Wpid-20150824__150826ttd-watch_fieldofdreams

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold – 

Although the 1989 film, “Field of Dreams” (see film clip), as reviewed by Roger Ebert in the “Chicago Tribune” on April 29, 1989, had to do with a farmer standing in the middle of a cornfield hearing voices that tells him, “If you build it, he will come” (the voice seems to promise Joe Jackson will come and play on it), the same catch phrase from the movie reflects the Democrats’ “economic” recovery plan.  It you build roads and bridges, industry will respond by expanding and adding jobs.  What baloney!   

What about the stimulus packed signed into law by President in 2009?  In the stimulus package was $30 billion designated for infrastructure spending that was handed over to the states for shovel ready jobs.  It was thought that injecting money into transportation projects would not only put construction workers and contractors to work quickly, but it would also lay the groundwork for future economic growth and development.  Obama predicted the transportation money alone would put hundreds of thousands of workers on the job.

This report  found that states spent more than a third of the money on building new roads—rather than working on public transportation and fixing up existing roads and bridges.  As a result, states missed out on potentially thousands of new jobs, and bridges, roads, and overpasses around the country are still crumbing.

The Democratic mantra, according to “The Atlantic” in 2015, is that each dollar spent on “infrastructure” will add $1.44 to the economy. Democrat VP candidate cited a figure of $1.76, a reference which is undocumented. The economic windfall will come from the money spent on concrete, asphalt and labor, plus the money the laborers will spend on groceries and other items. In other words by planting good money in roads, money trees will spring forth and bear fruit. There are a couple of problems with this arithmetic. First, workers who would build these roads are already eating and buying things. And where does asphalt come from or the energy to roast limestone into cement?  From coal and oil Obama has pledged to eliminate.

“If you build it …” implies roads create industries and jobs, whereas the opposite is true. What business can you cite whose growth has been limited by the ability to move raw materials and goods or workers to their stations?  Add to this the fact that any business exhibiting success will be punished through taxation and regulation by Obama and his heir-apparent, Hillary Clinton. The truth is more business will create more tax revenue even without raising rates.  That revenue can be used to repair and improve the roads and bridges.

Going back to the 19th century, men like Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford created a demand for roads at a time most highways were dirt (and often mud), when many were toll roads maintained by private entrepreneurs. Carnegie invested in railroads and found it hard to find steel for rails. He built steel mills to supply his railroads, as well as the framework for modern buildings. Henry Ford invented cars which were tall enough to navigate the rutted roads of the time. As people bought cars, they demanded public roads on which to drive, and cars became sleeker and faster.

Returning to coal and oil for a moment, Obama and Hillary want to replace them with “clean, renewable” energy as quickly as possible.  In 2015 the United States generated about 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity, which runs our homes and business.  About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum): 33% Coal; 30% Natural Gas; 1% Petroleum.  The production cost using fossil fuel is about $0.04 per kwh, compared to $0.25 per kwh for solar. In order to make the latter even remotely feasible, it is heavily subsidized by tax money (more accurately, borrowed money). Unlike fossil fuel, which is available on demand, “green” energy depends on the wind and sunlight.  There is no way, at present, to store excess energy for use when wind and sun aren’t available, so coal and natural gas provide the backup.

Trump, the builder

In a speech on August 19, 2016, in Diamondale, Michigan, Donald Trump promised to reverse The Obama/Clinton ban on coal and exploration, claiming it will produce over $6 trillion in tax revenues alone over the next 4 years, and at least 500,000 high paying jobs. Apparently Trump thinks we have enough people selling French fries and T-shirts.

Who will take these jobs? Trump has plans for education too, with a renewed emphasis on charter schools for children of depressed neighborhoods and others who want to learn skills beyond basic survival. The selection will be based on merit, not lotteries as in the magnet schools favored by Obama/Clinton and the Democrats.

Speaking of building things, there is the famous Trump Wall which Trump promises to build between Mexico and the United States to stem the flow of illegal immigration. This goal is corrupted by Democratic Spin Masters to say Trump is against all immigrants and immigration. However it is these legal immigrants who suffer the most from illegal immigration. Lacking education and language skills, new immigrants tend to occupy the lowest wage jobs. Illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs, but without documentation they must work at the offered wages without any real ability to complain.

Perhaps Mr. Trump should rephrase his statements to say that it is a metaphor for a wall which already exists – the law?  It is the law which is being ignored or usurped by the current administration. The law is not just a wall but a ceiling, which extends from border to border and beyond.

The other thing Mr. Trump can rebuild is our relationships with other countries. President Obama has pursued “deals” with our enemies and ignored our friends. It is based on the philosophy that any deal is better than no deal. Mr. Trump built his business on the principle that a bad deal is worse than no deal. In a negotiation, you can’t get the best deal if you are unwilling to walk away from the table. This is a technique well known to anyone who has bargained for a new car.  It is utterly foreign to a President and his designated successor, who have apparently never owned a car nor driven one.

 

 

 

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Community-school

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

We should have known America was in for major changes when Michelle Obama stated: “We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” A few months later, Barack confirmed by stating: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Oh, yes, there were warnings as to their plans, but who thought they had meant to change the very core of who we are as a people?

Our first major clues of the changes our president had in mind were evident in those he chose for his cabinet. Victor Davis Hanson mentioned some of Obama’s questionable liberal choices in an article that described the “worst of the worst.” However, he missed Arnie Duncan, Secretary of Education, who ushered in the controversial Common Core Standards. See here for Part 1.

Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arnie Duncan, is now pressing forward to go beyond the controversial Common Core.  Duncan has a new plan for America’s children as outlined under S1787, which aims to amend Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a full-service community schools grant program, specifically for those who are our most vulnerable children. This is no surprise considering Duncan has the support of President Obama who shares his liberal ideas. Duncan’s newest education plan is a huge leap towards fulfilling his radical goals, one of which is seen in this statement:

“…We have pursued a cradle-to-career education agenda, from early childhood programs through post-secondary graduation.  We have to learn to think very differently about time. I think our school day is too short.  I think our school week is too short.  I think our school year is too short.”

Diane Ravitch presents this devastating critique of Arne Duncan assigning him an F grade.  Ravitch believes it will take years to recover from the damage that Arne Duncan’s policies have inflicted on public education.

One Step at a Time Toward Federal Control

Secretary Duncan would prefer our children spend up to 12 hours a day at school and cut out most summer vacation time.  He has even discussed having public boarding schools, although it is unclear who will pay for such an expense. Suzanne Hammer explained Duncan’s philosophy in this statement:

“With this administration, the mantra of “the end justifies the means” governs these officials’ actions.  If the end is to have more control over the indoctrination of children by keeping them away from parents longer, the administration feels justified in using whatever steps are necessary to do so.  It seems the government is willing to convert and expand government controlled schools into public boarding schools, at taxpayer expense.”

Some would claim that Hammer’s opinion is outrageous, and such a plan will never happen?  Well, maybe not immediately, but it is possible when its  promoters take one step at a time. Common Core acquainted the public with a break from education being the total responsibility of the state, by first introducing and then promoting it at the federal level.  The end result was a definite reduction of local control.

We also know several states have begun increasing student school time.  President Obamas’ former Chief of Staff and Secretary Duncan’s friend, Chicago Mayor Rham Emanuel, increased public school hours in Illinois. Teachers were required to work 58 hour weeks.  However, problems occurred when teachers began complaining about the extra hours and excessive work load.  Teacher unions demanded raising salaries and/or hiring part time teachers.  Assessing the high financial costs of increasing school hours became a significant issue, as estimates indicated the need for hundreds of millions in funding, depending upon the specific number of increased hours.  Ideas as to how to procure the extra financing were discussed, but the possibility of raising the amount deemed necessary within the state proved difficult.

Other states bought into the concept of longer school hours and additional school days, and they too realized the need for additional funding.  It became obvious in order to have longer hours and more school days, additional financing would be necessary from federal sources.  Perhaps the additional funding requirements associated with adapting to Common Core, had already caused a funding crisis in their schools, which might help explain why Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown introduced S.1787:  Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2015.

As we look at S1787, which authorizes federal funding for “Community Schools” and knowing plans for these schools are already in place, we all need to take a closer look at the escalating problem of federal intervention into our schools.  It might be prudent to take another close look at dismantling the federal Department of Education.

Alex Newman in his August 12, 2015 article states:  “Obama’s ‘Community Schools’ program aims to replace parents.”  He provides facts highly critical of Obama’s and Duncan’s project, and makes it clear that children ensnared by these schools can spend virtually most of the day confined to classrooms.

Duncan’s selling point is that students will benefit by all of the ’services’ the school will provide.  The end result is that “Community Schools”, with long hours and special “services”, will make a child’s family irrelevant.”  Some say, “of course, that is one of the program’s major goals.”

What to Expect When Government Intrudes Upon Parental Rights

When schools go way beyond their role of providing a strong academic education and instead assume responsibilities traditionally expected of parents, it could be described as welfare on steroids. It is an unhealthy intrusion upon parental rights, with the possibility of families becoming addicted to another federal government welfare program.  For low income families, a school that provides for their child’s every need from academics to health care; supplying students with every meal and choosing their entertainment in the evening hours is tempting.

However, is it really beneficial to the health of our country to allow government to become responsible for raising our children?  Is it prudent to force students to be at school the whole day? The apologists for this extreme system claim it will keep “at risk” kids off the streets and have them in a safe environment.  However, what is the ultimate impact on children to have teachers as their custodians and psychologists hearing their problems?  Parents are not perfect, but they are more likely to offer a more authentic love and interest in their child than paid strangers.

Critics might ask what we recommend to solve the problem of crime in the most vulnerable cities, as they suggest a lack of education can be part of the problem. The answer is that America has endured far more difficult hardships and financial times than anything experienced in our lifetime. Previous generations not only survived hard times, they did so without government assistance. The  difficulties caused them and America to grow stronger. Family, neighbors and churches helped those in need, and that system worked best, because it was temporary assistance born out of a personal relationship with someone going through hard times.

The recipients were greatly appreciative of those who helped them, and the provider felt good about the help offered. It was a far better system than the “forced” system today. Economically, having government as the facilitator, automatically cuts into funds before reaching the needy. Even more problematic is that after years of accepting welfare, recipients have begun to  feel entitled to the steady support, and tax payers resent paying the taxes, without the reward of knowing or seeing the recipient helped. When individuals give on a one to one basis, they know who is deserving of assistance … and who is not.  The personal welfare system proved effective and also  benefited children who learned the reward of personal giving and the feeling of  gratitude when their family was helped.   Children learned life changing lessons, such as the value of a good education, because that translated into well paying jobs.

Big Government and Education Not Compatible

Proof that the government cannot solve people’s financial situations is the “War on Poverty”, in which government has already invested  fifty years of time and a whopping $22 trillion cost to taxpayers.  The result has been a colossal failure:  poverty actually increased.  The answer to prosperity is that people need to be empowered, not enslaved by easy money from the government.   Children learn life lessons best through experiences, both good and bad.

If S1787 becomes law, parents will become increasingly irrelevant over time.  Government must have more faith in the public, and parents need to have more pride and confidence in themselves.  It is best when children are taught and raised by parents, with minimal intrusion from our government, otherwise we will appear more like a socialist state than citizens living in the land of the “free and the brave”.    America  became great through the efforts of  self-sufficient, proud, caring, and capable people. It is those attributes that will most benefit our families and successfully lead us into the future.  Let us never forget President Reagan’s famous quote:  “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Part 1: http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2015/09/thorneroneil-if-common-core-is-extremely-troubling-beware-of-s1787-part-1.html#more

BRAND_BIO_BSFC_153549_SF_2997_005_20131206_V1_HD_768x432-16x9

By Nancy Thorner & Elvira Hastings – 

It was on Wednesday, December 17, that President Obama instructed the Secretary of State to immediately initiate discussions with Cuba on the normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba to ease the U.S. trade embargo and move toward full diplomatic relations, with the possibility of re-establishing an embassy in Havana. Following Obama’s announcement the Vatican issued its own same day statement expressing Pope Francis’ “warm congratulations for the historic decision taken by the Governments of the United States of America and Cuba to establish diplomatic relations.”

The White House credits Pope Frances with being an important catalyst to the diplomatic thaw between Cuba and the United States. While the eighteen month negotiations took place primarily in Canada, the final deal was worked out at the Vatican and personally attended to by the first Latin American, pope, Pope Francis. Obama said during his fifteen minute speech: “His Holiness Pope Francis issued a personal appeal to me and to Cuba’s president, Raul Castro, urging us to resolve Alan’s case and to address Cuba’s interests in the release of three Cuban agents, who’ve been jailed in the United States for over 15 years.”  Cited by the White House is how the Pope raised the issue repeatedly with Obama when the two men met at the Vatican in March of 2014.

Following Obama’s December 17th statement, the Vatican issued its own same day statement expressing Pope Francis’ “warm congratulations for the historic decision taken by the Governments of the United States of America and Cuba to establish diplomatic relations.” The statement also confirmed that in recent months, Pope Francis wrote letters to both Castro and Obama, and “invited them to resolve humanitarian questions of common interest, including the situation of certain prisoners, in order to initiate a new phase in relations between the two Parties.”

 Raul Castro’s Victory Lap Speech contradicts Obama’s message

What the Cuban people heard were not the reforms in diplomacy as delivered by President Obama. Instead, they heard Raul Castro’s Embargo in his Victory Lap Speech as he spoke simultaneously to the Cuban people as President Obama delivered his remarks.  Castro explained the release of both USAID worker Alan Gross (who had been subjected to various abuses in Cuban prison for attempting to connect Cuban Jews to the Internet) and the three Cuban spies convicted of crimes in the United States, as a promise kept by “Comrade Fidel.”

Raul Castro further noted how the new diplomatic relations were a sign that Cuba can “resolve differences through negotiations without renouncing to even one of our principles,” going on to applaud  “the heroic Cuban people” for “remaining loyal to our ideals of independence and social justice.”  And in a definite swipe against President Obama, Castro touted how the new reforms would help in “the actualization of our economic model to construct a prosperous and sustainable socialism.” Although Castro did note that the decision by President Obama deserved the respect and recognition of the Cuban people, he placed blame on President Obama’s shoulders and called for Obama to lift the embargo entirely through executive action.

Former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said on the Fox News Channel on the day of Obama’s announcement (December 17) that Obama’s move constituted “appeasement” and is a “very, very bad signal of weakness and lack of resolve by the president of the United States.

Anger and condemnation was the prevailing GOP reaction to Obama’s announcement of a thaw in U.S.-Cuba relations.  Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called Obama’s action “appeasement of a dictatorship.”  House Speaker John Boehner remarked how it “emboldens all state sponsors of terrorism. But not so with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul who not only said Obama had made the correct decision to allow more trade with Cuba as it will lead to a freer Cuba, but that the president had also acted within his executive authority to do so.

Republicans who like Ran Paul support Obama’s new Cuba policy (including Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and Representatives Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Rep. Mark Sanford Mark of South Carolina), all have in common the fact that they were born after the 1959 Cuban revolution. The same describes younger Cuban-Americans who are skeptical of the sanctions against their ancestral homeland and don’t subscribe to the hardline Cold War rhetoric that accompanied the 196l embargo.

Were Senator Ron Paul and others favoring Obama’s decision aware of the measure the Cuban government declared a day before Obama announced his thawing of U.S.-Cuba relation? The mainstream media was certainly nowhere to be found.

In an official announcement in state newspaper Granma, just one day before President Obama announced sweeping changes that would allow potential American investment in Cuba on Tuesday, December 16, the Cuban government announced a new measure that would allow Cubans who work for foreign companies to keep only 8% of their salaries. In other words, even if a foreign company has the means to pay more than a Cuban company, the worker will receive the same salary as if he were working for a Cuban company, and the government will pocket the rest, 92%!  In addition to the 92% of salaries being pocketed by the Cuban government, Cuban government employment offices will charge 20% of the salary of each worker they connect to the corporation for the service of finding said corporation employees. Employees will also lose 9.09% of their salaries for “vacation time.”

Given this new government measure, American companies who might like to do work in Cuba would be keeping very little of the money they invested and earned in business, but instead would line the pockets of the communist government. As Raúl Castro noted in his speech, the Cuban government made no concessions in this recent negotiation with the United States, save the freedom of Gross and one other American agent whom President Obama did not name, which leaves it open to sanctioning American companies who dare attempt to do business on the island as they see fit.

 Account of one who escaped from Castro’s Cuba as a teenager

Below are excerpts from an article, “Obama, Castro and the Pope,”http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/68438  by Elvira Fernandez Hasty, my friend and collaborator a devout life-long Catholic.  It was first published on December 18 at Canada Free Press. Elvira Hasty knows firsthand of what she speaks and doesn’t mince words. Soon after Fidel Castro came to Cuba there were rumors of the government takeover of private schools. Elvira was sent as a young teen to the USA via the Pedro Pan program to live with cousins of her mother in Tampa, Florida.  It was to be a temporary situation, just until the government in Cuba changed to a democracy, but after all these years Cuba is still a communist country.  It is the USA that has changed.

The Obama promise of “a radical transformation of America” is being accomplished in a blatant disregard for our constitution and our laws, and no one seems to do anything about it.  Apparently not being called racist by the liberal press is more important to our elites in government and society than to save our country.

Not only it is the USA becoming a Marxist tyranny under President Obama, but even the Catholic Church leader, Pope Francis, is helping out in achieving it.  What makes this Pope think he can meddle in the politics of an independent country?  And this from a person who has no idea of economics, history, and what communism has done to humanity. Does he not understand that being a “do-gooder” without knowledge always ends up in disaster for those they wish to help?  Father Jonathan of Fox News is happy for the Cuban people——really?  For what?  Nothing will change for them.  There is no embargo.  This is another scam perpetrated by the Marxist media and the billionaire thugs, just like Global Warming.  Cuba has been for years able to trade freely with every other country in the world.  In addition, the USA trades with Cuba, but on a limited basis.  The problem has always been credit the Cuban government demands when trading.  Just ask those countries that have traded with Cuba and never got paid. Obama will now have the funds to help out the communist Cuban government. 

 And help it is!  Cuba is close to complete economic meltdown.  It can no longer rely on Russia because it has its own economic problems.  And Venezuela’s economy is suffering due to the decrease in oil prices.  Cuba had been relying on Venezuela providing oil to just survive.  Not to worry, Castro boys; Obama comes to the rescue!  He will never let down one of his own comrades. After all, too few communist countries are left and Obama needs friends.  In addition, the Chamber of Commerce can never turn down a good scam, just like with illegal aliens.  As money from tourists and exported goods reach Cuba, the Castro brothers and their friends will become richer and more powerful while the Cuban workers will continue to be paid in cheap pesos. 

To the Americans who so much desire to travel to Cuba, my sincere prayers that you would realize what your money would do to your country before you start packing that suitcase.  Life is really not about pleasure, but about love & sacrifice for your fellow human beings in this world.

To the Catholic leaders who wish to help the Cuban people, my prayers, too, that you would realize the evil that has descended upon our country and the Church.  Your purpose is to save souls, not to be used as pawns for the Devil.

 Postlude

The outgoing head of the Senate’s foreign relations committee, Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the son of Cuban immigrants, noted on a Jan. 4th Sunday morning news program that he knew nothing about the eighteen month Cuba deal to normalize relations with Cuba.  Furthermore, Senator Bob Menendez was not at all pleased that this nation got nothing for giving up all the Castro regime wanted to see and had lobbied for.

In so far as President Obama stated in his Dec.17th announcement that the change in U.S.-Cuban relations came about because isolation hadn’t worked, further stating that Cubans should not face harassment or arrest for expressing their views, Obama then promised to monitor human rights violations.   President Obama didn’t have long to wait when only two weeks after his announcement human rights activists and political dissidents were arrested.  Signaling that Cuba will continue to suppress dissent, Cuban’s President Raul Castro detained more than 50 activists on Tuesday, December 30, in what was reported a move to squelch a planned gathering in Havana’s Revolution Square on New Year’s Day. Also of concern is that although the U.S.-Cuba deal called for the release of 53 political prisoners held by the Castro regime, so far the prisoners have not been released or even identified.

In spite of the harsh response to the crackdown by the Obama administration and the State Department, the Obama administration has been stung by Cuba’s crackdown on dissidents.  Little seems to have changed in Havana despite President Obama’s diplomatic outreach.  What are the odds of the Obama administration taking any action other than its rhetorical protests against human rights abuses in Havana? Did President Obama just give the Castro regime in Cuba an unwarranted bailout?  For more than a half century there was the bi-partisan consensus of 10 presidents with a consistent policy toward Cuba.  It never occurred to any of them to surrender to Cuba.

Obama seems to relish trading Americans who hate America for foreign terrorists and murderers who also hate America, i.e., the swap of Bowe Bergdahl for five members of the Taliban’s high command.  Obama also seems to hold deep affection for hardline Islamic states, so anything could happen in the next two years.  Iran might even be looked on favorably by the Obama administration and given an Embassy, so desperate is Obama to sign a nuclear deal which wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on!

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

PROTEST-metro-ss-slide-1DLN-jumbo

By Nancy Thorner – 

Racial tension in America has exploded. Whoever would have thought that people would march arm in arm down streets chanting: “What do you want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now!” They got exactly what they asked for when a black man assassinated two unsuspecting police officers while they sat in their patrol car, declaring the murders an act of revenge.

After the assassination of two patrol officers on a Brooklyn street on Saturday, December 20, wary NYPD cops are now letting minor crimes side. They are writing almost no summons and making arrests only when they must. Naturally concerned about their safety, law enforcement officers want to go home to their wives and kids after their shifts end.

The issue of race has become a primary focus in this nation. The catalyst for the protests that erupted across this nation last month followed a grand jury’s decision not to indict a white police officer in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, in a St. Louis suburb. Following on the heels of the Michael Brown decision, a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict a white police officer in the choke hold death of Eric Garner, another unarmed black.

In the aftermath of these two incidents, protests grew in intensity along with demands to increase scrutiny of police tactics.  President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and so-called civil rights leader, Al Sharpton, were largely responsible for the escalation of the tension.

When President Obama was asked a few days ago in an NPR interview whether the nation is more racially divided than it was six years ago, he responded:  “No, I actually think in its day-to-day interactions it’s less racially divided.”  Obama seems to be living in an alternative world as he wants to see it, one that is divorced from reality.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once marched with a positive message of peace.  His leadership resulted in accomplishments that eventually led to this nation electing its first black president. Ironically, under President Obama’s leadership, racial tensions have increased with riots, chaos and hatred. Absent is a strong black leader with the heart and spirit of Dr. King to unite us.

The individual facts of the Brown and Garner incidents do not matter to those who turn out to protest. Instead, it is the occurrences themselves that reinforce what the protesters believe to be true. This truth is based on perception, which often becomes reality. Presently the African-American community (more than 40 million) perceives itself as the targeted victim of white police brutality and that the entire white-dominated and controlled justice system is fixed against them making it clear that blacks will never get justice.  If this is true, how is it possible that Barack Obama was elected twice with the support of millions of white voters and that the head of the federal justice system, Eric Holder, is an African American?  And what about the Homeland Security Secretary who is an African-American?  African-Americans are serving in Congress.  They have also been elected as big city Mayors, members of City Councils, members of State legislatures, admirals, generals, university professors, journalists, TV anchors, CEO’s, famous artists, movie stars, athletes, senior police officials, etc.

Despite having made significant strides over the decades,it is disheartening that the perception of millions of African-Americans dates back to the old practices prevalent during the dark days of legally sanctioned segregation, with all the lynchings, Ku Klux Klan violence, and open intimidation against Blacks. Not to be dismissed is that police have been known to use excessive force. When killings of Black Americans by police officers have not been justifiable, police officers should be held accountable for their actions just like everybody else. It’s a stretch of the imagination, however, to conclude that isolated instances of while police misconduct should lead to the widely shared perception that white police brutality is systemic and that more than 40 million black Americans are now targets of excessive use of force that includes deliberate killings.

With the election of President Obama in 2008, even those who were not happy campers hoped that the election of the first black president would go a long way in helping to heal the country’s racial divide that still existed.  But this wasn’t to be. Belong long the political weapon of skin color was used against those who disagreed with President Obama’s agenda.

Such race baiting has led to harming this nation’s culture. No longer must a reasonable level of scrutiny be met in order for a divisive racial narrative to be put forth and bolstered by the media. This has resulted in the inability of the many Americans to view accusations of racism responsibly and objectively when they really do occur.

This is not a racist country. According to a recent Bloomberg Politics poll, a majority of Americans, 53%, believe that race relations have worsened under America’s first black president.  It is a small group of individuals who are invested in driving a narrative that whites are against blacks. This minority is likewise using poor blacks in urban areas to serve the interest of black leaders, such as shake down artist Al Sharpton. Sharpton has latched onto the tragedies and pushed the theme that any scenario that results in a black person being killed by a white person is murder attributed to racism. For Sharpton it’s open season for killing black men. The killings of Brown and Garner by white cops are being touted by Sharpton as the norm, instead of the isolated instances that they are.   Facts and statistics never stand in the way of Sharpton’s oratory.

Saner heads do recognize that the deaths are tragedies and that institutional racism is not to blame. Tragically this is not so, especially among young people. They have been taught through academia and the media that America is still a fundamentally bigoted country. Given this false narrative, it becomes virtually impossible for society to have an open, mature discussion about race.

Black American Jason Riley, Editorial Board member of the Wall Street Journal, had this to say in this excerpt from his book, “Please Stop Helping Us”, in regard to what the left won’t tell you about black crime:

The shooting is not because of drug or gun laws. The problem is primarily cultural — self-destructive behaviors and attitudes all too common among the black underclass.  The problem is black criminal behavior, which is one manifestation of a black pathology that ultimately stems from the breakdown of the black family. Liberals want to talk about what others should do for blacks instead of what blacks should do for themselves.  But if we don’t acknowledge the cultural barriers to black progress, how can we address them?  How can you even begin to fix something that almost no one wants to talk about honestly?

It is not an easy road to hoe for individuals like Jason Riley who advocate that people in black communities look in the mirror at themselves, even suggesting that there might be a reason why blacks are often racially profiled.

It is not an easy road to hoe for individuals like Jason Riley who advocate that people in black communities look in the mirror at themselves, even suggesting that there might be a reason why blacks are often racially profiled. Former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani noted that people should also be talking about the problem of black-on-black crime.  Although Giuliani did place some responsibility on the police department to train their officers better and make their police departments more diversified, he further noted, “But I think just as much, if not more, responsibility is on the black community to reduce the reason why the police officers are assigned in such large numbers to the black community.”  When Giuliani assigned police officers with Commissioner Bratton and Commissioner Safir, he do so based on statistics and not based on race. Said Giuliani: “If I had put all my police officers on Park Avenue, and none in Harlem, thousands and thousands more blacks would have been killed during the eight years I was mayor.”Some facts:  On the eve of the 2010 Census there were 40 million black Americans, the nation’s second largest minority group in the first decade of the 21st century.  The Hispanic minority population ranked first.  In 2010 Cook County, Illinois had the largest black population of any county (1.4 million) in this nation.

Black genocide is happening in America, but not by white cops.  Although the black population of this nation stands at 13%, one-half of all murders are committed by blacks.These three factors contribute to black genocide in America:

1.  Black on black murder – over 90% of young black men are killed by other young black men.

2. The absence of fathers in black households – over 70% of black babies are born to a single parent.  Prior to 1960 and the War on Poverty the percent was reversed – at least 70% were born to two parent households.  It is not surprising that one of the leading indicators of poverty is single motherhood

3.  Abortion – black mothers are five times more likely to abort their babies than white mothers.  A recent report stated more black babies were aborted than born in New York City.

Not to be forgotten is the creation of the Welfare State (President Johnson’s War on Poverty Program in the 60’s) and failed Democratic policies which failed to reduce the rate of poverty among blacks.

When will we be able to engage in civil discussion about racial divisiveness in this nation? Unfortunately civil discussion will remains impossible to conduct until the Left admits it has a problem, that of black-on-black crime.  There is not an epidemic of white cops killing young blacks men. In inner city black ghetto neighborhoods, it is cops who prevent these areas from becoming the wild, wild, west.

Yes, black lives do matter, but have the lives of young blacks living in Chicago and many other inner cities really matter to politicians?  And what about the lives of law enforcement officers who put their lives in danger day in and day out.  Do they not matter?

Monday, April 28, 2014

Comments

Ed Ingold said…

When President Reagen agreed to amnesty for 1 million immigrants, the final count was 4 million. People swarmed across the border to take advantage of the program. President Obama demands amnesty for 11 million immigrants. Does that mean 44 million this time?

We don’t know who is actually in the country now. In lieu of a firm headcount, the Census Bureau makes estimates. Furthermore, starting with the 2010 census, President Obama moved the Census Bureau from the Department of Commerce to the White House, under Rahm Emanual at the time.

Minimum Wage Fuels Poverty

February 26, 2014

By:  Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil

Minimum wage has become a contentious political issue, even though it has little to do with a living wage.  Workers’ salaries are decided by employers whose decisions are based upon the worth that employee and job is to the company.  A business must be run to make a profit, for the sake of every employee and owner whose lives are dependent upon that viability.  An overreaching federal government’s tampering with private enterprise can do more overall harm than good.

Nevertheless, Democrats plan to tap into what they see as one more opportunity to use class warfare as a political tool.  Inserting buzz words such as “inequality” and “social justice” and using minimum wage as a plank in their populist economic platform is one more easy way to gain votes in the November election.

President Obama and Democrat candidates hope their rhetoric will resonate and that the public will not discover a prevailing fact that should make a difference in the minds of the majority. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (the “government’s own bean counter) Obamacare will result in the loss of two-to two-and-a-half million jobs in the years ahead, and another CBO report notes President Obama’s proposed minimum wage hike would result in another half-million lost jobs.

The Democratic ploy in their election-year playbook, to hold Republicans hostage to raising the minimum wage, can be blamed on President Bush.  He issued an executive order raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for future federal contractors.

Minimum wage continues to be a priority for President Obama. Recently Obama used his weekly address (Saturday, Feb. 22), to cajole Congress into approving a raise in the federal minimum wage that now stands at $7.25 per house, further noting that “while the economy was beginning to recover from the last recession, wages have barely ticked upwards over the past four years.”

According to ObamaRaising Americans’ wages isn’t just a good deed; it’s good business and good for our economy.  It helps reduce turnover, it boosts productivity, and it gives folks some more money to spend at local businesses.

A day before this weekend’s address of Friday, Feb. 21, President Obama pitched the same message at a meeting with members of the Democratic Governors Association in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, at which Obama admitted that higher pay is not only “good policy, it also happens to be “good politics.” =

Meanwhile, John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House, believes it’s a job killer.  Boehner once said that he would rather commit suicide than vote for a “clean” increase.

The President is correct in saying that an overwhelming majority of the American people favors minimum wage hikes.  A Quinnipiac poll (January 8th), indicated voters support raising the minimum wage, but are split on the amount.   Despite this apparent support for an increase, half of the voters believe raising the minimum wage would cause businesses to cut jobs.

One cannot help but wonder what could produce this seemingly mixed resultOne explanation is that the American people tend to be compassionate in nature when suffering is perceived, and believe it is not right for a person to work full time and then have to raise their family in poverty.

At the same time there is a dichotomy over concerns expressed for minimum wage workers and what issues Americans care most about.  In a recent Gallop poll conducted on what Americans rate as this country’s biggest problem, raising the minimum wage didn’t make the Top 10.  Unemployment and jobs was rated #1, while Poverty came in at #10.

This all suggest that the Quinnipiac poll might have produced different results had the questions been asked in a different sequence or if those questioned had been privy to facts which dispute any suggested benefits accrued by increasing the minimum wage for low income workers. Certainly most people would prefer some income rather than none, and how can we justify raising the minimum wage if evidence indicates it would increase the jobless rate in America.

Part 2:  FDR and the Minimum Wage; 27 years ago the New York Times got it right; President Johnson’s War on Income Equality and over-the-board raises; and why Minimum Wage hikes make all we buy more expensive.

 

 

 

 

Dismantling the Regulatory State is a Good Place to Start:
Part 2: Fasten Your Seat belts for Another Unbridled Year of Rules and Regulations

Turning to 2014, how will the year stack up for issuing federal rules and regulation sans Congressional involvement? Fasten your seat belts, for federal agencies are off to a running start! It will be a bumpy ride. Expect contentious fights ahead over many new rules stemming from ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, Immigration, EPA regulations, Energy, Climate Change, and a host of other issues.

In the first three days of 2014 there were 141 new regulations issued by federal agencies. Of the 141 issued 119 are “rulemaking,” meaning they establish a new rule; twenty-three are “non-rulemaking,” meaning the regulation does not establish a new rule. It is no surprise that the largest group of regulations have to do with energy and environmental issues and were issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Noted here are two of the new EPA regulations set forth during the first three days of 2014:On Friday, January 3rd, the EPA published its final carbon capture regulation rule that is meant to remove potential obstacles in the implementation of carbon capture and sequestration (CSS) technology. These standards are viewed by many as a “war on coal” as carbon capture is costly and unproven

Also on Friday, January 3rd, the EPA proposed new standards for harmful emissions from new woodstoves and heaters. These standards would not take effect until 2015 and would only apply to wood heaters made after that. The claim is made that this rule would significantly reduce the pollution linked to heart attacks, strokes and asthma. The Hill, in its December 29, 2013 report, listed the ten biggest regulatory fights expected to take place in 2014:

1. Emissions standards for existing power plants. Obama has given the EPA until June to propose regulations limiting carbon emissions from existing power plants, the centerpiece of Obama’s climate change plan.

2. Regulations coming to e-cigarettes, cigars. The FDA is working on a regulation that could extend current rules to e-cigarettes, which produce vapor instead of smoke.

3. ObamaCare’s birth control mandate heads to court. The High Court is expected to hear arguments in the spring, agreeing as it did last November to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s so-called birth-control mandate.

4. Turbulence over plan to allow phones on planes. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) voted in mid-December, 2013, to consider lifting the longstanding ban on in-flight cell phone use. The prospect of loud conversations has sparked fierce opposition. While cell phone use is acceptable for FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, as it means fear about interference is no longer an issue, Transportation Secretary, Anthony Foxx, could step in to prohibit in-flight calls by imposing a new regulation.

5. EPA to assert power over streams and ponds. The EPA has started the process of declaring that it has the power to regulate streams, brooks, and small ponds, as it seeks to clear up uncertainly about its powers under the Clean Water Act. This followed a Supreme Court ruling last year which cast doubt on the extent of the EPA’s authority

6. Smog rule on the way. Obama dealt a blow to environmental activists in 2011 when he killed an EPA attempt to issue new standards on ozone, said to be the main contributor of smog. Obama proclaimed at the time that regulatory burdens could hurt the still-struggling economy, and how new rules were not necessary since the EPA was scheduled to review smog standards in 2013. Significant strides are predicted in 2014..

7. SEC to force executives to disclose pay. This is one of hundreds of regulations under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law that has not yet been implemented as a way to tighten the government’s reins on the financial sector. This is a potentially contentious regulation for companies who do not wish to disclose the gap in pay between their chief executives and average employees. Predicted is that its fate may ultimately by decided in Courts.

8. Calorie count coming to restaurant menus. This is one of the lesser-known provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The provision also includes snacks sold in vending machines.

9. Delays to rearview camera rule under attack. The Department of Transportation is already two years late on a regulation requiring all cars to have rearview cameras or similar technology.

10. OSHA to rekindle combustible dust debate. Although OSHA began work on a rule to regulate combustible dust in 2009, spring is the target date for proposing a new resolution. Businesses complain of the cost involved.

Are you one of many Americans who fails to connect the dots between government spending and how more government affects your life? Must likely you were shocked at the 3,659 rules and regulations issued in 2013, never realizing that the cost of big government affects the broader economy by way of fewer jobs, less income, and more expensive products and services. Regulatory costs in 2013 amounted to $14,678 per family.

Mentioned by Thorner were two Rules and Regulations issued by the EPA in the first three days of 2014. Although the EPA might only cost taxpayers about $8 billion in operational costs, the regulations put forth by the agency cost the economy untold hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Regulations by the EPA were up 44% in Obama’s first term. Other active rule-producing agencies are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, the Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation.

For your information, check out the Competitive Enterprise Institute report titled, Ten Thousand Commandments, which details the size, scope and cost of the federal regulatory behemoth, all 3,659 of them. cei.org/studies/ten-thousand-commandments-2013

As stated by Daniel Horowitz in The Hidden Tax of the Regulatory State:

Every Republican consultant is now giving advice on how to revive the languishing GOP. Some are pushing amnesty, others are pushing gay marriage, and still others are trying to resurrect compassionate conservatism. But we all know that the best strategy is one that effectively communicates to the American people how big government diminishes their quality of life. The regulatory state is a great place to start.

Dismantling the Regulatory State is a Good Place to Start: Part 1: Obama outshines Presidential peers: 3,659 Rules and Regulations during 2013

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/01/thorner-dismantling-the-regulatory-state-is…

 

Th-30  By Nancy Thorner – 

It is possible that President Obama was never advised that governing by Executive Order is not the wisest thing to do? It’s definitely not the panacea he may think it is! According to Princeton University professor Julian Zelizer, who teaches history and public affairs:

Administrative actions don’t have the same kind of impact in defining a president as big legislative accomplishments and they are more susceptible to being overturned. The next president can change them. That’s always the problem.

Noted recently in Business Insider, because of Obama’s limited ability to achieve his policy goals through legislation [brought about by his own belligerent attitude], he very well may increase his use of executive power on three of his legislative agenda priorities: 1) the farm bill, 2) immigration reform, and 3) a more lasting budget deal.

Rumblings are even under foot that Obama is seeking to halt insurance cancellations of individual insurance policies resulting from his healthcare law through means that wouldn’t require legislation.

In an Executive Order issued on Friday, November 1st, President Obama appeared to be seeking a chance to obtain a climate legacy as he faces the grim reality that much of his agenda is seemingly falling apart in Congress?  Obama lost on gun legislation earlier in the year.  There is a perception that immigration reform is on life support.  To top off Obama’s obvious frustration over his elusive, floundering agenda, what was to be his signature first-term achievement — Obamacare — suffered a disastrous roll out.  The promise of having the site up and running by Nov. 30th sounds like a pie-in-the-sky dream.

It was through the stroke of a pen that President Obama issued his latest executive order with its goal to prepare the U.S for the impacts of climate change.  Not unexpectedly there has been a mainstream media blackout since the mandate was signed and sealed on November 1st, insuring that Obama’s continued and blatant disregard of the division of power among three set branches of government has resulted in yet another under-the-radar abduction of control by Obama. This takeover concerns our nation’s climate change policy.  While the lack of concern by the mainstream media and others is predictable, inexcusable is why Congress is no where to be found with this latest usurpation by the President of their power?

Obama’s November 1st executive order builds on the Climate Action Plan unveiled in June, whose centerpiece was to be the application of new regulations to power plants.

Obama’s November mandate goes even further by citing facts from the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which basically amounts to a rubber stamp of the highly questionable finding of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCCP).

Following is an excerpt from President Obama’s new executive order, “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change”:

The impact of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economics, and public health across the Nation.  These impacts are often most significant for communities that already ace economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures.

New rules for power plants regulations mandate that CO2 emission from new coal-fired power plants are to be no more than 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hours of electricity produced.  The most efficient plant produces about 1,800 pounds.

In common layman language, the mandated rules would require a 40% reduction of CO2 emissions below that of the most efficient coal-fired plants, this despite the absence of surface warming in the past sixteen years and how climate models consistently overestimate global warming.  For all practical purposes, the new CO2 emissions rules would effectively prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants.

Also mandated by Obama’s Executive Order was the establishment of a volunteer “Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience” as a venue for suggesting ways in which the federal government can help communities face “the impacts of climate change,” including bracing for longer heat waves, heavier downpours, more severe wildfires and worse droughts.

This task force, to be composed of governors and mayor, must report to the White House within a year to suggest ways the government can best “remove barriers, create incentives and otherwise modernize federal programs to encourage investments, practices and partnerships that facilitate increased resistance to climate impacts, including those associated with extreme weather.”

Recommended suggestions will more than likely include infrastructure projects like bridges and measures to manage floor control. Such projects, however, do come with a hefty price tag, a tall order as no new federal funds were offered to support the task force.

Those who are tasked with carrying out Obama’s Executive Order are EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, both dedicated members of Obama’s green team.  McCarthy and Moniz are powerful advocates and defenders of the premise held by those who promote climate change action, “that the artificially contrived climate science debate has  ended.”

Gina McCarthy and Ernest Moniz will be making a series of speeches and media appearances to support and to promote what could provide the basis for a second-term climate legacy for Obama.

But things aren’t full steam ahead for McCarthy or Moniz in that a Pew Research Center poll conducted in mid-October shows that just 44% say believe that human activity causes global warming.  They will have lots of convincing to do on the trail.

As is so often the case, much in the same way Obamacare and the Common Core Curriculum are being sold to the public, executive orders are spun in a way to have the pubic believe that the government knows what is best for us. Here within lies the crux of the problem of Obama’s Executive Order on Climate Change:  It’s government grabbing for control which further involves following the money.

As reported by Fox News on November 1st in a story aired about Obama’s Climate Change mandate:

The federal government will control all of the purse strings  They will make certain that they get their piece of the pie, grabbing more taxes and funds to apply where and to whomever they please.  They will use all of the buzzwords platitudes necessary to lull their acolytes while lining their pockets and those of their cronies.  All the while creating a nation devoid of states’ rights. 

It goes without saying that the climate change mandate will result in crippling the economy and the economic well-being of the American people, all under the false and misguided premise that this nation and its people must be prepared for and made ready for what is only a perceived future climate change without scientific evidence or backing to merit the enactment of what would amount to extreme pain without gain!

Part 2:  Renowned scientists associated with The Heartland Institute bump heads with environmentalists at Chicago’s EPA listening tour, as the EPA prepares to draft new regulations to regulate greenhouse gases under the 40-year-old federal Clean Air Act.

Monday, November 11, 2013 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

 

270x300By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold – 

On Wednesday, April 17, of this year, the U.S. Senate rejected a bipartisan plan to expand background checks for gun buyers, dealing a crippling blow to President Obama’s campaign to “curb gun violence” in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre. It is noteworthy that the guns involved in the Newtown Massacre were legally purchased by the gunman’s mother, subject to some of the strictest regulations in the nation, including background checks.

An angry Obama said of the vote: “All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington, adding the effort is not over.”

Fast forward to Tuesday, August 27, when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder held a closed-door, private meeting with a group of mayors to talk about ways to reduce youth violence in U.S. cities. President Obama promised mayors that he would continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action and to press Congress to pass common-sense reforms like expanding the background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking.

Although 18 large city mayors attended from all over the nation, noticeable absent was Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel.  Is not Chicago know for its high crime rate irregardless of its strict gun control laws?http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/28/obama-promises-executive-...

Only two days later, August 29, the Obama administration made a surprise announcement through Vice President Joe Biden, when Biden,looking resolute and puffing his lips while standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Attorney General Eric Holder and U. S. Director of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Todd Jones, declared the Obama administration would take two new steps to curb American gun violence. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-exclusive-obama-offers-gun-control-steps-20104584

If Congress won’t act, we’ll fight for a new Congress, Biden said in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.  It’s that simple.  But we’re going to get this done.

But has Obama put politics ahead of people on Guns?  According to a report commissioned by his own CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), which dovetails with a recent study in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, neither banning nor reducing the number of firearms would reduce the number of murders or suicides.

A CDC report, ordered by President Obama, came to the following conclusions:  http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/obama-puts-politics-ahead-of-people-on-guns/

  • Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse.
  • Handguns, not so called assault weapons, are the weapons of choice by criminals.
  •   Mass shootings aren’t a growing problem, and constitute a tiny fraction of all homicides
  • Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide.
  • Guns are successfully used for self-defense more than twice asoften as for crime.
  •  It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers.

Upon evaluating the effectiveness of Obama’s two new executive gun orders, it becomes apparent that neither would do anything to prevent criminals from using firearms. They are deceptive and ineffective gun control measures enacted unilaterally by the President through executive mandates that bypass Congress and the will of the people.  http://www.toledoblade.com/Nation/2013/08/29/Obama-offers-new-gun-control-steps.html

As such President Obama seems intent on trumping fundamental rights based on political calculations that rely on the public’s emotional reaction, and not on a reasoned assessment of the facts.

Order one:  Ends the import of military surplus weapons — not machine guns — but military looking semi-automatic rifles.  More than 250,000 of these weapons have been imported and sold since 2005 and not a single one has been linked to a crime.

Through this mandate the re-import of military weapons the US donatedto foreign countries in the past would be banned.  We have given thousands of Garand (semi-auto) and Springfield bolt action rifles, even 30-40 Krag rifles from the 1890s, to our allies over the last century. Once returned, these rifles are sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program as an inexpensive way to train our youth. That program paid off big time in advance of WW2, the Korean Conflict and others to follow, not to mention training tens of thousands in marksmanship and gun safety. Perhaps Obama thinks firing a few dozen cruise missiles will replace an army of riflemen. However our experience at the beaches of Normandy, shores of Iwo Jima and more recently, Kosovo, shows that aerial bombardment alone is never a winning strategy.

Other guns banned from import include old Soviet Nagant rifles, which have been an inexpensive way for people to acquire center fire rifles for target shooting and hunting.  The thought that these rifles end up “on the street” is preposterous. They are uniformly large and heavy, hardly attractive to street thugs. How do you carry an eleven pound, four foot rifle in your “ride”? Under your hoodie? In short, the ban doesn’t need a purpose, it just needs to bypass Congress.

Order two:  Forces corporate board members and officers to undergo background checks if a gun was to be registered to the corporation, foundation or trust.  When is the last time anyone has heard of a foundation trustee or CRO using a gun registered to a corporation in the commission of a crime.  Of course the answer is never.

As such the thought of changing the way trusts and corporations are treated is even more devious. People buying NFA weapons (National Firearms Act of 1936, including short barreled rifles and machine guns) often set up a trust so that the weapon can be transferred to another qualified individual, upon death for example, with a longer grace period.The vetting process is exhaustive, including rules for transfer, as are rules for use and transportation.

The President’s proposals would simply make this process impossible to execute. Rules governing corporations go even further to the ridiculous. Can you imagine if General Motors needed to subject each employee to fingerprints and a background check if they bought weapons for their security staff?

The Obama administration has failed in gun control because it has failed to enforce existing gun laws.  Enforcing the laws would reduce crime.

The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009, but the justice department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.  http://www.policymic.com/articles/22802/gun-control-facts-existing-gu… This is yet another example of how the Obama administration chooses which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The Emperor, after all, is above the law.

Just how else is the Department of Justice helping reduce gun crime?  Most of the “gun” offenses in Chicago, for example, constitute a crime under Federal statutes, which carry long prison terms. These offenses include possession of a firearm by someone under 18 (21 for a handgun), a felon, altered serial numbers, and a battery of civil rights offenses. Rather than put these gang-bangers away for years, their average sentence under state law amounts to 3 months plus probation. (The man who shot 15 year old Hadya Pendleton was on probation for a felony.) Fewer than 1% of qualified offenses are prosecuted under Federal law. Apparently street crime is an acceptable alternative to facing the protests of parents deprived of their criminal offspring, rogue priests and community organizers. You don’t stop crime by taking guns from honest citizens. You stop crime by stopping criminals who use guns.

Emily Miller, senior opinion editor at the Washington Time wrote these choice and true words:   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/inside-obamas-wa…

The biggest fight in history over Americans’ right to keep and bear arms is being waged today. There were attacks on the Second Amendment in the early 1990s with the passage of the Brady bill and the “assault weapons” ban.

The gun control battle of 2013, however, could easily see the greatest losses of Second Amendment rights ever.

There are two key factors that make this assault more serious: billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is willing to spend anything to win, and a longtime anti gun fanatic Barack Obama, who is applying the full power of the presidential bully pulpit for the gun grabbers’ cause.

Do the American people have the will to fight back before more and more or their rights are stolen from them by one who lack respect for the fundamental truths upon which this nation was founded? How long do we tolerate an administration which proposes ineffective solutions to problems, in order to deflect attention from “phony” scandals?

Wednesday, September 04, 2013 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

 

As is the standard these days with so many low-information Americans, all they know is that something they are to dread, a sequester, is set to take effect on Friday, March 1, unless a deal is reached. And what makes so many Americans perceive that failure to reach a deal will usher in devastation of a catastrophic nature? Might is be because President Obama has been pounding home the horrendous effects of the sequester upon this nation, abetted by the mainstream media, should sequester become a reality on Friday.

Among many of Obama warnings: Furloughs of 800,000 civilian Pentagon employees; Air traffic controller furloughs resulting in three-hour waits at airports to clear security; 1,000 FBI agents laid off; fewer police and firefighters on the street; tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids, and thousands of teacher and educator layoffs. Still not satisfied with his veiled threats, on Tuesday (Feb. 16), Obama plans to head to a shipbuilding yard in Newport News, Virgina, (a defense heavy region) to highlight how potential job losses could negatively impact the economy of the region.

To make matters worse, besides believing Obama’s many warnings, many Americans (among them the same low information individuals) have no idea how the sequester came about or what the terms of the sequester are.

As explained in a post by Dylan Matthews on February 20 at the “Washington Post”:

The sequester is a group of cuts to federal spending set to take place on March 1 unless Congressional action is taken. Originally passed as part of the budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), it was intended as an incentive, because of the harsh nature of the cuts, to compel a select “Supercommittee” to reach a deal to cut 1.5 trillion over 10 years.  When a deal couldn’t be reached by Dec. 23 of 2011, President Obama, Vice President Biden and congressional leaders extended the deadline to January 1 of this year.  A perceived configuration by lawmakers of other economic policies occurring at the same time,  prompted lawmakers to move the sequester date to March 1.

The 2013 sequester includes $85.4 billion in cuts of discretionary spending across-the-board:  9.45 percent for defense and 8.2 percent for everything else.  No programs are actually eliminated.  The effect is to reduce the scale and scope of existing programs (slowing the growth)  rather than to zero out any of them.

As such the cuts of  $85.4 billion amount to a sliver of our nation’s 2013 budget of $3.8  trillion (1,000 billion equals one trillion).  The sequester cuts are even a tinier speck when pitted against America’s $16 trillion economy, yet according to President Obama a cut of 1/3 of 1% of our 2013 domestic economy (2.5 cents on every dollar) will throw this nation into a tailspin.  As of August of last year household income was down 8.2%, yet American people had to make do. To put the sequester in perspective,  Sandy Hurricane relief amounted to $60 billion.  Sequester is set at $85.4 billion.   Does it sound reasonable for President Obama to be telling the American people that government can’t do without a smidgen less?

What both angers and irritates Jonah Goldberg about the sequester, as stated in his “National Review” article of February 22:  “If the sequester goes into effect, the federal budget for this year will still be larger than last year’s ($3.553 trillion in 2013 vs. $3,538 trillion in 2012).  With the sequester in effect, federal non-defense spending will still be 10 percent higher than it was on 2008.”  Wasn’t it the aim of sequester to deal with the out-of-control national debt?

At $16 trillion and rising, our national debt is draining free enterprise and weakening this nation.  Our current Outstanding Public Debt of the the United States, as of Sunday, February 24th, 2013,  is $16,608,318,357,376.54.  Every man, woman and child in the United States currently owes $54,664 for their share of the U.S. public debt and still our spending continues.  Out of every dollar spent forty-six cents is borrowed by government.

Charles Krauthammer had this to say in a recent commentary in the “Wall Street Journal”:  “This is the most ridiculously hyped Armageddon since the Mayan calendar.  In fact, it looks worse that the Mayan disaster, this, as you say, can be solved in a day, in an hour by allowing a transfer of funds.  It’s incredibly soluble, easily soluble.  And the president is the one who ought to propose it.  He won’t, of course, because he is looking for a fight and not a solution.”

As alluded to by Charles Krauthammer, President Obama could agree to allowing individual agencies to decide less painless ways to trim a few pennies out of every dollar instead of across-the board cuts as required by the sequester. This idea was entertained by ABCNews’ Jonathan Karl and was asked of Ray LaHood in a briefing by LaHood to reporters about the sequester on Feb. 22.  Upon Hood announcing that the Transportation Department was planning to furlough air-traffic controllers around the country causing delays up to 90 minutes for travelers, Karl said to Lahood:  “You’re got a big budget.  Can’t you find some other way to cut that without telling air traffic controllers to stay home?”

Just what is the fly in the ointment that seems to preclude that no deal will be reached and sequester will kick in on Friday?  It is true that Republicans did vote for the sequester.  It passed with 269 “yea” votes in the house (174 Republicans).  In the Senate 28 Republicans joined nearly all Democrats, in a deal initially  dreamed up by Jacob Lew of the White House, now  Treasury Secretary nominee.

Republican are now in a bind and will be blamed for whatever they do.  Without the bully pulpit Republicans have been unable to reach the public to stake out the core problem responsible for the sequester deal in the first place, this nation’s unsustainable debt.  As an added insult to injury, Obama is insisting on tax hikes to accompany tax cuts.  Furthermore, although the biggest portion of our debt involves entitlement spending, entitlement reform is off limits to President Obama.

Meanwhile, Obama is going around  convincing the American people to accept tax cuts by presenting the choice as one between reasonable revenue increases  or catastrophic cuts that will let people die on the streets and allow poisoned food to sit on supermaket shelves.

How can this be so when the math of the sequester doesn’t add up to the amount of misery Obama is prophesying for the American people?  As  portrayed in one of  Aesop’s Fables, “The Boy Who cried Wolf” (“To cry wolf” is an English idiom meaning to give a false alarm.), Obama countless times has gotten away with telling the American people that they are one step away from a fate that sounds worse than death. The moral of “The Boy Who cried Wolf” is that liars are not rewarded, for even when consistent liars do tell the truth, no one believe them after too many lies.

How many more times will Obama be able be able to cry wolf by using a made up scenario that plays upon the emotions of the American people to escape blame for what he has sanctioned, while succeeding in casting total blame upon Republicans in an on going ploy to eviscerate and vilify the Republican Party and its leadership?  Will Obama ever be made to “pay the piper” for his deceptive rhetoric and policies.  So far his has been a Teflon presidency.

In that Obama was re-elected last November despite his propensity to do and say anything to win elections and to gain public support on timely issues (and it continues with the 2014 mid-term elections in mind), points to a serious problem.  Critical thinking skills are missing in so many Americans.  This is why Obama, without fail, is able to fool much of the public by crying wolf, helped along by a fawning, complacent, in-the-tank, and lazy main stream  press.

This brings to mind an old tale of my childhood about a hysterical hen who believes the sky is falling.  In the story of “Chicken Little” the hysterical hen jumps to the conclusion that the sky is falling, an event not worthy of belief.  The hysterical hen in turn succeeds in getting other animals to believe as she does with results that are unfavorable to all.

Too many Americans are like Chicken Little.  They jump to conclusion using information that doesn’t meet the smell test; accordingly, critical thinking skills are missing in so many Americans.  This is why Obama, without fail, is able to fool much of the public by crying wolf, for when critical thinking skills (the ability to judge for oneself) are missing, people become like sheep and can be led by one whose rhetoric and  policies are not what they seem to be.

Republicans must be wary, understanding that President Obama is forever campaigning (rather than leading), and that even now Obama is on the campaign trail to take back the House and keep control of the Senate in the 2014 mid-term elections.

The next big test after the Sequester will be how Republicans will handle the intense pressure to pass another continuing resolution before current government funding expires on March 27.  Are Republicans up to the task and the challenge of facing President Obama and Democrats?