physician present when they ingest the drug.
Worldwide, more countries are joining the euthanasia bandwagon. One of the pioneers is the Netherlands, which authorized medical euthanasia in 2002. Since its inauguration, the number of physician assisted suicides has risen five-fold. In 2015, there were 5,500 people terminated.
Over the years the Dutch have radically extended the death regime to allow people with "social isolation or loneliness" to end their lives with the assistance of a physician. A recent case caused an international furor when a 41-year-old alcoholic was euthanized to escape his drinking problem.
To facilitate the increasing demand in the Netherlands, the Dutch have authorized mobile euthanasia units to roam the streets on call in the event a family doctor refuses to give a lethal drug dose to a patient. Increasingly, people are choosing to die without an explicit end of life request.
Some Dutch are reportedly carrying cards in their purses and wallets that say, "Do Not Euthanize Me," in case they are in an accident or taken to a hospital in a state of unconsciousness. It is a grisly reminder of what can happen once your give doctors the right to kill another human being.
Before physician assisted suicide becomes another "right" sanctioned by the American judicial system, the country needs to have a thorough airing of the dangers of allowing the practice. States with euthanasia laws have lax reporting standards, making it difficult to find factual data.
Whatever your views on euthanasia, more data and statistics are needed to address legitimate moral and ethical questions. Until all the facts are known about current state experiences with physician assisted suicide, Americans would be best served to remain skeptical about the practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)