Category: Guest Authors

Wolf Accepts Reality

Wolf Accepts Reality

By Leo Knepper

Wolf Accepts Reality
Gov. Tom Wolf

At a press conference Wednesday (March 23), Governor Wolf begrudgingly accepted reality and announced that he would allow the recently passed budget to become law. He will not sign the budget, but the Pennsylvania Constitution allows legislation passed by the General Assembly to become law ten days after passage if it is not signed or vetoed.

Initially, the Governor stated he would veto the budget, yet again, and drag the nearly nine-month saga out even longer to force the General Assembly to raise taxes. Wolf’s strategy was met with widespread criticism from within the Democratic caucuses and the usually friendly news media. On final passage, Democrats in the House and Senate joined with their Republican colleagues in voting for passage of the budget. Media reports also indicated that there would be widespread defections in the House and Senate among Democrats leading to a veto override if Wolf went down that path again.

While the budget could have done more to reign in out of control spending, it is a far cry from the Governor’s original proposal that would have required a multibillion-dollar tax increase to pay for even higher levels of spending. The enactment of this budget has an impact broader than funds being released to schools. Wolf’s 2016-2017 proposed budget had, in a flight of fancy, assumed that he would have gotten his way from the General Assembly in the 2015-2016 budget. By finally accepting lower spending for the current year, the baseline for the next budget decreases substantially. This would not have been possible without CAP members in the General Assembly, and other conservatives in Harrisburg.

We hope Governor Wolf learns some long-term lessons from his budget battle. However given his previous pronouncements about spending levels, we won’t be holding our breath.

Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Wolf Accepts Reality

Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

By Chris Freind Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

Does this sound familiar?

1. A terrorist attacks occurs.

2. Trite, boilerplate statements are released: “Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims;” “This aggression will not stand;” “We will bring the perpetrators to justice;” and, “This is not just an attack on (fill in the blank), but on all of humanity.”

3. “Thorough” investigations begin (code for law enforcement starting to do the job they should have been doing all along).

4. Arrests are made within 24 hours. A testament to outstanding police work, or the result of officials finally acting on intel that had already determined who and where the terrorists were? If you answered the former, go back to living under your rock.

5. People stage candlelight vigils, often more for the cameras and social media “Likes,” than for the actual victims.

6. Any attempt to affix blame — not for the sake of blame, but to ascertain exactly how and why the attack occurred, what went wrong in preventing it (or at least knowing about it), and developing plans to stop future attacks — is immediately criticized by the politically correct crowd. “Not now,” they say. “It’s callous and way too soon to talk about such things. They’ll be time for those discussions later.”

7. Time passes, people move on, and “those discussions” never occur. Complacency sets in again, and more ominously, the insensitivity that comes with increasingly frequent attacks.

8. Surprise, surprise. Another attack.

9. Go back to Point One.

* * *

When will we learn?

When will we learn that appeasement and burying our heads, in the naive hope that the threat will simply vanish, will never work?

And “our” refers to everyone except those doing the killing.

Quite frankly, it’s amazing that Islamic terror is as vibrant as it is, considering that five of the most powerful entities in world history share the goal of rooting out and destroying that festering threat.

America; Europe/NATO; Russia; China; and India. While each have differences in why they oppose radical fundamentalism — and different agendas in how the war on terror should be prosecuted — they nonetheless should be united in opposing ISIS and Al Qaeda. But they’re not — not even the U.S. and its European allies. Instead, bureaucracy, incompetence and the desire to placate political correctness allow the threat to gain a stronger foothold, especially in Europe.

Blame for that failure falls on each entity, but the United States (especially the George W. Bush administration that squandered the world’s good will after the 9/11 attacks), shoulders the most. As the only superpower, we could have taken the lead though common sense strategy, but instead embarked on a disjointed, wholly ineffectual policy that has allowed terrorists to blossom.

Enough with the meaningless tough-talk rhetoric. It’s time for a comprehensive strategy that keeps terrorists on the run, destroys their communication and financial networks, and jettisons political correctness.

Here’s how:

1. First and foremost, close the European (and American) borders, and end the refugee exodus. That’s not inhumane; it’s self-preservation. European countries have been languishing under socialist polices for years, stagnating their economies and putting tremendous strain on governments hell-bent on funding every social program imaginable. Throw millions of refugees — many uneducated and unskilled — into that malaise, where they are given extravagant housing and welfare, and you have the recipe for economic collapse. Such largesse not only kills the incentive for refugees to work and assimilate, but allows many to disparage Western culture and laws, while demanding unwavering respect for theirs.

Add that none of the refugees can reliably pass a background check because no one in the war-torn countries can verify anything, and you have another impossible task: Trying to keep tabs on a huge population, some of whom are undercover terrorists gaming the system (evidenced by the Paris attackers). These masquerading terrorists are salivating at the chance to upstage their compatriots’ “success” in Paris and Brussels; we may not be able to stop all of them, but let’s not roll out the red carpet.

Europe has been more than generous, but its open-borders policy must end immediately.

2. The goal should be to train refugees, in both military and civilian capacities, so that they can return to their countries, fight to win the peace, and effectively administer whatever government is formed. This cannot be an open-ended vacation; there must be an end-date to their stay in Europe. That way, European soldiers could guard their borders and not shed blood in the Middle East.

In that regard, all boots on the ground must be “locals.” We should train and arm them, and provide logistics, intelligence and air support, but America and the West cannot become entwined in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire where victory is impossible. Not only does it breed resentment (crusaders occupying their lands), but it has never worked. And it certainly won’t work now.

3. Assuming that countries like Syria can be “liberated,” the West cannot dictate what type of government should be established (a mistake made time and again by the Bush Administration that sought to impose “democracy).” Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad and Muammar Gaddafi may have been tyrants, but they kept the peace (there were no car bombs — ever — under Hussein’s reign). If Middle Eastern countries need to be ruled by strongmen who keep the terrorists at bay, so be it.

4. Can someone please tell the NSA to shift its priorities? Either their operations have been fatally curtailed by blowback from domestic spying (which would be insanity, since honing in on terrorists is what they should be doing), or their resources are focused on who has the best March Madness brackets.

5. Since we continually raid places that we clearly know are terror hotbeds, but only after attacks, maybe we should pretend it’s “Opposite Day” and hit them before they act. How novel.

6. Bring back torture. It works. Period. Despite the protestations of armchair academics sitting in their ivory towers, inflicting pain, physical and otherwise, on those with critical information works. No man is unbreakable. When thousands, or perhaps millions, of innocent lives hang in the balance, the “rights” of an animal go up in smoke. Perhaps literally.

If we don’t, it’s like fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. And no, Geneva Convention rules should not apply, since this is not a traditional war. We are fighting opponents who will never respect such protocols, and who gleefully target innocent civilians. Gloves-off is the only way to deal with such barbarians.

7. Finally, not only do we need to aggressively profile, but profile the right people without regard to “offending.” It is our first, best, and sometimes last line of defense in catching wind of a plot. How effective is it? Ask the Israelis, whose El Al, the most-highly targeted airline in the world, has only been hijacked once. Profiling works, and should be instituted immediately. Any whiny American who doesn’t like it can take the bus to Europe.
* * *
Employ common sense, and the terror threat can be hugely mitigated. But keep engaging in ineffective feel-good tactics and unwinnable Middle Eastern wars, and the attacks will continue. Time is running out, and that ticking you hear is most definitely not a clock.

Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

PSERS Loses Money

PSERS Loses Money




PSERS Loses Money

By Leo Knepper

The Pennsylvania Public Schools Employee Retirement System (PSERS), released its 2015 performance results last week, and they weren’t good. PSERS assumes a 7.5 percent rate each year to avoid appearing even more underfunded than its publically stated $44 BILLION in unfunded liabilities. For 2015, PSERS lost nearly 1.8 percent. When we’re dealing with billions of dollars, the difference between the pension plan’s expected returns and actual returns is a substantial amount of money.

Last year’s loss comes despite PSERS spending a small fortune on “active” fund managers who are supposed to anticipate future market conditions and invest resources accordingly. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“PSERS’s extra losses reflected its unusually large bets on commodity fund managers. The system posted a 33 percent loss for funds invested in “Master Limited Partnerships” (typically oil and gas investments), an 18 percent loss for commodities investments, and an 8 percent loss in “risk parity” investments, which can look a lot like hedge fund strategies.”

No fund manager can outperform the market every time, and this isn’t just the opinion of CAP. It a position widely held by well-respected academics and folks like Warren Buffet.

The previously mentioned Inquirer article notes that Montgomery County adopted a low-cost index fund investment approach two years ago. Last year, they substantially outperformed PSERS with a modest .3 percent return on investments. Montgomery County’s performance was not a fluke. In his book “Future Forsaken”, John McGinnis compares PSERS performance (and the others SERS system) to an index fund approach. He found that the low-cost option outperformed the current actively management funds across a thirty-year time horizon.

On top of outperforming active managers, switching to lower cost index funds could save taxpayers $750 million per year. Given the facts, there is no reason for the state’s pension systems to maintain the status quo and every reason to explore alternatives to protect taxpayers and future retirees.

Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

PSERS Loses Money

Wolf Pension Commission Reversal

Wolf Pension Commission Reversal By Leo Knepper

One of the casualties of Governor Wolf’s budget veto was a little-known agency that independently reviews proposed changes to pubic pensions and regulates municipal pensions. The Public Employee Retirement Commission (PERC) was established by law in 1972, and its duties were expanded by two separate laws subsequently. Despite its statutory basis, Governor Wolf decided he could eliminate PERC with the stroke of a pen.

Representatives Stephen Bloom and Seth Grove disagreed and filed a lawsuit to keep PERC open. The Governor continues to argue that he has the authority to eliminate the agency without any input from the legislature. However, the administration entered into an agreement with the lawmakers to keep PERC open, and it was approved by a court.

Governor Wolf’s position is that the work performed by PERC can be performed by other agencies. He may be correct. PERC’s role might be able to be filled by non-dedicated employees at substantial savings to taxpayers. However, Wolf does not have the authority to eliminate an agency created by law on a whim. Instead, he should go through the legislative process and respect the separation of powers.Wolf Pension Commission Reversal

Governor Wolf is taking a nice leisurely stroll down the road toward authoritarianism and taking a page out of President Obama’s playbook on executive overreach. Limitations on the authority of the executive branch does not seem to be something the he is inclined to observe. Wolf is in the process of creating a constitutional crisis by vetoing prison funding and then requesting the same funds to be distributed by the Treasurer. Finally, he unilaterally raised the minimum wage for state employees.

We are just over a year into Wolf’s tenure. It will be interesting to see what he tries to get away with next.

Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Wolf Pension Commission Reversal

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems By Chris Freind Leigh Anne Arthur

Pop quiz: Your house is left unlocked, and an intruder enters. The trespasser rifles through your private belongings and steals compromising information, which he then uses to incriminate you. With ample evidence of his crimes, he is caught red-handed.

Should you expect:

A. The perpetrator to be immediately brought to justice, or

B. To be publicly scolded by the authorities for leaving your door unlocked; blamed for enabling the invader to enter your premises; get fired from your job; and face possible charges for your “indiscretion” – all as the perp goes unpunished.

No, it’s not an April Fool’s Day question. Instead, it’s an analogy to a situation playing out right now in a Union County, S.C., public school district.

The only problem? It’s just not true.

On Feb. 18, teacher Leigh Anne Arthur stepped out of her classroom for a few minutes to monitor students in the hallway. She left her unlocked cell phone on her desk.

In her absence, a 16-year old student accessed Arthur’s phone without permission and, after navigating through several apps, opened the picture gallery. There he found a semi-nude photo of Arthur (who said it was a Valentine’s Day present for her husband. and widely distributed it.

Arthur, told she would be subject to disciplinary proceedings, resigned. Ever since, she has been blasting the administration, and Superintendent Dr. David Eubanks in particular, for ignoring the invasion of her privacy, claiming she was punished despite being the victim.

The problem for Ms. Arthur, as is so often the case, is that she seems to be ignoring those pesky little things called “facts.”

Sunshine is the best antiseptic, so let’s shed some light on what happened:

1. First and foremost, Arthur was not fired, nor was she “forced” to resign, as was widely reported. She resigned of her own free will. Period. And it wasn’t like she was put on the spot “resign now or you’re fired,” but had ample time to mull her decision. Most damning for Arthur is that, under South Carolina law, she had the right to appeal to the school board whatever action was taken against her, as that body is the final arbiter. And why wouldn’t she? After all, if she were truly the victim, one would think that she would welcome her “day in court.”

But instead of fighting the superintendent, she chose to resign. That bears repeating: She chose to leave. Case closed.

2. It is fascinating to note that, despite all the claims of victimization, Arthur apparently never actually reported the incident. Arthur apparently never said a word to the administration. In fact, it was Dr. Eubanks who immediately launched an investigation (including contacting law enforcement. as soon as he was made aware of the incident – which was brought to his attention by staff and students four days after it occurred.

Bottom line: It’s kind of hard for Arthur to make the case that she was wronged when A. she voluntarily left, and B. she never even reported what had occurred.

3. “The whole premise of my privacy being invaded is being ignored, and that’s what’s wrong,” Arthur stated.

While Arthur may think it sounds good to frame this as privacy-rights-gone-astray issue, it’s nothing of the sort.

For the record, there is no bigger privacy advocate in the media than this columnist; if this case were actually about that, “Freindly Fire” would have jumped to Arthur’s defense. But it’s not.

The invasion of Arthurs’s privacy most certainly is not being ignored, as the student is being held accountable by both the school and law enforcement. He faces an expulsion hearing on March 14. More ominously for him, he has been arrested and charged with computer crimes and aggravated voyeurism. And according to reports, he is being detained at the state’s Department of Juvenile Justice.

If Arthur would care to explain how that’s “ignoring” the alleged privacy violation, the country is all ears.

4. Let’s cut to the chase. Arthur would have faced disciplinary action because she violated school procedures, according to Dr. Eubanks, and clearly exercised very bad judgment.

Teachers monitoring hallways are instructed to do so from their doorways so they can keep an eye on both the corridor and the classroom. But numerous witnesses state she was in a completely different room. So clearly, had she followed the established monitoring protocols, the incident likely would have never taken place.

Arthur apparently routinely allowed students to access to her phone, both for calling and Internet purposes. In the age of technology, that’s not a very prudent decision, however well-meaning it may have been. Should 16-year olds understand the difference between using her phone with, and without, permission, and know right from wrong while on the phone? Sure, in theory. But in the real world, you simply cannot assume that will be the case. Teachers in particular can never lose sight of the temptations that come with students holding more computer power in their hands than the Apollo spacecraft.

But for God’s sake, if you are going to allow students to use your phone, you cannot, under any circumstances, have wildly inappropriate material that could be accessed with a few clicks. It’s not a backwards-Southern-evangelical mindset, as many have been so quick to say. Instead, it’s simple common sense – a belief that a teacher’s nude selfie is out of bounds to have on an unlocked phone that students use.

5. Once again, much of the media has shown its true colors: Laziness, aversion to doing its homework, and above all, chasing the most sensational headlines, truth be damned.

Calling on journalists and editors to become more responsible is another column (which this writer has pointed out numerous times.. But indisputably, the more they speed recklessly down the path of hype over substance, of shoddy work over diligent reporting, the more that people will tune out, as declining ratings and readership levels clearly demonstrate. The future of the Fourth Estate is at stake.

Union County, S.C., is a slice of Americana: A small, quaint place that adheres to the values that made America great — accountability, responsibility, courage. The last thing its people, and Superintendent Eubanks in particular, would have wanted is to be the epicenter of a national firestorm. But despite coming under withering attack from the uninformed, they have stood their ground and taught the rest of the country the most valuable lesson of all: The truth shall set you free.

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

By Chris Freind Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Only one of two things is true:

A. Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment found their true calling in the comedic arts, or

B. They are, without a doubt, the dumbest people in America. And in a culture that values all things Kardashian, that’s saying something.

But given how serious Romney was Thursday – playing the role of elder Republican statesman in trashing Donald Trump – it is painfully obvious that stupidity “trumps” comedy in the GOP.

Too bad they didn’t do this before the Oscars. If they had, there would have been a plethora of movie remakes for this melodrama: “Dumb and Dumber,” “The Phantom Menace,” “Failure To Launch,” “Revenge Of The Nerds,” “The Jerk,” “Quantum Of Solace,” “Fury Road,” or even “Divine Secrets Of The Ya Ya Republican Sisterhood.”

But truth be told, even Hollywood couldn’t script this farce.

Trumpeting his own horn during the “big announcement” speech, Romney referred to Trump supporters as “suckers” in a desperate attempt to derail Trump and deny him the nomination. In doing so, Romney and the GOP hierarchy personified another movie: “Psycho.”

Let’s take a look at the how this epic blunder will completely backfire:

1. Granted, the list of credible Republican statesmen is short (a fault of the party’s own making because, ever since Ronald Reagan, it has focused solely on coronating candidates “whose turn it is” rather than developing charismatic leaders), but the single worst person to deliver such a message was Romney – especially since he sought, and received, Trump’s endorsement and money during his presidential runs.

Surprised? Don’t be. After all, Romney was the worst candidate that GOP elites could have chosen to take on President Obama in an election that should have been a slamdunk for the Republicans. Yet that’s exactly what they did.

The proof was in the pudding. Despite spending millions after his unsuccessful attempt in 2008 to secure the GOP nomination, Romney was still routinely losing seven of 10 Republicans in the 2012 primaries, even after he had all but locked up the nomination – and that was with a weak field. In other words, despite competing against a rag-tag cadre of opponents who had virtually no money or organizations, and who mathematically couldn’t win the nomination, he was faring worse than four years prior.

But did paternalistic party leaders listen? Nope. They, not the rank-and-file, knew “best,” and the coronation proceeded.

After staggering to the nomination, Romney ran an abysmal campaign. Despite Obama presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression, voters – including Republicans – still rejected Romney, as three million fewer voted for Romney than for John McCain. And the exit polls showed what common sense had already told us: A majority of voters believed 1. America was on the wrong track, and 2. government was too large. Yet more pulled for Obama. Why?

Because Romney ran to win an election, not the argument. He was incapable of relating to the middle class, and thus never sealed the deal. The “Anyone But Obama” strategy backfired, because it’s never enough to run against something. The Romney/Paul Ryan ticket was wholly unable to articulate what it stood for, resulting in, ironically, an “Anyone But Romney” backlash.

Throw in his numerous flip-flops, monumental gaffes (the $10,000 bet; talking about how many NASCAR team owners he knew; telling the unemployed he knows what it’s like despite a $300 million net worth; stating that companies are people, too; criticizing the “47 percent”), late release of his tax return, pandering to minorities, and an unprecedented aloofness, and his landslide defeat was easily predictable.

And yet, what did Romney and party leaders (including GOP “experts” Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, George Will and especially Dick Morris) do after that crushing defeat? They blamed Chris Christie, because he worked with the president in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. You simply can’t make this up.

Oh, and they came up with ways to “reinvent” the party and “win elections.” So it’s not without a bit of irony that the very same people who not only championed the abysmal 2012 campaign but guaranteed a Romney “landslide” were writing the playbook for how to win in 2016 – and who are now telling voters whom not to vote for.

Is it any wonder that the party that championed insomnia-curing candidates Bob Dole, McCain, Romney, and Jeb Bush is now being ignored by a majority of Republicans? The establishment’s credibility gap had never been wider than before Romney’s speech. But after his debacle, it has expanded into an almost unbridgeable chasm. Brilliant, Mitt.

2. Forgetting everything else, Romney looks like a jealous malcontent. First, his money, while substantial, is dwarfed by Trump’s fortune, and in that world, size matters. Second, Mitt is green with envy at the reception lavished on Trump – fervent crowds, standing-room-only arenas, passionate supporters. Romney never came close to inspiring Americans the way Trump has. But rather than looking inward, he instead feels compelled to criticize Trump for the success he never garnered. As the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher said, “The spirit of envy can destroy; it can never build.”

3. Romney’s speech may have been a trial balloon to gauge whether he should enter the race, especially if Marco Rubio loses his home state of Florida. While the filing deadline has passed in most states, Romney could still get on the ballot in several states, including moderate-leaning California (the biggest prize of all) and New Jersey. According to the strategy, Romney might be able to siphon enough delegates to deny Trump the magic number for victory, leading to a brokered convention, where all bets are off.

If that were to occur, it would, without exaggeration, be the end of the Republican Party. There would be a massive civil war, millions would permanently leave the GOP, and an inevitable third party candidate would assure a Democratic victory.

If Mitt Romney’s goal is to become the most reviled man in modern American history, jumping into the race would be his path forward.

3. Sound crazy? Sure, but since when has that ever factored into the establishment thinking of both parties? It has been a long-held rule, especially in big city machines, that it’s better to lose an election than lose control. That mindset, while warped, is nonetheless becoming the de facto policy of a Republican National Committee hellbent on stopping Trump at any cost – President Hillary notwithstanding. 4. Romney’s pomposity will backfire, as such theatrics always do. It will cause Trump’s base to dig in, motivating them even more to crush the establishment they feel has betrayed them so often. And it will cause many undecideds to break Donald’s way – not necessarily because they wholeheartedly support him, but that they despise arrogant leaders giving marching orders.

Donald Trump has substantial baggage, from his business practices to outlandish insults. Maybe a Trump candidacy assures a Clinton victory, and maybe The Donald as GOP standard-bearer leads to big Republican losses in Congress. But with a wildly unpredictable electorate, and Hillary Clinton being the ultimate insider at a time when anti-Washington feelings are at a fever pitch, it would be a mistake to write off Trump.

The smartest course for the GOP would be to let the chips fall where they may, stop playing God, and take a hard look in the mirror. If it doesn’t, the “elephant” in the room may be on the verge of extinction.

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Tomlinson Funeral Business Called Conflict

Tomlinson Funeral Business Called Conflict By Leo Knepper

In early January, we noted the conflict of interest between Senator Robert “Tommy” Tomlinson’s (R-6) role in the legislature and professional life as a funeral director:

“These two careers shouldn’t interfere with each other, but Sen. Tomlinson’s role as chairman of the Senate of Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee is putting his two jobs in conflict, raising profound ethical questions that should concern Pennsylvania taxpayers. Tomlinson Funeral Business Called Conflict

“Despite no documented consumer complaints, his committee and the Senate have approved SB 874, pushed by Sen. Tomlinson and his fellow funeral directors to stop legitimate competition with cemeteries in the area of pre-need sales. The name of the committee is ironic since the legislation would create less competition and higher prices for families burying loved ones.

“While he isn’t the prime sponsor of SB 874, Capitol insiders refer to it as ‘Tommy’s bill.’ Many are rightly calling this bill a product of a ‘turf war’ between southeastern Pennsylvania funeral homes and a company called StoneMor.”

Rather than backing off of the legislation that would benefit him personally, Senator Tomlinson has not only doubled down he is now using his position as Chairman in an attempt to extort the House:

“He has warned lawmakers he will not run certain bills out of his committee until his counterparts in the House Consumer Affairs Committee pass the cemetery bill, a source said. As a result, two water companies, which have no connection to the funeral industry, are lobbying the House to approve the cemetery bill so their bills, already approved by the House, get a fair shake in the Senate, that source said…Rep. Robert Godshall, R-Montgomery, chairman of the House Consumer Affairs Committee, declined to comment, saying he did not want the situation to get worse for the Legislature.” (Emphasis added)

Sen. Tomlinson denies that he is using his position to benefit his family business. Despite statements from the Federal Trade Commission indicating that the changes are unnecessary and would result in higher prices, Tomlinson insists that he wants to change the law for the benefit of consumers.

We will keep you informed about the legislation if there is any movement, or if Tomlinson can explain how higher prices and reduced competition are good for you.

Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Tomlinson Funeral Business Called Conflict

Political Incorrectness Path To Success

Political Incorrectness Path To Success By Chris Freind CHRIS FREIND

Barring a catastrophic collapse, it appears that Donald Trump could well be the Republican presidential nominee. Yet for all their theories about how he achieved his unlikely success, most pundits are still missing the biggest reason: Trump is winning as much because of his bluntness as his opponents’ lack thereof. And the same is true of Bernie Sanders.

People are sick of Washington politicos talking down to them, bickering about miniscule partisan advantage and regurgitating tired talking points on the minutiae of trade agreements, health care and tax policy with inside-the-beltway jargon.

What they seek is a leader who talks in plain English. While Trump and Sanders have, at times, been short on specifics, their willingness to tackle subjects in a conversational way has electrified the electorate.

There’s no doubt that if the Republican nominee tackles the lunacy invading America’s culture – perpetuated by a small extremist movement hell-bent on off-the-wall social engineering – he will gain a significant advantage in the general election. Many of these issues transcend party lines, but it would seem only a Republican – as part of the “lesser politically correct” party – will have the courage to use his bully pulpit to inject common sense into the debate.

Consider these four recent examples, and the traction that could be gained by addressing them head-on:

  1. The Sandy Hook parents’ lawsuit against the gun manufacturer. It goes without saying that no one can imagine the pain of parents who lose a child, especially in a senseless killing spree. While some motivations of the killer will never be understood, we should be working toward real-world solutions that could help prevent another such tragedy. Casting blame the gun manufacturer on the grounds that it was somehow complicit solves nothing, and only derails serious efforts to discover the root causes.

Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole her legally owned guns and ammunition. Therefore, he, and only he, is responsible for the massacre. Not his mother. And certainly not gun manufacturer Remington. Period. That’s like a car company being held liable because a reckless driver kills someone, or a beer maker incurring responsibility for an individual who drinks to excess. The Sandy Hook parents do not think the weapon used in the murders should have been legal. Fine. That’s their opinion. But indisputably, it was legal. This case should have absolutely no legal standing. A presidential candidate who, while showing empathy, focuses on real solutions instead of placating those who refuse to accept the truth, would find immense success.

2. The elimination of Valentine’s Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas in schools. Incredibly, the banning of “dominant” holidays – whatever that means – is becoming more commonplace, ostensibly because they may “offend” those unfamiliar with them. Really? That’s what educators think is best for our children? In point of fact, we are mandating close-mindedness in our kids while crushing their natural inclination for discovery. In other words, we are teaching them to be wholly intolerant of other people, cultures and traditions. If that warped mindset remains unchecked, it’s only a matter of time before the last truly free country on Earth collapses.

The vast majority of Americans – despite their collective silence on these types of issues for fear of being labeled insensitive bigots – would respond favorably to a candidate rejecting such mandates by asking:

• Since when is a holiday celebrating love and friendship “offensive?”

• Why is it wrong to celebrate holidays like Christmas and Hanukkah – without pushing religious beliefs – in what has always been a Judeo-Christian country?

• And how can the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving – rooted in peace and friendship between Europeans and Native Americans – be eliminated in America?

While the role of commander-in-chief is not to intervene on the local level, using the office as a bully pulpit to shine light on policies gone awry is eminently presidential.

3. Transgenders using bathrooms of their choosing: Bowing to political correctness, schools and city councils are allowing transgender people to use whatever bathroom with which they most “identify.”

Extremists aside, what parents in their right minds – Republican and Democrat alike – would feel comfortable sending their young daughter into a “ladies” bathroom where a man, who on “feelings” alone, can freely use the same facility?

How could such a regulation possibly work in the military? Or the workplace, for that matter?

Tolerance and inclusion are admirable, but forcefully pushing back when things go too far would be met with resounding applause.

4. Nevada high school athletic associations suspending coaches for being successful: This isn’t an early April fool’s prank, but a rule that has made a joke of high school athletics. The Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association has created a mandate – supposedly to encourage sportsmanship and prevent embarrassing scores – stipulating that a team can’t win by more than 49 points, and if, God forbid, they do, “coaches are required to submit documentation explaining how it happened and how they tried to prevent it. If it happens three times in a season, the winning coach is suspended. The rule also institutes a running clock in the second half after a lead gets to 40 points,” according to ESPN.

What has America come to? No one likes to be on the losing end, especially when a contest is lopsided, but having to document why a team wins? Seriously? That punishes players and coaches who worked hard to achieve success, and, ironically, humiliates the losing team that much more, as the better team often just holds the ball in what amounts to a patronizing move.

The answer is not to penalize those who earn success, but encourage those on the losing end to work harder – the best form of motivation, and the way it’s always been. It makes no difference whether a team loses by 49 or 69. A loss is loss, but to mandate a mercy rule at the high school level is ludicrous.

What next? Will we see mandated running plays in football if the margin exceeds 50 points? Will running backs simply fall down on their own? Will winning basketball teams be required to give their opponents 20 straight scoring opportunities while playing tepid defense so the losing players can feel good about themselves?

Don’t laugh. Grade school athletic programs have been doing this for years: Up by five in soccer? Pull your goalie and no shooting. Leading by 1- in baseball? Purposely strike out. And of course, give everyone a trophy. So the push for homogenization at the expense of individual achievement marches onward.

Enough is enough. If a presidential candidate advocates re-instilling traditional American values, with common sense as a guide, the keys to the Oval Office will be his, or hers. For all our sakes, here’s hoping.

Political Incorrectness Path To Success

Real Cold Forgotten By Modern Americans

Real Cold Forgotten By Modern Americans

By Joseph B. Dychala

“You don’t know what cold is”.

I can still hear my father saying these words to me now.

“You don’t know what cold is”…and he is right.

Today we move from our heated homes, to our heated automobiles (with heated seats) to our heated offices and complain about the cold we are exposed to for five minutes or less in many cases. Imagine sleeping on a steam vent in a big city, while people walk by you as if you don’t exist. We have the most plentiful and varied resources at our fingertips, oil, coal fired electricity, thermal technology, chemical packs when crushed can provide hours of heat inserted in our socks and gloves. Natural gas has never been so plentiful or inexpensive as it is today.

“You don’t know what cold is”  and he is right. I thought heat came from turning a dial or pushing a button, heat isn’t free he would often remind me.

We live in a nation of plenty, all types of natural and man made fabrics readily available as coats, gloves, blankets and so forth. No shearing sheep for wool, no spinning on a loom. Just go to the nearest store and purchase what you need. But everyday I see clothing discarded on the streets, as if there was no value to the items. As if the legacy of cotton is king means nothing. Same plantation, different location. Occasionally I wonder why some professional athletes and Hollywood personalities continue to bring up the stain of slavery that is the reality of the United States yet have no remorse in taking large sums of money from sneaker companies to promote a product that is essentially made with slave labor somewhere in the developing world.

Real Cold Forgotten By Modern Americans“You don’t know what cold is”…and he is right. Turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater if you are cold he would say to me…

Imagine the pain of the bitter cold at Valley Forge, Ypes, Verdun, Ardennes in the winter of 44- 45 one of the coldest recorded, the “Brotherhood of the Frozen Chosin”, imagine the heartache of waking up huddled next to your foxhole buddy who died from exposure over night perhaps wondering why him and not you. Losing toes or fingers to frostbite and having to continue on to do your job. I’ve never know such things, and try as I may to imagine I can never fully appreciate their sacrifices.

“You don’t know what cold is”…and he is right. Camping in the frozen mud without a tent while wearing a summer uniform and leggins instead of proper boots, that is what he endured for two brutal winters in the Italian Alps with Nazi artillery raining down on them…

The Rapido, Moletta, Cassino, Anzio, Mussolini Canal, The Winter Line, The loss of the entire 142nd Regiment, the blizzards and drifting snow, zero visibility. Pack mules because the terrain was impassable to any other other form of supply lines. There are a few pictures of my father from the war wearing a rather colorful scarf, I can only imagine that was one of his most prized possessions and may have literally saved his life from the cold as sure as a dog face’s helmet could potentially stave off German shrapnel.

“You don’t know what cold is”…and he is right. Stop your complaining and eat a hot bowl of oatmeal, it will warm you up and stick to your ribs he would say to me after coming in from playing on a snow day off from school…

So please remember in your thoughts and prayers this weekend from the comfort of our heated home or business, while sipping a hot beverage, with shorts on and the thermostat set to 75 degrees that the only reason this is possible is because the simple fact that there are good, descent, honorable folks that aren’t going to promise you free health insurance or a free college education or other economic impossibilities but that there were and still  are good people willing to lay down their very lives for their country and love of fellow man and make that which seems impossible a reality.

Better still, turn down that thermostat and put on a sweater.

Most of us will never truly know what cold is. Be thankful, be very thankful for that.

May God Bless you and yours and may God Bless the United States of America.

Happy Saint Valentine’s Day!

Real Cold Forgotten By Modern Americans

New Wolf Budget Also Burdens Little Guy

New Wolf Budget Also Burdens Little Guy By Matthew J. Brouillette

Yesterday, Feb. 9, Gov. Wolf doubled down on his tax-and-spend agenda. Here are five facts you need to know about how Gov. Wolf’s budget would affect your family and our state:

1. It’s more of the same. Wolf’s proposed budget mirrors what he repeatedly offered—and lawmakers repeatedly rejected—last year: Massive tax hikes and record spending increases. Wolf New Budget Also Burdens Little Guy

2. It’s the biggest spending increase in 25 years. Wolf’s $33.3 billion General Fund budget (including pension payments) represents a 10% increase over the budget passed by the legislature in December and is the bgigest spending increase since 1991-92.

3. Wolf’s tax hike = $850 more per family four annually.

4. Wolf’s budget includes $1.1 billion more for public schools, on top of the record-high level of funding passed by the legislature in December. This comes with no accountability measures and with punitive cuts to public charter schools.

5. At least eight different tax hikes are in the budget. This includes an 11% personal income tax hike—retroactive to January 2016 (in other words, you already owe the state more taxes).

Wolf talked about ‘saving’ the taxpayers of Pennsylvania. Instead, he’s taxing us backwards and forwards.

Join us in telling Gov. Wolf, “Please, no more taxes!” Get all the budget facts—and a catchy decal—over on our site at Commonwealth Foundation.

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and CEO of Commonwealth Foundation.

Wolf New Budget Also Burdens Little Guy