The national debate over so-called 'Dreamers' has been hijacked by big media. Instead of facts, the dishonest media establishment has dished up heaping helpings of half-truths, scare-mongering and deliberate distortions in an attempt to emotionally blackmail Americans.
The usual suspects in the fake news business are ginning up outrage by suggesting that brown-shirted immigration agents soon will be storming schools, snatching kids and herding them in cattle cars while their parents wail in horror. It would be humorous if so many people weren't fooled.
The news coverage represents a new low even as Americans' trust of the media has skidded to historic troughs. Nearly everything being reported about President Trump's recension of the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has been lacking in context and truthfulness.
In 2012, President Obama signed an executive action allowing illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 16 an opportunity to remain in the country to study or work. Those approved for the program were handed a work permit and protection from deportation for two years.
Even before he inked the order, Mr. Obama on several occasions had claimed it was unconstitutional for the president to act on immigration without Congressional approval. Yet he did it anyway. Most constitutional scholars agree Mr. Obama had no authority to unilaterally create immigration law.
After the Obama decree, what began as a trickle of DACA applicants soon turned into a roaring river. As of March of this year, the government had received 936,394 requests for Dreamer status and approved 886,814 since 2012. Of that number, 1,056 have become U.S. citizens.
The statistics cited above were gleaned from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Mr. Trump's action triggered a media propaganda blitzkrieg which showcased smart college aged immigrants who had taken advantage of DACA to further their education. But college graduates are a minority of the Dreamer population.
The Bipartisan Policy Center reports the average age of a DACA beneficiary is 25, a far cry from the media image of a struggling teenager. A Harvard study found less than 20 percent of Dreamers had graduated from college. Since 2013, some 2,139 recipients forfeited their benefits because of crimes.
Mr. Obama's open-ended edict also has been abused. DACA immigrants can renew their work permits and deportation protection every two years. Since 2012, about 800,000 renewals have been issued, according to Pew Research's review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.
DACA was never intended to be a permanent ticket to remain in the United States. In fact, in 2012 after stamping the executive order, Mr. Obama made it clear that DACA "is not a path to citizenship." That point has been trampled in the media-manufactured hysteria over deportation.
In an attempt to sway Americans, the media has dredged up photos of children riding trains through Mexico to reach our border in an attempt to escape violence and drugs in Central America. That picture is at odds with the facts. More than 78 percent of DACA applicants are from Mexico.
Liberal lawmakers and the media have featured Karen Caudillo as a poster child for DACA's benefits. In a tearful interview near the Capitol, she told reporters: "I have been fighting so long to be able to sustain myself, to go to school, to be productive." It was compelling television. It was also a fraud.
Turns out the 21-year old Ms. Caudillo owns a cleaning company, is allegedly registered to vote, cast a ballot and made political campaign contributions. She also claims to attend college. Very heady stuff for someone who is not even a citizen of the United States. And potentially very illegal.
Mr. Trump has taken the right path in ending DACA. As any fourth grader knows, Congress makes the laws and therefore must tackle the thorny issue. This is where the matter should be resolved. Democrats had their chance when they controlled all three branches of government but punted.
Now the current do-nothing Congress must prove it can produce legislation. Any legislation. Their challenge will be to avoid being compromised by the media's drumbeat of sob stories and manipulated data. But then no one has ever accused of Congress of sticking to the facts.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Monday, September 11, 2017
Hurricane Harvey: Americans Shine In Crisis
A disaster of epic proportions on the Texas Gulf Coast served to remind us what makes America great. Ordinary folks in Texas and across the nation joined together in heroic fashion to respond to the devastating impact of Hurricane Harvey. This is the America the world knows and admires.
Millions watched the heartbreaking scenes unfurl on television as more than 12 trillion gallons of rain fell in the Houston area. Flood waters swamped homes and businesses. People lost their cars, their homes and all their possessions. Rebuilding costs are expected to far exceed $100 billion.
But you can't put a price tag on human life. At least 70 people died in the horrific aftermath of the hurricane. But the toll could have been much higher if not for the heroism of first responders and ordinary citizens, who unselfishly risked their lives to save others.
A Harris County Deputy Sheriff carried two children, one in each arm, as he waded through waist-high murky brown water to take them to safety. Houston SWAT officer Daryl Hudeck reached a 13-month-old boy and his mom in the nick-of-time as water gushed through their home.
The Cajun Navy, a rag-tag band of good Samaritans from neighboring Louisiana, arrived in the city's darkest hour with a flotilla of small watercraft to assist with evacuations. This citizen armada rescued hundreds in driving rain and gusty wind conditions ignoring their own safety.
The volunteers went neighbor-by-neighborhood in their hunting and fishing boats plucking Houstonians from their water-logged homes. Louisiana's governor threw in with his citizens, dispatching search-and-rescue teams from the state's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Other states joined in the effort as well as the U.S. Coast Guard, now attached to the Department of Homeland Security. Coast Guard helicopters hovered over flooded homes and businesses, rescuing dozens of citizens from rooftops and second stories. The dramatic rescues captured the nation.
Ordinary Joe's unattached to any organization just showed up with their boats and high-water trucks. An African-American man told television reporters he was "gonna try to save some lives." He ignored the danger of flood waters to help stranded homeowners and drivers stuck in their vehicles.
David and Lizzie Cue opened their home to a couple and their children after the flood waters claimed the family's residence in one of the hardest hit neighborhoods. Mary and Robert Hall welcomed Houston relatives who were victimized by the flood even as surging waters threatened their home.
Churches, schools and even some businesses took in thousands of displaced Houstonians whose homes were no longer habitable. A mattress and furniture businessman dispatched his delivery trucks to pick up storm stragglers. He allowed the victims to sleep in his two stores and fed them, too.
This was America at its finest. Neighbors helping neighbors. Strangers extending a hand to those in dire need. Race didn't matter. Neither did ethnicity nor immigration status. In these tense moments, no fights broke out. No one called another person a hateful name.
What happened in Houston stands in stark contrast to the ugly confrontation in Charolettesville more than a month ago. There evil hooligans engaged in fisticuffs after protests turned violent. The thugs represented an infinitesimal minority of Americans, but you wouldn't know it by the media coverage.
This is why no one trusts the news media. Reporters and editors are always looking for the worst in America to serve up on the evening news. But that isn't the real America. Houston proved once again that the overwhelming majority of Americans are giving, loving, caring people.
That may be news to the media but not to everyday Americans.
Millions watched the heartbreaking scenes unfurl on television as more than 12 trillion gallons of rain fell in the Houston area. Flood waters swamped homes and businesses. People lost their cars, their homes and all their possessions. Rebuilding costs are expected to far exceed $100 billion.
But you can't put a price tag on human life. At least 70 people died in the horrific aftermath of the hurricane. But the toll could have been much higher if not for the heroism of first responders and ordinary citizens, who unselfishly risked their lives to save others.
A Harris County Deputy Sheriff carried two children, one in each arm, as he waded through waist-high murky brown water to take them to safety. Houston SWAT officer Daryl Hudeck reached a 13-month-old boy and his mom in the nick-of-time as water gushed through their home.
The Cajun Navy, a rag-tag band of good Samaritans from neighboring Louisiana, arrived in the city's darkest hour with a flotilla of small watercraft to assist with evacuations. This citizen armada rescued hundreds in driving rain and gusty wind conditions ignoring their own safety.
The volunteers went neighbor-by-neighborhood in their hunting and fishing boats plucking Houstonians from their water-logged homes. Louisiana's governor threw in with his citizens, dispatching search-and-rescue teams from the state's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Other states joined in the effort as well as the U.S. Coast Guard, now attached to the Department of Homeland Security. Coast Guard helicopters hovered over flooded homes and businesses, rescuing dozens of citizens from rooftops and second stories. The dramatic rescues captured the nation.
Ordinary Joe's unattached to any organization just showed up with their boats and high-water trucks. An African-American man told television reporters he was "gonna try to save some lives." He ignored the danger of flood waters to help stranded homeowners and drivers stuck in their vehicles.
David and Lizzie Cue opened their home to a couple and their children after the flood waters claimed the family's residence in one of the hardest hit neighborhoods. Mary and Robert Hall welcomed Houston relatives who were victimized by the flood even as surging waters threatened their home.
Churches, schools and even some businesses took in thousands of displaced Houstonians whose homes were no longer habitable. A mattress and furniture businessman dispatched his delivery trucks to pick up storm stragglers. He allowed the victims to sleep in his two stores and fed them, too.
This was America at its finest. Neighbors helping neighbors. Strangers extending a hand to those in dire need. Race didn't matter. Neither did ethnicity nor immigration status. In these tense moments, no fights broke out. No one called another person a hateful name.
What happened in Houston stands in stark contrast to the ugly confrontation in Charolettesville more than a month ago. There evil hooligans engaged in fisticuffs after protests turned violent. The thugs represented an infinitesimal minority of Americans, but you wouldn't know it by the media coverage.
This is why no one trusts the news media. Reporters and editors are always looking for the worst in America to serve up on the evening news. But that isn't the real America. Houston proved once again that the overwhelming majority of Americans are giving, loving, caring people.
That may be news to the media but not to everyday Americans.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Union Membership Shrinks As Political Clout Grows
Labor Day was established as a national holiday in 1894 to officially "honor the social and economic achievements of American workers." Labor unions mounted the campaign for an annual celebration to showcase their influence and to recruit and retain members. The strategy hasn't worked.
Union membership has steadily dwindled since 1983 when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began an official tally. Thirty-four years ago 20.1 percent of all wage and salary earners in the country belonged to a union. At the end of last year, union representation had dipped to 10.7 percent.
In 2016, there were 14.6 million union workers, a steep plunge from 17.7 million in 1983. Most of the members (34.4%) were represented by public sector unions at the end of last year. Their membership rate was five times higher than the private sector (6.4%).
One of the largest and most powerful unions is the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) with a membership of 1.52 million. AFT has an annual budget of more than $329 million and has reported assets of $106 million. Overhead and political lobbying account for nearly 22% of its spending.
Those figures were obtained from the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which requires unions to file annual reports with the group.
The teachers union wields enormous political clout. AFT flexed its muscles in the 2016 presidential election, dishing out a striking $32.85 million to candidates. Every single dollar found its way into the election coffers of Democrats. Not even a penny was donated to Republicans.
This is a predominant theme repeated throughout today's unions. The organizations have become nothing more than a fund-raising arm for the Democratic Party. A review of the Federal Election Records reveals that nearly every dollar the big unions pored into elections went to Democrats.
While the teachers spent the heaviest amount, not far behind was the Laborers' International Union of North America (LINUA), which represents primarily construction workers. LIUNA funneled $25.9 million during the 2016 election cycle to an overwhelming majority of Democrats (98%).
The AFL-CIO, American Federal of State/County/Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Operator Engineers Union combined to contribute more than $42 million, the lion's share landing in the pockets of Democrat candidates. AFSCME donated 100% to Democrats.
Yet Democrats always grumble about the notorious Koch Brothers' deep-pocketed giving to Republicans. All the unions mentioned above each shelled out more than the Koch's did. Is this a case where Democrats better represent union members? Does that explain the lopsidedness?
Not according to the actual vote of union members. Surveys show for example that 20 percent of teachers union members cast their ballots for Donald Trump. Among all union households, Mr. Trump carried 43 percent of the votes, compared to 51 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This should make it clear that the unions' largess for Democrats has little or no relationship to the political views of their members. It is a scandal that union bosses continue to ignore their members, while using dues from their paychecks to support Democrats.
The rank-and-file in powerful unions are held captive by their organization's bosses, who are more interested in burnishing their own political influence. Workers have no voice in the choices the union makes in terms of its political activity. It is time members were consulted.
Fifty years ago there were legitimate worker issues for unions to address concerning hours, wages and benefits. Labor unions were champions of worker rights. Today they have evolved into nothing more than political organizations. Contract negotiations and bargaining are afterthoughts.
In light of this development, labor unions should be required to register as an arm of the Democratic Party since their primary function appears to be funding that organization's candidates.
Union membership has steadily dwindled since 1983 when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began an official tally. Thirty-four years ago 20.1 percent of all wage and salary earners in the country belonged to a union. At the end of last year, union representation had dipped to 10.7 percent.
In 2016, there were 14.6 million union workers, a steep plunge from 17.7 million in 1983. Most of the members (34.4%) were represented by public sector unions at the end of last year. Their membership rate was five times higher than the private sector (6.4%).
One of the largest and most powerful unions is the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) with a membership of 1.52 million. AFT has an annual budget of more than $329 million and has reported assets of $106 million. Overhead and political lobbying account for nearly 22% of its spending.
Those figures were obtained from the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which requires unions to file annual reports with the group.
The teachers union wields enormous political clout. AFT flexed its muscles in the 2016 presidential election, dishing out a striking $32.85 million to candidates. Every single dollar found its way into the election coffers of Democrats. Not even a penny was donated to Republicans.
This is a predominant theme repeated throughout today's unions. The organizations have become nothing more than a fund-raising arm for the Democratic Party. A review of the Federal Election Records reveals that nearly every dollar the big unions pored into elections went to Democrats.
While the teachers spent the heaviest amount, not far behind was the Laborers' International Union of North America (LINUA), which represents primarily construction workers. LIUNA funneled $25.9 million during the 2016 election cycle to an overwhelming majority of Democrats (98%).
The AFL-CIO, American Federal of State/County/Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Operator Engineers Union combined to contribute more than $42 million, the lion's share landing in the pockets of Democrat candidates. AFSCME donated 100% to Democrats.
Yet Democrats always grumble about the notorious Koch Brothers' deep-pocketed giving to Republicans. All the unions mentioned above each shelled out more than the Koch's did. Is this a case where Democrats better represent union members? Does that explain the lopsidedness?
Not according to the actual vote of union members. Surveys show for example that 20 percent of teachers union members cast their ballots for Donald Trump. Among all union households, Mr. Trump carried 43 percent of the votes, compared to 51 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This should make it clear that the unions' largess for Democrats has little or no relationship to the political views of their members. It is a scandal that union bosses continue to ignore their members, while using dues from their paychecks to support Democrats.
The rank-and-file in powerful unions are held captive by their organization's bosses, who are more interested in burnishing their own political influence. Workers have no voice in the choices the union makes in terms of its political activity. It is time members were consulted.
Fifty years ago there were legitimate worker issues for unions to address concerning hours, wages and benefits. Labor unions were champions of worker rights. Today they have evolved into nothing more than political organizations. Contract negotiations and bargaining are afterthoughts.
In light of this development, labor unions should be required to register as an arm of the Democratic Party since their primary function appears to be funding that organization's candidates.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Why Surgery Will Make You Giggle
If you want to experience gales of laughter, sign up for surgery. Sure, there will be excruciating pain. But it seems a small price to pay to be exposed to the peculiarities of today's surgical practice. The duplication, primitiveness and conventions are bound to crack a rib as you bend over in laughter.
Five weeks ago I underwent rotator cuff surgery on my right shoulder. In the weeks leading up to the arthroscopic procedure, a daunting pile of documents flooded my email inbox. Most were questionnaires about my physical health, previous surgeries and family medical history.
Here is a sample: Most recent surgery? (Tonsillitis 65 years ago). Have you experienced chest pains? (Only when the Dallas Cowboys blow a game.) Do you have any diseases? (Does hair lost count?) Do you have an enlarged prostate? (None of your damn business.)
The best was: What is your experience with anesthesia? (Well, it makes me sleepy. In fact, I usually lose consciousness. I try not to drive while I am under the influence. Or make life-changing decisions, like attempt to order a specialty latte at Starbucks. Is that specific enough?)
Every time I answered a health questionnaire, another surfaced. The doctor needed one. The surgical hospital required the same information. When I arrived at the surgical unit, the questions were repeated. For gosh sakes, does anyone know how to share medical data?
To punish the patient, the surgical unit requires you report at dark thirty. Then the doctors make you pace anxiously in the waiting room for hours as you contemplate your last moments above ground. McDonald's serves 200 burgers and fries in the time it takes you to enter the surgical hall of horrors.
Once inside the sterile facility, the nurse asks what kind of surgery you are having. Really? No one had clued her in? "Rotator cuff," I moaned. "Which shoulder?" I looked stunned. "Right," I mumbled. She used a marker and placed an "X" on my right shoulder. I'm not making this up.
Then the orthopedic surgeon bounded into the room after I was hooked up for an IV. Nice man, but he too seemed befuddled. "We're doing surgery on your right shoulder, correct?" he inquired. I wanted to yell: "How the hell should I know? You are the one who is doing the operation!"
He scribbled his name on my right shoulder. I guess like deer, surgeons like to mark their territory. It was like the entire surgical unit was confused about which shoulder was to be sliced and diced. I am sure the doctor wanted to avoid a mistake. But it doesn't inspire patient confidence.
Next the anesthesiologist arrived at my bedside. He wanted to know if I had any past adverse reactions to anesthesia. "Last time I was six years old," I answered truthfully. "I don't recall." He looked worried. Then he proceeded to read a list of all the horrible things that could happen.
He concluded his recitation with this reassuring warning: "The state of Texas requires me to tell you that anesthesia can cause death." Whoa! I almost leaped from the gurney and sprinted for the exit. No one had mentioned that possibility when I signed up for this journey into surgical Neverland.
As I was wheeled into surgery, I remember thinking: I should have at least eaten a last meal of steak, a fully loaded baked potato and a heaping dish of Blue Bell ice cream. But the surgical instructions had emphasized a light evening meal. Even prisoners get to pig out before the electric chair.
When the fog of anesthesia had lifted, I was relieved to know the state of Texas was dead wrong. I had a pulse! My arm was swaddled in an awkward looking contraption. First thing I checked was to make sure it was my right arm. I had learned not to take anything for granted.
Shortly, the doctor appeared and pronounced the procedure a success. That was a relief. However, I half-expected him to whisper: "I really screwed up. I thought it was your left shoulder. I got you mixed up with some guy named Roy Drew. My bad. Can you come back next week?"
Last week I had cataract surgery on my right eye. The nurse and the surgeon used an ink pen to write above my right eyebrow. It took a week of furious scrubbing to remove the ink. This week I have surgery on my other eye. I am wearing a blinking sign with an arrow pointing to the left eye.
Five weeks ago I underwent rotator cuff surgery on my right shoulder. In the weeks leading up to the arthroscopic procedure, a daunting pile of documents flooded my email inbox. Most were questionnaires about my physical health, previous surgeries and family medical history.
Here is a sample: Most recent surgery? (Tonsillitis 65 years ago). Have you experienced chest pains? (Only when the Dallas Cowboys blow a game.) Do you have any diseases? (Does hair lost count?) Do you have an enlarged prostate? (None of your damn business.)
The best was: What is your experience with anesthesia? (Well, it makes me sleepy. In fact, I usually lose consciousness. I try not to drive while I am under the influence. Or make life-changing decisions, like attempt to order a specialty latte at Starbucks. Is that specific enough?)
Every time I answered a health questionnaire, another surfaced. The doctor needed one. The surgical hospital required the same information. When I arrived at the surgical unit, the questions were repeated. For gosh sakes, does anyone know how to share medical data?
To punish the patient, the surgical unit requires you report at dark thirty. Then the doctors make you pace anxiously in the waiting room for hours as you contemplate your last moments above ground. McDonald's serves 200 burgers and fries in the time it takes you to enter the surgical hall of horrors.
Once inside the sterile facility, the nurse asks what kind of surgery you are having. Really? No one had clued her in? "Rotator cuff," I moaned. "Which shoulder?" I looked stunned. "Right," I mumbled. She used a marker and placed an "X" on my right shoulder. I'm not making this up.
Then the orthopedic surgeon bounded into the room after I was hooked up for an IV. Nice man, but he too seemed befuddled. "We're doing surgery on your right shoulder, correct?" he inquired. I wanted to yell: "How the hell should I know? You are the one who is doing the operation!"
He scribbled his name on my right shoulder. I guess like deer, surgeons like to mark their territory. It was like the entire surgical unit was confused about which shoulder was to be sliced and diced. I am sure the doctor wanted to avoid a mistake. But it doesn't inspire patient confidence.
Next the anesthesiologist arrived at my bedside. He wanted to know if I had any past adverse reactions to anesthesia. "Last time I was six years old," I answered truthfully. "I don't recall." He looked worried. Then he proceeded to read a list of all the horrible things that could happen.
He concluded his recitation with this reassuring warning: "The state of Texas requires me to tell you that anesthesia can cause death." Whoa! I almost leaped from the gurney and sprinted for the exit. No one had mentioned that possibility when I signed up for this journey into surgical Neverland.
As I was wheeled into surgery, I remember thinking: I should have at least eaten a last meal of steak, a fully loaded baked potato and a heaping dish of Blue Bell ice cream. But the surgical instructions had emphasized a light evening meal. Even prisoners get to pig out before the electric chair.
When the fog of anesthesia had lifted, I was relieved to know the state of Texas was dead wrong. I had a pulse! My arm was swaddled in an awkward looking contraption. First thing I checked was to make sure it was my right arm. I had learned not to take anything for granted.
Shortly, the doctor appeared and pronounced the procedure a success. That was a relief. However, I half-expected him to whisper: "I really screwed up. I thought it was your left shoulder. I got you mixed up with some guy named Roy Drew. My bad. Can you come back next week?"
Last week I had cataract surgery on my right eye. The nurse and the surgeon used an ink pen to write above my right eyebrow. It took a week of furious scrubbing to remove the ink. This week I have surgery on my other eye. I am wearing a blinking sign with an arrow pointing to the left eye.
Monday, August 21, 2017
Fighting the Civil War All Over Again
Some 152 years after America's bloody Civil War ended, tense battles have erupted over Confederate monuments. Last week's violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, was just the latest skirmish in a noisy campaign to rid America of any remaining symbols of the nation's defining conflict.
A budding list of cities, including Baltimore, New Orleans, Memphis, Lexington and Jacksonville, have declared war on statues of Confederate generals, soldiers and statesmen. Proponents claim the monuments, most prominent in the South, are symbols of lingering racism.
Historical groups and preservation societies have opposed the rush to rip down Civil War memorials. They defend the statues and monuments as an important part of the nation's history, particularly in the South. Members contend the historic markers honor those who fought and died in the war.
Now white supremacy, Klu Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi thugs have usurped the issue to advance their creed of racial hatred and anti-Semitism. The pandering media has turned this into a struggle between Neanderthal whites and oppressed African-Americans, who own the moral high ground.
Instead of treating the issue on its merits, the media has zeroed in on the tiny minority of repugnant bigots associated with fringe groups, giving them a bigger forum than they deserve to spew their malice. Big media has used the issue to paint all whites with the same broad racist brush.
Yet even the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there are only 5,000-8,000 members of KKK groups. Neo-Nazi hate-mongers have even less members. But neither one of these groups has cornered the market on extremism.
The opposition has coalesced around an anti-fascist group known as ANtifa, a radical pan-leftist organization whose followers are "predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists." That description was lifted from the pages of The Washington Post, not some conservative website.
What began is an honest debate about Civil War symbols, has been corrupted into a shouting match between a few fanatics on both sides who want to inflame unrest. Dishonest media and race-baiting activists have conspired to stoke the fires of rebellion to create political upheaval.
Now white supremacy, Klu Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi thugs have usurped the issue to advance their creed of racial hatred and anti-Semitism. The pandering media has turned this into a struggle between Neanderthal whites and oppressed African-Americans, who own the moral high ground.
Instead of treating the issue on its merits, the media has zeroed in on the tiny minority of repugnant bigots associated with fringe groups, giving them a bigger forum than they deserve to spew their malice. Big media has used the issue to paint all whites with the same broad racist brush.
Yet even the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there are only 5,000-8,000 members of KKK groups. Neo-Nazi hate-mongers have even less members. But neither one of these groups has cornered the market on extremism.
The opposition has coalesced around an anti-fascist group known as ANtifa, a radical pan-leftist organization whose followers are "predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists." That description was lifted from the pages of The Washington Post, not some conservative website.
What began is an honest debate about Civil War symbols, has been corrupted into a shouting match between a few fanatics on both sides who want to inflame unrest. Dishonest media and race-baiting activists have conspired to stoke the fires of rebellion to create political upheaval.
Since 2015, city leaders often without public consent have purged at least 60 symbols of the Confederacy. However, more than 700 monuments remain in 31 states and 109 schools bear the names of Confederate figures. Those numbers were compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The capricious removal of statues has emboldened radicals to take matters into their own hands. An angry mob in North Carolina lassoed a rope around a 15-foot bronze statue of a Confederate soldier and toppled it to the ground. Frenzied vandals repeatedly stomped the downed monument.
This has all the earmarks of becoming an escalating mob hysteria with deadly consequences. Free speech has been sacrificed by those who want to silence dissent over the removals. Those against whitewashing history are branded racists. Where are the messengers of reconciliation?
Among the voices of sanity is former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, an African-American who grew up with racism and rose to be one of the nation's most eloquent and informed speakers on the topic. She recently addressed the hostility over Confederate symbols.
"I'm a firm believer in keeping your history before you," she told an interviewer on a national network. "And so, I don't actually want to rename things that were named for slave owners. I want us to have to look at the names and recognize what they did and be able to tell our kids what they did and for them to have a sense of history."
Ridding the country of its past is not a prescription for alleviating racism. And once the country goes down that path, where will it end? Nine of America's first twelve presidents were slave owners. Should their statues be torn down and defiled? Should their names be scrubbed from schools?
There are more than 200 Confederate soldiers buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Should their graves be emptied? The cemetery is located on 624 acres that once belonged to the estate of the family of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Should the cemetery be relocated?
There are more than 200 Confederate soldiers buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Should their graves be emptied? The cemetery is located on 624 acres that once belonged to the estate of the family of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Should the cemetery be relocated?
There are lessons to be learned from other countries. After World War II, Germany wanted to cleanse itself of Hitler's death camps. The facilities were embarrassing reminders Germans wanted to forget. But sensible people prevailed and the camp's ruins today serve as a warning to future generations.
Removing statues, school names, monuments and the like will never bleach the scars of slavery or the Civil War. The story of America has been a nation that acknowledges its faults, mends its flaws and moves forward to heal divisions. No country advances by rewriting its past.
This is the country that survived a dreadful Civil War and emerged united. That grim conflict would have been fought in vain if Americans once again are so divided that violence and lawlessness become the solution. Cooler heads on all sides should be able find a peaceful resolution.
Monday, August 14, 2017
Obstruction of Justice: FBI and DOJ Collusion Exposed
New documents released by the Department of Justice cast a dark cloud of suspicion over the conduct of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ex-FBI Director James Comey. Information buried in the 417-pages raises troubling ethical and criminal issues that have gone unreported by the media.
The materials were released August 2 by Daniel R. Castellano, a DOJ senior attorney, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative, non-partisan organization that promotes transparency and integrity in government.
The heavily-redacted records consist primarily of a flurry of emails between the FBI and DOJ after a Phoenix television reporter revealed on June 27, 2016, that Lynch and former president Bill Clinton secretly huddled on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
The surreptitious meeting stunned legal scholars at the time because Hillary Clinton was under FBI investigation for her private email server. Ms. Clinton was slated to be interviewed by the FBI a few days later. One week after the clandestine meeting, Comey issued Ms. Clinton a get-out-of jail card.
The timing of the controversial sequence of events was too calculated to be dismissed as a coincidence.
A thorough review of the freshly released records, expose the duplicity and unethical conduct after the tarmac meeting. Here are some of the highlights gleaned from email exchanges:
-- Among the hundreds of emails, there is a single reference that fuels questions about whether the meeting between Lynch and the former president was a chance encounter. There is a DOJ email to the FBI with this subject line: "Security Details Coordinate Between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?" The rest of the email is blacked out. The FBI was present on the tarmac and shooed away reporters who wanted to film the meeting. Was this part of the advance coordination between the Clinton and the AG security teams?
-- When a local ABC news reporter learned of the meeting, it sparked a tsunami of email exchanges between Carolyn Pokorny at the AG's office and Melaine R. Newman, the director of public affairs at the Justice Department. Their task was to hastily craft a "statement/talking points" for Lynch. Even Peter Kadzik, a longtime friend of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta, was included in the draft discussion. The AG was copied on many of the emails in the chain under the alias of Elizabeth Carlisle. That leads to the question: Why did Ms. Lynch feel the need to use an alias when conducting official government business?
-- The various drafts of the "statement/talking points" were redacted or blacked out from the documents provided by the DOJ under the guise the communications were protected by the "deliberative process privilege." How can talking points that were designed for public dissemination be protected from disclosure? The DOJ should be required to reveal the entire contents of every pertinent email.
-- It is clear from the email chains that reports of the infamous tarmac talk reached the highest levels of the FBI. Yet on October 21, 2016, Comey replied to Judicial Watch's FOIA request by denying there were any available records regarding the Lynch-Clinton summit. "No records responsive to your request have been located," Comey answered. The recently released records make it clear Comey was less than forthcoming. It is unlawful to withhold government information in response to a FOIA request.
After the "statement/talking points" were approved, Ms. Lynch faced the media on June 28, 2016. Here is a transcript of what she said: "Actually, while I was landing at the airport, I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as I was leaving and he spoke to myself and my husband on the plane. Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels." She denied there was any discussion about Ms. Clinton's emails. Interestingly, she did not refer to the meeting as a 'chance encounter' in her original statement.
It strains the bounds of credulity to believe the meeting was not planned in advance; that the timing was incidental just days before Ms. Clinton's FBI interview; or that Comey's decision to defer prosecution was not connected in anyway to Ms. Lynch's discussion with the former president.
Republicans in Congress must stand together and demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the crime of obstruction of justice by Comey and Lynch. The charade has continued too long. Justice has not only been blinded but she has been gagged and bound since the tarmac talk.
The materials were released August 2 by Daniel R. Castellano, a DOJ senior attorney, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative, non-partisan organization that promotes transparency and integrity in government.
The heavily-redacted records consist primarily of a flurry of emails between the FBI and DOJ after a Phoenix television reporter revealed on June 27, 2016, that Lynch and former president Bill Clinton secretly huddled on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
The surreptitious meeting stunned legal scholars at the time because Hillary Clinton was under FBI investigation for her private email server. Ms. Clinton was slated to be interviewed by the FBI a few days later. One week after the clandestine meeting, Comey issued Ms. Clinton a get-out-of jail card.
The timing of the controversial sequence of events was too calculated to be dismissed as a coincidence.
A thorough review of the freshly released records, expose the duplicity and unethical conduct after the tarmac meeting. Here are some of the highlights gleaned from email exchanges:
-- Among the hundreds of emails, there is a single reference that fuels questions about whether the meeting between Lynch and the former president was a chance encounter. There is a DOJ email to the FBI with this subject line: "Security Details Coordinate Between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?" The rest of the email is blacked out. The FBI was present on the tarmac and shooed away reporters who wanted to film the meeting. Was this part of the advance coordination between the Clinton and the AG security teams?
-- When a local ABC news reporter learned of the meeting, it sparked a tsunami of email exchanges between Carolyn Pokorny at the AG's office and Melaine R. Newman, the director of public affairs at the Justice Department. Their task was to hastily craft a "statement/talking points" for Lynch. Even Peter Kadzik, a longtime friend of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta, was included in the draft discussion. The AG was copied on many of the emails in the chain under the alias of Elizabeth Carlisle. That leads to the question: Why did Ms. Lynch feel the need to use an alias when conducting official government business?
-- The various drafts of the "statement/talking points" were redacted or blacked out from the documents provided by the DOJ under the guise the communications were protected by the "deliberative process privilege." How can talking points that were designed for public dissemination be protected from disclosure? The DOJ should be required to reveal the entire contents of every pertinent email.
-- It is clear from the email chains that reports of the infamous tarmac talk reached the highest levels of the FBI. Yet on October 21, 2016, Comey replied to Judicial Watch's FOIA request by denying there were any available records regarding the Lynch-Clinton summit. "No records responsive to your request have been located," Comey answered. The recently released records make it clear Comey was less than forthcoming. It is unlawful to withhold government information in response to a FOIA request.
After the "statement/talking points" were approved, Ms. Lynch faced the media on June 28, 2016. Here is a transcript of what she said: "Actually, while I was landing at the airport, I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as I was leaving and he spoke to myself and my husband on the plane. Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels." She denied there was any discussion about Ms. Clinton's emails. Interestingly, she did not refer to the meeting as a 'chance encounter' in her original statement.
It strains the bounds of credulity to believe the meeting was not planned in advance; that the timing was incidental just days before Ms. Clinton's FBI interview; or that Comey's decision to defer prosecution was not connected in anyway to Ms. Lynch's discussion with the former president.
Republicans in Congress must stand together and demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the crime of obstruction of justice by Comey and Lynch. The charade has continued too long. Justice has not only been blinded but she has been gagged and bound since the tarmac talk.
Monday, August 7, 2017
Student Debt: A Trillion Reasons To Scold Colleges
For the first time in history, Americans owe more in college debt than credit card debt. Student debt has reached a staggering $1.3 trillion. Since 2003, student borrowing has skyrocketed nearly 457 percent, spurred by the lowering of credit criteria and an infusion of federal taxpayer funds.
In 2009, the Democratic controlled Congress passed sweeping legislation to overhaul the student loan program, redirecting tens of billions of dollars to college aid. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act also essentially removed private lenders from the college loan equation.
With lax lending standards and more taxpayer money available, the government created a gold rush for student loans. The total debt ballooned to more than $1.34 trillion in the first quarter of this year, confirm statistics from the New York Federal Reserve Bank's Center for Microeconomic Data.
Today 44.2 million Americans owe money for college loans. The average student debt for the class of 2016 was $37,172, a six percent increase from the previous year. In the first quarter of this year, student loan debt jumped another 2.6 percent.
Averages often are deceiving. The Fed statistics show that the combined undergraduate and graduate debt incurred by a student with a law degree is $140,616. Medical and health science graduates accumulate an average of $161,772 in debt.
In the most recent year for which data is available, about 71 percent of students graduating from a four-year college were saddled with debt. Students attending private colleges were more likely to be forced to borrow. About 75 percent of private college grads had outstanding loans.
About 40 percent of the student loan debt was used to finance graduate and professional degrees, the Fed figures show. That's why there are more 1.68 million borrowers on repayment plans that stretch out more than 10 years.
The mountain of college debt is straining graduates ability to meet the loan requirements. In the third quarter of last year, 16 percent of student loans were in default, which means a failure to make payments for a period of nine months.
But even that statistic does not tell the whole story. Another 20 percent of student loans were in deferment or were in a grace period or had been forgiven. Those figures were compiled by the College Board in a study last year entitled, "Trends in Student Aid."
There is no light at the end of the tunnel for future college students. Each year college tuition costs at both private and public schools increase while the ability of students and families to pay for a degree decreases. This dynamic is creating a growing burden for many Americans.
The blame needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of American higher education. Since 1978, Bloomberg estimates that the cost of college tuition has rocketed 1,120 percent. By comparison, medical costs climbed 601 percent and food leapfrogged 244 percent during the same period.
Under the current system, there is no incentive for private or public colleges to hold the line on tuition costs. When the price of tuition rises, the colleges are protected from student sticker shock because the government makes it easy for anyone to mortgage their future to pay for a degree.
It is a perverse system that perpetuates this uneconomic dynamic. The American taxpayer underwrites increases in education costs through federally funded loans as well as state and federal taxes. College tuition increases are passed on to all taxpayers who unwittingly foot the bill.
How does the country change this cycle of tuition hikes? It will not stop until students and their families decide to opt out of the college arms race where higher tuition equates to a more prestigious degree. Only when colleges compete on price like other businesses will the insanity abate.
Unless that happens, college debt will rise exponentially. Instead of demanding college accountability for rising tuition rates, politicians have decided to campaign on forgiving all student debt or promoting legislation to make college "free," tacking on another federal entitlement program.
Neither political solution will lead to lower education costs at colleges. Whatever the political outcome, taxpayers will still be on the hook for more than a trillion dollars worth of spending excess by out-of-control college administrators.
In 2009, the Democratic controlled Congress passed sweeping legislation to overhaul the student loan program, redirecting tens of billions of dollars to college aid. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act also essentially removed private lenders from the college loan equation.
With lax lending standards and more taxpayer money available, the government created a gold rush for student loans. The total debt ballooned to more than $1.34 trillion in the first quarter of this year, confirm statistics from the New York Federal Reserve Bank's Center for Microeconomic Data.
Today 44.2 million Americans owe money for college loans. The average student debt for the class of 2016 was $37,172, a six percent increase from the previous year. In the first quarter of this year, student loan debt jumped another 2.6 percent.
Averages often are deceiving. The Fed statistics show that the combined undergraduate and graduate debt incurred by a student with a law degree is $140,616. Medical and health science graduates accumulate an average of $161,772 in debt.
In the most recent year for which data is available, about 71 percent of students graduating from a four-year college were saddled with debt. Students attending private colleges were more likely to be forced to borrow. About 75 percent of private college grads had outstanding loans.
About 40 percent of the student loan debt was used to finance graduate and professional degrees, the Fed figures show. That's why there are more 1.68 million borrowers on repayment plans that stretch out more than 10 years.
The mountain of college debt is straining graduates ability to meet the loan requirements. In the third quarter of last year, 16 percent of student loans were in default, which means a failure to make payments for a period of nine months.
But even that statistic does not tell the whole story. Another 20 percent of student loans were in deferment or were in a grace period or had been forgiven. Those figures were compiled by the College Board in a study last year entitled, "Trends in Student Aid."
There is no light at the end of the tunnel for future college students. Each year college tuition costs at both private and public schools increase while the ability of students and families to pay for a degree decreases. This dynamic is creating a growing burden for many Americans.
The blame needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of American higher education. Since 1978, Bloomberg estimates that the cost of college tuition has rocketed 1,120 percent. By comparison, medical costs climbed 601 percent and food leapfrogged 244 percent during the same period.
Under the current system, there is no incentive for private or public colleges to hold the line on tuition costs. When the price of tuition rises, the colleges are protected from student sticker shock because the government makes it easy for anyone to mortgage their future to pay for a degree.
It is a perverse system that perpetuates this uneconomic dynamic. The American taxpayer underwrites increases in education costs through federally funded loans as well as state and federal taxes. College tuition increases are passed on to all taxpayers who unwittingly foot the bill.
How does the country change this cycle of tuition hikes? It will not stop until students and their families decide to opt out of the college arms race where higher tuition equates to a more prestigious degree. Only when colleges compete on price like other businesses will the insanity abate.
Unless that happens, college debt will rise exponentially. Instead of demanding college accountability for rising tuition rates, politicians have decided to campaign on forgiving all student debt or promoting legislation to make college "free," tacking on another federal entitlement program.
Neither political solution will lead to lower education costs at colleges. Whatever the political outcome, taxpayers will still be on the hook for more than a trillion dollars worth of spending excess by out-of-control college administrators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)