Category: Guest Authors

Wizardly Advice On Immigration

Wizardly Advice On Immigration
By Chris Freind

Dear Wizard Of Oz:

Since we are in the season of giving, perhaps you could see fit to bestow upon the Republican Party the three gifts for which you are best known: Brains, courage and a heart. With its newly gained congressional power, the GOP is once again locked in the immigration battle, but, as usual, is doing so without the benefit of common sense and political savvy. Your generosity would provide them the tools necessary to solve a decades-old crisis and, just maybe, give them a shot at the White House in 2016.

Sincerely,

A Nation In Turmoil

If there were a real wizard, the immigration crisis could be solved with a neat fairy tale ending. But there isn’t, which means that many Republicans in Washington are still operating with an intelligence and courage deficit. Not only does this exacerbate the immigration problem, but, if it doesn’t change come soon, the party could see much of its 2014 electoral gains eroded over the next several elections.

Here is a breakdown of what Republicans need to do to effectively lead on the immigration issue:

1. Brains: Having brains doesn’t just mean enacting a strategic political plan to reform immigration, though that is absolutely necessary. It also involves having a memory that doesn’t indulge in revisionist history.

Gaining power is not the Republicans’ problem; governing is. Despite having huge congressional majorities for six straight years during George W. Bush’s presidency, bolstered by high approval ratings after 9/11, the GOP squandered countless opportunities when it failed to pursue its agenda.

It failed to pass market-based health care reform, which ultimately led to Obamacare. It didn’t push domestic oil drilling (nor lift the offshore drilling moratorium that George H.W. Bush implemented) to stimulate manufacturing, resulting in record gas prices and increased reliance on Middle Eastern oil barons. It didn’t reform the highest corporate tax structure in the world, forcing many companies to move overseas. And instead of fixing the immigration crisis, its non-action kept the southern border wide open, compounding the problem in numerous ways.

Before the right screams that that history lesson unfairly picks on Republicans, consider that A) no matter what spin the GOP apologists use, it is undeniable that the Republicans, despite holding all the cards, punted nearly every important issue, and B) the Democrats openly campaign for open borders, national health care, high taxes and moratoriums on domestic drilling. To their credit, they fight for what they believe in; Republicans, for the most part, talk a great game, but don’t walk the walk when it’s crunch time.

Rather than play the blame game (it’s always someone else’s fault — the liberal media, unions, unscrupulous Democrats, etc.), GOP leaders need to buy a mirror to see who is most responsible for past failures. Only then can they hope to formulate a winning strategy.

2. Courage: Republicans need a strong leader who can work with President Obama to formulate a reasonable immigration reform plan. But that person has to be courageous enough to tell the party to tone down the rhetoric, stop the name-calling and work toward a bill rooted in reality. If all the party does is advocate insane ideas to placate the red-meat crowd (such as deporting every illegal, impeaching the president and shutting down the government), yet again nothing will be accomplished.

Such a leader should publicly chastise those pushing congressional Republicans to not invite the president to their chamber for his State of the Union address. The sheer stupidity of that idea (being advocated not just by crackpots but some highly-influential Republicans) is simply incomprehensible. Yet the response of the GOP leadership refuting such a sentiment has been tepid at best.

Lack of courage in calling out your own when they go off the deep end is a harbinger for what kind of immigration reform we can expect. Not a good sign.

3. Heart: Demonstrating strong political will dealing with the immigration issue is not mutually exclusive to showing compassion toward those who come to America seeking a better life for their families. If the GOP plays its cards right, it can get the best of both worlds: solve the problem in a manner acceptable to most Americans, and, in showing that it has a heart, win the loyalty of a growing natural constituency: Hispanics.

Instead of huffing and puffing, perhaps the Republicans should pass the common-sense aspects of the president’s plan (much of it rooted in Republican ideas) and get something, as opposed to nothing, done. Consider the following proposals:

A. Strengthen border security, as long as quickly building a border wall to completion is part of it. We could even make illegal immigrants, as a condition of staying in America, help build the wall.

B. Document those already here, making them learn English and pay penalties and taxes, while deporting any with a criminal history.

C. Not rip apart families by deporting the parents of children born here. What’s more humane than that? (Children born here are American citizens, a point the Constitution makes clear).

D. Streamline legal immigration, especially for skilled workers. The existing waiting period is far too long, encouraging illegal conduct.

E. Crack down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants by mandating use of the government’s free E-Verify system, which instantly determines legal status.

F. And citizenship? No, because that high honor, the envy of the world, should not be bestowed upon those who broke the laws of this country. And newly documented workers should not automatically be granted permanent residence, as being in America is a privilege, not a right.

* * *

There is a reasonable way to solve the immigration crisis, and the ideas outlined above are a good starting point. Should the president act unilaterally, as he is advocating, and which is understandably infuriating many Republicans? That’s a separate issue, and one that merits careful scrutiny about the limits of executive power. Yet it is worth noting that American history is filled with presidents of both parties acting boldly to fulfill a vision when Congress sat idle in the face of threats.

The debate about the president’s power will rage on, but ultimately it will prove moot if both the president and Republicans place ego aside and negotiate common sense solutions to a problem both sides should have solved long ago.

That’s the yellow brick road they should follow.

Ferguson Considerations

Ferguson Considerations
By Chris Freind

Right on cue, Ferguson, Mo., erupted in chaos after the “No Indictment” grand jury verdict.

Two things are abundantly clear:

A. The system worked. Despite the certainty of riots, and the very real threat of harm to themselves should they not indict, the 12 grand jury members had the courage to make the right call.

B. Modern America has shown its true “colors” yet again, regressing further from the high point of the civil rights movement. A growing faction, through their actions and words, have completely rejected the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., wanting nothing to do with his belief in a colorblind society. Instead, they are choosing to fight, literally, for a segregated America, one that favors one class over another. To so callously trample on the sacrifices made by America’s civil rights pioneers is abominable.

Here are the black-and-white observations of the Ferguson debacle:

1. What genius decided to tell the world that the grand jury reached a verdict, but wouldn’t announce the decision until hours later? Doing so only increased the tension and allowed protesters to mass at key locations. Most idiotic, why would they wait until after dark to announce it?

Everything should have already been secured, begging the question: What the hell have they been doing for the last week? The evening announcement simply defied belief because it gave rioters the tactical advantage of operating with near-impunity, since the night provided a cloak of invisibility to their actions and identities. Brilliant.

2. What’s the point of mobilizing Patton’s Third Army if you take a hands-off approach from the get-go? Doing so was either sheer incompetence or a deliberate attempt to placate the masses. So the message is, no matter how big law enforcement’s presence, you can riot with without consequence if you just yell “racism” and “police brutality.” The bad guys gamed the system, and those in charge took the bait. So much for the National Guard and the governor’s “state of emergency.”

3. The national media has shown itself to be a laughingstock. The sensationalistic and often shoddy reporting is bad enough (sorry, but there were never “tanks” rolling through Ferguson). But their stammering, constant redundancy and overall inarticulateness demonstrated that without the crutch of a teleprompter, many are pathetic. And they should also get their hearing checked, since many kept asking questions that had already been answered. (For the last time: the vote of the grand jury, by statute, is confidential. Stop asking that question.)

4. Critics accused the prosecutor of giving too much information to the jurors. No, that’s not a joke, but an actual complaint. So in other words, providing every piece of evidence to get to the bottom of what really happened was a bad thing. The only people who could possibly make that argument are those whose minds were made up months ago, facts be damned.

5. Speaking of facts, only the grand jury had them. They sifted through mounds of testimony and physical evidence to determine which witnesses were credible, and just as important, which were not. Yet that is completely disregarded by many who, rather than accept the truth, want to blame everyone and everything for Michael Brown’s death. The rule of law is clear, and the grand jury made the right decision. The spectacle of people resorting to violence under the fallacy that racism was involved is more appropriate for some other spot on the globe. That behavior is inherently un-American.

6. Some have been protesting since the shooting took place Aug. 9. Since the jurors were the only ones with full knowledge of what occurred, what was actually being protested?

7. The Brown family didn’t help their cause by recently testifying before the United Nations Committee on Torture: “… we have to bring it (the shooting incident) to the U.N. so they can expose it to the rest of the world, what’s going on in small-town Ferguson.” They certainly have the right to disagree with the grand jury and the entire judicial process, but this is still America. We don’t answer to the United Nations for issues involving domestic law. That was a major mistake, as it alienated many who may have been sympathetic to the family’s plight.

8. The feds’ investigation is ongoing, but it shouldn’t be, as it violates Constitutional protections against double jeopardy. And the odds could well be stacked unfairly against Officer Darren Wilson if federal grand jurors, after witnessing the bedlam in Ferguson, are afraid of being responsible for another riot. We’ve seen it before, when Los Angeles policemen were imprisoned when a federal jury found them guilty in the Rodney King case after they were acquitted by the state. To think the federal jurors didn’t base their decision in light of the L.A. riots that followed is fantasy.

9. Finally, no matter which “side” one takes, Brown’s death is a tragedy. It’s time to address the many issues that have been given lip service but, in truth, ignored for so long, from education to incarceration. That conversation is one that requires difficult work, and can only be solved if people are willing to look at reality. But don’t hold your breath, for as a wise man once said: “There’s what people want to hear, there’s what people want to believe, there’s everything else – and then there’s the truth.”

The black and white truth is that, unless we genuinely commit to working together in a colorblind way, America will continue to burn.

Ferguson Considerations

Threats Prevent True Justice

Threats Prevent True Justice
By Chris Freind

To many, the “unthinkable” occurred in 2012 – President Barack Obama was re-elected. Despite cries that America would be ruined beyond repair, two things occurred:

1. The country, despite its many problems, is still here, intact and chugging along.

2. The president, unpopular as he may be, is also intact.

There were no assassination attempts, riots, or military coups. In fact, life has been pretty normal for most Americans. Just like always.

And given the recent Republican landslide, many Democrats are extremely distraught, yet they are protesting the GOP’s ideas politically – and peacefully.

Dealing with change in a tranquil manner proves just how amazing Americans really are. With all our bickering, it’s easy to forget that which makes us unique – our ability to accept, without reservation, the transition of power from one political party to the other, peacefully and honorably.

To be sure, we’ve endured our share of tragedies, from Lincoln to Kennedy, but through them all, the show still went on. America refused to allow such acts of evil to affect who we were, or destroy the system we fought so hard to attain. Our respect for the rule of law, and the order and stability it produces, has been a bedrock value for so long that it is often taken for granted.

But that seems to be changing.

And nowhere is that on display more than in Ferguson, Mo.

By now, we all know the storyline: Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year old black man, who had allegedly just committed a felony inside a convenience store, got into a physical confrontation with white police officer Darren Wilson. Wilson shot Brown multiple times, resulting in Brown’s death.

Riots ensued, with bedlam lasting for weeks. The situation became so untenable that Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon called in the National Guard to help quell the unrest.

Irrelevant to the rioters were those pesky things called facts, many of which weren’t known then, and remain undisclosed today.

To get to the bottom of what really happened, a grand jury has been investigating the case. After sifting through mounds of evidence, it is due to release its findings – namely, whether to charge Officer Wilson with a crime – at any moment.

In anticipation of problems, Nixon has mobilized not just thousands of police, but more significantly, the National Guard. And for that, he has been sharply criticized by, among others, Brown supporters and armchair analysts nowhere near Missouri. They contend that, by doing so, he is enflaming tensions and throwing fuel on the fire, which could actually incite violence.

That criticism is so misplaced, so devoid of common sense and logic, that it defies belief. Here’s a sobering look at a very tense situation:

1. First things first. Nixon’s media conference call on the security situation turned into a debacle when he couldn’t even articulate who would be in charge of the operation – the police (and if so, which force?), or the National Guard. Since that would be an obvious question, Nixon’s fumbling the answer didn’t help matters.

But looking foolish doesn’t make Nixon wrong. Mobilizing the Guard was the prudent thing to do.

2. Nixon has also declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the grand jury decision, and was right doing so. He deserves credit for being decisive even though he was boxed into a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation: if he didn’t act pre-emptively by mobilizing the National Guard and ordering a large police presence, and chaos ensued, he would have been demonized for being asleep at the switch while Ferguson burned. And, as we’ve seen, by acting proactively, he catches hell from the “offended” class who cry racism and accuse him of strong-arm tactics.

Given the threat to life and property, especially in view of Ferguson’s track record, it’s infinitely wiser to err on the side of caution.

3. Let’s be very clear: the government’s response is not directed at protesters, but those intent on violence. And they are completely different. People have the freedom to protest peacefully, no matter how ill-informed they may be. But those engaging in vandalism are simply using the situation as an excuse to loot and hoot, taking advantage of the chaos to break the law.

4. Here’s the elephant in the room: where are we going as a society when the National Guard and riot police need to be mobilized every time a case has a racial element (perceived or real) to it? Why are leaders of all races and both parties not condemning the violence (and ignorance) in stronger fashion? Why do we not call out the agitators – the ones with ulterior motives rooted in self-interest – who use inflammatory language and tactics to rile people up and ignite the powder keg? When are we going to stop cow-towing to political correctness and start leading based on facts, not color?

5. America’s justice system is certainly not perfect, but it is, and always has been, the best in the world. We must have faith that the grand jury will come to the correct conclusion, and that justice will be served. Wilson should not get railroaded because jurors fear riots if they clear him. Nor should Brown’s death be in vain, regardless of prior criminal acts, if excessive force was used.

America’s racial gulf widens when disingenuous leaders want it both ways: organizing protests and tacitly condoning violence when convenient (Ferguson, the Trayvon Martin case, the Los Angeles riots), but not when the circumstances don’t fit their agenda, such as when O.J. Simpson was acquitted. The result is more racial tension.

The result is that all blacks become guilty-by-association, and that is a tragedy, since it wipes out the tremendous work done by black pastors, civic leaders, and others to advance equality and keep the peace. The louder the obnoxious ones are (and the more media coverage they receive), the more overshadowed the genuine leaders become. That must change.

It is time that Americans – all Americans – remember who we are, and what makes us so special. We may not always agree with judicial decisions, and we should continue to fight for fairness, but we must hammer those who resort to intimidation, threats and violence every time they don’t like something.

That principle couldn’t be more black-and-white.

Threats Prevent True Justice

Fat Shaming Is OK As Smoker Shaming

Fat Shaming Is OK As Smoker Shaming
By Chris Freind

Let’s face it. Smoking is cool.

Yet as the last minority with no rights, smokers get kicked in the butt: high taxes make cigarettes expensive, and society hammers them for their lifestyle choice. Enough already! It’s time we stop shaming smokers for just doing what makes them feel good.

So what if smoking causes cancer and heart disease? Who cares that smokers drive up the cost of health care for everybody else? And how dare anyone (especially the government) air commercials showing the effects of puffing tobacco: smokers talking through holes in their throats, amputees, women’s faces that look like they were run over by a bus, toothless men, and babies in intensive care because their mothers smoked during pregnancy.

If smokers are comfortable with themselves, why should we be concerned? After all, it’s not how they look on the outside that matters – shame on us for being so prejudicial – but what’s on the inside.

Right?

Wrong.

Most people would vehemently disagree with the above, and justifiably so. Since smoking is unhealthy, the shock-and-awe campaigns aimed at reducing it and preventing young people from trying it are widely accepted. And they are, unquestionably, effective.

“Smokers have told us these ads help them quit by showing what it’s like to live every day with disability and disfigurement from smoking,” said Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers For Disease Control. Despite declines in smoking, however, the CDC says the campaign is still needed, as 18 percent of adults still smoke cigarettes and 21 percent use a tobacco product every day.

Hmmm. Something doesn’t taste right. Let’s review:

An ad campaign employing heavy use of shame, aimed at reducing the number of people engaged in this unhealthy lifestyle choice, is perfectly fine.

But swap out “smoking” for “obesity,” and you get the opposite response: a massive firestorm from America’s overweight as they circle the food wagons, labeling any such effort as ignorant, insensitive, discriminatory, sexist, bigoted, counter-productive, and, of course, sizeist (love that one!).

Most baffling, they object despite overwhelming evidence that shame campaigns work. In the 1970’s, over 40 percent of American adults smoked. Yet the more anti-smoking campaigns became in vogue, the more smoking rates dropped. Now, fewer than one in five smoke.

Tough as this is to stomach, the number of overweight adults has ballooned, doubling since the 1970’s (also doubling among children, and tripling among adolescents).

Despite the vitriolic protests from the overweight “I’m-offended-by-everything” class who cries foul anytime someone calls out their lifestyle, they’re wrong. They can’t have their cake and eat it, too, approving shame so long as it doesn’t apply to them. The statistics speak for themselves.

Shame works. And it’s time for them to chew the fat on that concept.

• • •

The latest episode in America’s Fat Wars is a Change.org petition that takes big offense to Old Navy (owned by The Gap) selling women’s plus-size jeans for more money than men’s plus sizes. It is a story that has gotten huge headlines, but unfortunately has been weighted down by extraneous issues.

First, to Old Navy’s credit, the company is standing its ground – a rarity given that corporate courage is in thin supply. Old Navy explained that it utilizes more resources when designing and manufacturing women’s plus-size jeans, as its fashion experts craft them to be more flattering. Since men care significantly less about such things, their plus-size jeans are an easier design, and thus less expensive.

But the petition organizer, seemingly ignorant of the reality called “business,” called Old Navy’s pricing model “sexist” and “sizeist.”

Sexist? Not a chance. Sizest? Absolutely. And that’s the way it should be. For the 99 percent of overweight people who aren’t fat due to a thyroid condition (though you’d think that’s the cause of fatness for almost everyone), that’s the price you pay when you indulge in an unhealthy lifestyle. To think you’re entitled to being treated like those of normal weight is both naïve and obnoxious.

Here’s food for thought on combatting obesity:

1. The world doesn’t revolve around the obese, so they need to stop throwing their weight around and bullying those who take issue with their sense of entitlement. It’s simple: if you don’t like how Old Navy does things, don’t buy their jeans. Same goes for patronizing the other companies eaten alive by the obese crowd: Victoria’s Secret for using thin models (hello? It’s a lingerie company!), Wal-Mart for its fat-girl Halloween costume, and the Carrot Fit app that uses tongue-in-cheek insults to motivate the user to lose weight, to name a few. The beauty of America is that everyone, even the waistline-challenged community, has the freedom to choose.

The biggest irony is that those most opposed to “shaming” are actually using it against the companies with whom they disagree.

2. Stop blubbering that shaming should not be part of the discussion. It should unequivocally be on the table, and those opposed, rather than simply hurling insults, would serve themselves better by having a rational conversation. If either side has a thin skin, the problem will only grow.

3. It’s not just smoking where shame works. Shaming those who used drugs, shoplifted, got convicted of DUI, and even got detention at school, have had considerable success. Why then are so many ducking the obesity issue by ranting about bullying, hurt feelings, sexism and sizeism? Here’s a novel idea: let’s focus on the actual problem, not irrelevant tangents.

4. Some critics claim shaming only makes a situation worse. If we’re going to indulge that thought, there must at least be a morsel of evidence that something else is better. So what is it? Is it positive reinforcement? More education? Counseling? Well, they’ve all been tried (typically in the absence of shame), and, no surprise, they’re not working. So given that the problem is, in fact, growing, doesn’t common sense tell us we need to try something else?

5. The problem with the anti-shaming movement is that it cracks open the door to government intrusion. How soon until legislation is introduced banning companies from charging different rates for what a bureaucrat sees as “the same thing?” How long until venues are required to widen their seats, and airlines are told they cannot charge obese people for two tickets even though their girth disenfranchises other passengers? How long until the obese movement tries to become a protected class under federal law?

• • •

The real issue is how to gnaw away at obesity (it accounts for over 20 percent of health-care spending) and the correlating rise in diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Insurance premiums keep increasing to subsidize the obese, and worker productivity is down. Most alarming, America’s youth are being desensitized to obesity and its negative effects. In a “do-whatever-makes-you-feel-good” society, that’s a dangerous recipe. The way to change that “fatitude” is not through government mandates, nor a “pie-in-the-sky, all-will-be-OK” mentality.

There’s too much at stake not to lighten America’s load. It’s time we tip the scales against obesity by embracing shame.

Fat Shaming Is OK As Smoker Shaming

Shoot For The Stars Again

Shoot For The Stars Again
By Chris Freind

On Jan. 28, 1986, seven Challenger astronauts “slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.” But then — tragedy. For the first time, America had lost astronauts in flight.

President Reagan captured the moment:

The astronauts “had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. We’ve grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we’ve only just begun. We’re still pioneers. … painful things like this happen. It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery … part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them.”

But almost 30 years later, has America followed them? Has our nation taken manned space flight and exploration to the next level?

The answer is a resounding “no.” It’s time we change that.

“From out there on the Moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.’” — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut

Once upon a time, America’s leaders articulated bold visions for aggressive space programs, making them pillars of their administrations. From Kennedy to Reagan, that leadership captivated Americans and unified a nation.

We charged into the unknown, a country driven to put America on top in the space race, and in doing so, become part of the most exciting time in all of civilization. Our explorers opened up the final frontier, an astounding achievement that taught humankind that no dreams were too big, and that people could aspire to do things greater than themselves. “The sky is the limit” spirit literally became true.

Undisputed American leadership was as ambitious as it was purpose-driven, the result of generations inspired to study math and science like never before, all for the opportunity to do things no one else had ever done — to be on the cutting edge of not just technology, but humanity.

But somewhere along the way, we lost that indomitable spirit.

Despite walking on the moon a mere 66 years after the Wright brothers’ first flight, we haven’t been back in over four decades. Dark side of the moon? Unexplored. Manned missions to Mars and Jupiter’s moons, which hold the promise of life? Off the table. And it’s not for lack of money, as we spend trillions on everything else under the sun, no pun intended.

NASA proudly claims it will return to the moon in 2020, but that begs the question: Why will it take six more years to go back to a place that where we landed a half-century prior? That’s not progress, but failure. The fact that NASA doesn’t know the difference shows that it’s run by space cadets.

Most appalling, America can no longer transport astronauts into space, an unfathomable lack of foresight.

Instead, we are forced to call on the Russians — the same people with whom we are at serious odds. So to access the International Space Station (which we constructed and put into orbit), we must rely on the country we vanquished in the space race.

How is that possible? How could we allow so much American ingenuity to become vaporized? How could our best and brightest kill the Shuttle with no replacement?

And a more down-to-earth question: How does a parent answer a starry-eyed child mesmerized by the lure of outer space who asks, “Dad, how do we get astronauts into space?”

“Well, we put our space ships into museums, so now we have to hitch a ride with the Russians. They used to be our enemy.”

If America’s space situation doesn’t lend itself to the euphemism of a deep space probe getting stuck in Uranus, nothing does.

Neither Party is prioritizing the immense commercial, science and security benefits of a space program, let alone realizing its ability to instill national pride. Instead, the cancer of partisan politics eats away at The Dream, as space initiatives get defunded in favor of valueless pork projects or simply because members of the opposite Party supported them.

With that lack of leadership, where will America’s space program find hope?

Hollywood, of course.

The Science Channel has just kicked off its “Space Week” with great fanfare, airing highly rated programs on all aspects of space, sparking the allure of the unknown to a whole new generation.

Tinseltown, the most influential marketing machine in the universe, continues to ignite people’s fascination with outer space. Iconic films like “Star Wars”, “Star Trek”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “2001, A Space Odyssey” all achieved cult status and continue to be immensely popular.

Dramas such as “Apollo 13” and “From The Earth To The Moon” captured the hearts and minds of untold millions. And recent films continue to stoke that passion. ‘Gravity’ blasted off at the box office last year, just like the much-hyped “Interstellar” is now poised to do. These productions are wildly popular because audiences believe addressing eternal questions — Where did we come from? Are we alone? What’s out there? — is a crucial aspect of being human.

Hollywood reflects America, at least in this case. Given the public’s demand to once again push the space envelope, Washington should listen.

“The possibilities are limited only by our imagination and determination, and not by the physics.”

— NASA Geologist Michael Duke.

One of the answers to getting Americans in space again is the private sector. Visionaries like Elon Musk (SpaceX), and Richard Branson (Virgin Galactic) are charting new paths into space, adamant that their out-of-this-world dreams will be realized. Their place is an important one.

But let’s face it. We still need America’s resources to accomplish the biggest, most ambitious projects. And for that to occur, our leaders need to understand that space is, and always should be, a priority.

Those who lived through the space race in the ’50s and ’60s will mistily recount how America was united while launching its boys into the great unknown. Were there political disagreements? Of course, but reaching for the stars made folks realize that they could rise above petty arguments and work together for the greater good.

Pushing the limits of human ability and venturing into what was literally a dream for 50,000 years’ of humankind gave Americans the justifiable pride that they were indeed special — and that they weren’t just traveling through history, but making it.

Defying gravity and making science fiction come true have been uniquely American traits. It’s time for America to break free of its self-imposed black hole and once again claim the space leadership mantle that it not just owned, but invented.

So let’s fire up the engines and blast off while remembering President Reagan’s famous words: “America has always been greatest when we dared to be great … We can follow our dreams to the distant stars.”

Shoot For The Stars Again
Shoot For The Stars Again

Shoot For The Stars Again

Corbett Legacy Is GOP Do Not Lesson

Corbett Legacy Is GOP Do Not Lesson
By Chris Freind

The GOP tidal wave was massive, as Republicans won from coast-to-coast. Preeminent among them was a man who, after achieving a stunning 10-point victory in America’s sixth-largest state, instantly became a leading contender for vice president — and perhaps one day even something higher.

It was 2010, and Tom Corbett had just become governor of the critically important swing state of Pennsylvania. With near-record Republican majorities in the Legislature, he had it all, poised to usher in a new era of prosperity and help the Keystone State regain its former glory.

Four short years later, Corbett was absolutely humiliated by being the only Republican incumbent in the country to fall, and the first governor in modern Pennsylvania history to lose re-election. Even more unfathomable, he lost in the biggest GOP landslide since Herbert Hoover was president.

Now, two words say it all: “Tom who?”

Let’s put the results in perspective:

Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate by flipping nine seats (Louisiana’s runoff election is a done deal), and possibly, though not likely, 10, as Virginia’s race is extremely close. Congressional Republicans added to their majority, controlling more seats than at any time since 1932.

In Pennsylvania, senate Republicans bolstered their ranks by winning three seats, now controlling 60 percent of that chamber. And the House GOP picked up eight seats, standing at a whopping 119 members (102 is a majority).

Most embarrassing for Corbett is that every other incumbent governor won. The GOP was even victorious in the deep “blue” Democratic strongholds of Massachusetts, Maryland, and President Obama’s home state of Illinois.

But there is a silver lining. Corbett’s defeat — one entirely of his own making — can serve as a blueprint for what not to do. And make no mistake. He didn’t lose because he was too far right, as the left propagates (the overwhelming GOP gains prove that). Nor was it the (incorrect) perception that he cut public education spending. Such simplifications would be too easy. The loss was an across-the-board failure by a governor way out of his league, one who should never have run in the first place, and certainly shouldn’t have been renominated by his out-of-touch party hierarchy.

Here’s a post-mortem looking at the real reasons for Tom Corbett’s defeat. Regardless of party affiliation, failure to learn from these mistakes will result in history repeating itself.

Consider:

1. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Chairman of the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA), said it best discussing the election: “We had great candidates … governors who get things done win votes. Rick Scott in Florida, Paul LePage in Maine, Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Snyder in Michigan.”

Noticeable absent was Corbett, because, using Christie’s rationale, Corbett was A. a terrible candidate and B. he didn’t “get things done.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Sidenote: An issue that could dog Christie is why, as RGA chairman, he gave $6 million in donor money to a Corbett campaign that was beyond hopeless — especially when that money may well have been enough to propel Republican candidates to victory in Connecticut (15,000 flipped votes would have changed the outcome) and Rhode Island (6,000 votes). Fiscal responsibility isn’t limited to government, and throwing that amount of good money after bad was seriously irresponsible.

2. Corbett seems to truly believe he fought gallantly, sacrificing himself by doing the right things for Pennsylvania. He said, “I am proud of what we did,” and complained that he was hurt by taking on issues “no one else would touch.”

Sorry, but that’s bull. He didn’t “do” anything. Getting blown out doesn’t earn Tom Corbett the right to conveniently write his own flowery epitaph.

Here’s the truth behind Corbett’s historic defeat:

He didn’t govern as a conservative, nor moderate. He didn’t govern at all.

He failed miserably at his two big initiatives: pension reform and liquor privatization. Despite the vast majority of Pennsylvanians favoring both, he continuously alienated Republican legislative leaders and got nothing.

His communication and oratory skills, comparatively, made John McCain look like Daniel Webster.

He disingenuously trumpeted his “achievement” of balancing the budget all four years. Hello? The budget gets balanced every year, no matter who’s in power, because doing so is a constitutional requirement. People saw right through that gimmick.

He spent four weeks on the campaign trail trying to undo four years of silence on the education issue. Way too little, too late, as he was forever branded an enemy of public education. Making matters worse, he failed to enact any education reforms.

His claim of not raising taxes is patently false. Among his several tax increases, the gasoline tax he strongly championed will, when fully phased in, give Pennsylvanians the highest fuel prices in the nation — by far. This job-killing tax flies in the face of his campaign rhetoric claiming to have helped “free enterprise” thrive.

And he made no effort to lower some of the nation’s highest corporate taxes, keeping Pennsylvania’s business climate near the bottom of the barrel.

He talked about being fiscally responsible, yet gave sweetheart deals to the state’s public sector unions, and used taxpayer money to build ships in Philadelphia that had no buyers, and a new stadium for the Yankees’ AAA baseball team. And his awarding of lucrative state contracts to big-dollar campaign contributors rivaled that of former Gov. Ed Rendell.

He resembled Don Quixote for whimsical pursuits of irrelevant issues, from attempting to privatize the lottery and outsource its management to a foreign firm (why?) to frivolously suing the NCAA for its sanctions against Penn State — which Corbett himself had approved.

He abandoned his signature issues of Voter ID and banning gay marriage, infuriating his base while not gaining himself a single “moderate” vote.

He strong-armed the Republican State Committee to endorse a candidate for U.S. Senate who had supported Barack Obama and former Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak, angering the GOP rank-and-file.

Above all, he could not shake the biggest albatross around his neck: The wide perception that his handling of the Jerry Sandusky investigation was politically motivated. Thousands of former supporters could no longer back a man whom they felt prolonged a child predator’s time on the streets. And Corbett’s steadfast refusal to answer reasonable questions on that issue incensed many voters that much more.

If you didn’t know better, listening to Tom Corbett’s concession speech gave the impression that Pennsylvania’s problems were unique — that no other states faced the same types of education, transportation and fiscal issues. But as we know, they all do. So how could Republican governors in those states “get things done,” but Tom Corbett struck out on all counts?

Because he lacked the attributes that make for an effective Governor: competence, transparency, effective communication, being scandal-free, and, above all, trustworthiness.

Got that, governor-elect Wolf? Your 15 minutes have just begun. Good luck.

 

Corbett Legacy Is GOP Do Not Lesson

Ebola Entitlement Is Poison

CHRIS FREIND Ebola Entitlement Is Poison
By Chris Freind

We’ve talked about Ebola’s lethality and the government’s staggering ineptitude.

Now it’s time to admit Ebola likely is here to stay. That’s not because it’s an efficient killer. It’s much more basic. Ebola will thrive because it is being enabled by America’s Big Three diseases which have been gnawing at our core for years: Arrogance, Incompetence, and Entitlement.

Yet we won’t use the antidote – common sense and intestinal fortitude – because of our denial that we are the problem.

Let’s look at the recent spate of mind-blowing developments helping Ebola gain a foothold:

1. Nurse Kaci Hickox, upon returning from West Africa where she treated Ebola patients, registered a fever at Newark airport. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie placed her under the state’s mandatory quarantine. But she threatened to sue, of course. Her confinement was inhumane, and her civil rights violated! Oh the horror of sleeping, eating, giving interviews and watching movies while keeping the public safe!

But rather than standing his ground, Christie released her into America’s most densely populated region so she could go home to Maine. And what a shocker: she is defying her quarantine order there, choosing to ride a bike and frolic in public.

“I will go to court to attain my freedom … I don’t plan on sticking to the guidelines,” Hickox says.

Grow up, Kaci. First, you are free. If you don’t believe it, visit Cuba. Second, since we still don’t know what we’re dealing with, quarantine is part of the gig. If people don’t like that, they don’t have to go to Africa. But you did. Deal with it.

The hard fact is that we have no idea whether Ebola is lurking in her system, since its incubation period is (usually) 21 days or less. If it slowly manifests itself while Hickox is out and about, she could infect others – thus the absolute need for quarantine. What part of this can’t they understand?

2. Christie should not have discharged her. While he claims he didn’t buckle under pressure from the White House and medical “experts,” that’s clearly what he did. Releasing her to a private transport company, especially given her flagrant disdain for the rules, was especially troubling. In his first true presidential-caliber test, Christie failed, and his capitulation should hurt him in the presidential primaries.

3. Dr. Bruce Beutler, an American immunologist and geneticist who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology, doesn’t think Christie is being strict enough.

“I favor (the quarantine) because it’s not entirely clear that they can’t transmit the disease,” Beutler said. “It may not be absolutely true that those without symptoms can’t transmit the disease … there’s a lot of variation with viruses.” And given a recent study (backed by the World Health Organization) showing that 13 percent of Ebola-infected people never exhibit a fever, that should be all the science we need for instituting quarantines.

4. Kaci’s attitude isn’t surprising. We Americans have come to believe we are entitled to everything, and cry that we’re “bullied” anytime someone advocates personal accountability. The “I-deserve-what-I-want, when-I-want-it” mentality has decimated common sense and respect for others. No society can prosper when basic actions for the greater good are flushed away.

And let’s not forget Dr. Craig Spencer in New York, who, after working with Ebola patients in Africa, ignored self-quarantine and misled authorities about riding in subways and taxis, dining out, and bowling – then developed Ebola. And who picks up the tab for the decontamination costs in Dr. Spencer’s case?

One of the first things taught in medical school is that patients lie. We should assume the same for healthcare workers, since, as Dr. Beutler correctly stated, some “behave very irresponsibly.”

Bottom line: if “elite” medical professionals can’t be trusted to follow the rules and tell the truth, what makes us think that Ebola can be contained?

5. The Ebola Wars are not without comedy. Some in the medical community, the CDC in particular, have scolded leaders for establishing quarantines. Accusing them of making decisions based on politics, they argue that they, not politicians, should be calling the shots.

Are they serious? The same people who have been monumentally screwing up from the beginning are now trying to act with moral authority? That’s like Lindsay Lohan preaching temperance. If laughter is indeed the best medicine, well CDC, mission accomplished.

6. Most Americans favor quarantines and travel restrictions, yet their concerns are being ignored by the White House, even as more countries adopt those strategies. (Australia just suspended entry visas for people from Ebola-affected countries).

America’s answer? The State Department wants to bring foreign health care workers infected with Ebola to America for treatment. It’s hard to fathom the stupidity of that plan.

8. What if Ebola arrives at a nearby hospital? Do you send your kids to school if a classmate’s parent works in that hospital? What happens when 30 people become infected, and medical teams can no longer give their undivided attention to a single patient?

Most chilling, what’s the plan for dealing with non-“model” Ebola patients, i.e., those who don’t seek treatment – the illegal alien scared to come forward; the person having an affair who won’t list his mistress as a close contact; “co-habitating” college students who think they’re invincible; the homeless; even the Average Joe. In other words, damn near everybody. This is exactly how Ebola can efficiently spread throughout the most mobile society on Earth.

Not enough people are asking these questions. Instead, too many are dismissive of Ebola as a major threat, or focused on politically correct measures that make Ebola’s inroads that much easier.

Hippocrates said,” Extreme remedies are very appropriate for extreme diseases.” After 2,400 years, it’s pretty scary that many “experts” still haven’t learned from history.

 

Ebola Entitlement Is Poison

Leadership Differs From Management

By Avrum Lapin

In today’s world where sports icons are making more news with their violent behavior off the field than their prowess between the lines, we need to ask ourselves very carefully about the definition and assignment of leadership.

We all remember the classic portrayal in “Trading Places” where the Duke Brothers devise a nefarious plot driven by a $1 bet to measure the preeminence of “nurture over nature.” In doing so they could scoop up a homeless man (Eddie Murphy) and transform him, seemingly overnight, into a leading authority and celebrity in the world of finance, and take a well bred and successful financier (Dan Aykroyd) and transform him into a bumbling beggar. The film, as we all remember, ends with the Duke Brothers being outsmarted and beaten at their own game.

Where was the leadership in all of this? Was it in the experiment? Was it in the inclination and ability on the part of the wealthy and powerful to manipulate others? Was it in the ability of those set upon and manipulated to turn the tables on their antagonists? Some may say that it is “all of the above.”

Leadership is the ability to think creatively and use that creative conception and impulse to influence circumstance and events and to cross conventional lines. In this way leaders redirect an activity or an entity, enabling it to achieve a determined goal, generating transformative results. Leaders are those men and women who can conceive of and articulate innovation and change-driven ideas, and to motivate, guide and direct others and their environment toward executing plans of action, thus creating and making a difference.

As a matter of definition and qualification, this is far different from management, which is often not based on creative energy, and focuses on the fulfillment of existing imperatives or of the plans of others. I say this not as a matter of criticism, as the world needs both – people who will dream and innovate, and those who will make sure that the innovations are “shovel-ready” for implementation.

In the world of philanthropy, especially in the Jewish world, leadership is a matter of daily conversation. We acknowledge leadership, we develop leadership, we encourage and train leaders, we determine the skills and capabilities that define leaders and we expand the definition of leadership to suit our circumstances; often, I may add – at our own peril.

What do we mean when we thank someone for their leadership? What are we thanking them for and how is leadership expressed?

What do we mean when we call someone a leader in the Jewish philanthropic enterprise? Are they inspirers, cheerleaders, servants, helpers, facilitators, guides?

Quoting traditional Jewish teaching (Talmud, Avot 4:1) we learn this about positive attributes of leadership:

Ben Zoma says:

Who is wise? The one who learns from every person…
Who is brave? The one who subdues his negative inclination…
Who is rich? The one who is appreciates what he has…
Who is honored? The one who gives honor to others…

Therefore, if we are to accept this Talmudic definition of the virtues of leadership we must look inward to answer the following questions:

  • When we recognize a donor, do we consider just the gift, or also the individual and what he or she has accomplished in their lives?

  • When we honor someone at an event or a tribute, do we look aside from things that the honoree might have done, right and wrong, or the circumstances through which they may have obtained those charitable funds?

  • When we train and develop a leader and then put him or her on a pedestal as a virtuous example for their community, how do we reconcile this action with the fact that they may not have subdued their negative inclinations in other aspects of their lives?

I am not suggesting that nonprofits and the Jewish philanthropic marketplace should approach the question of leadership from a puritanical perspective or become rigid in their points of view. I truly believe that everyone is capable of improving their lives and of personal redemption, and that our society must be exceedingly careful in judging it constituents. Rather, I look at it from the point of view of the organization, ensuring that it can mobilize its assets in a way that will create the strongest value proposition.

I have written in the past about the need for nonprofits to position themselves to best succeed in an environment that has become hyper-competitive, and therefore I recommend that leaders and donors be vigilant and proactive. Staying mission driven and marshalling resources will help your nonprofit pursue a path that will most likely help you to succeed over the long term. In that context I recommend that successful nonprofits:

  • Look for synergies with donors and sponsors that will enable them to burnish their image as well as advance your case for giving; and

  • Search for those people, through carefully mapping and utilizing relationships and connections to strengthen who you are and invest in your sustainability, rather than creating a splash today and paying for it later.

Embrace the virtues of wisdom, courage, wealth and honor expressed in our tradition. In that way the work that you do, regardless of how religious you or your organization are, will truly be a sacred task.

Avrum Lapin is president of The Lapin Group, LLC, a fundraising consulting firm in Jenkintown. 

Leadership Differs From Management

Leadership Differs From Management

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

This article by JaKell Sullivan we have entitled Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale is courtesy of Joanne Yurchak

By JaKell Sullivan

Ezekiel Emanuel, the architect of Obamacare, bragged earlier this year in a New Republic article about Obamacare’s intent to kill the insurance industry, nationalize health care and collect data on every person in order to track and control personal lifestyle choices. He condescendingly wrote, “Be prepared to kiss your insurance company goodbye forever.”

A logical correlation can be drawn that the federal intent behind recent education reforms is the same. What’s in it for crony capitalists?

In 2004, Microsoft signed a technology contract with the United Nation’s education arm, UNESCO, to globalize education. This profit-venture started a chain of events that dismantles our 10th Amendment right to control education, realigns the world’s entire education system on the backs of U.S. taxpayers, and endlessly profits elites. The U.N. announced that the joint venture would foster “web-based communities of practice including content development and worldwide curricula reflecting UNESCO’s values.” Did local parents vote on these curriculum values?

This year, Microsoft joined with the Obama administration’s ConnectEd Initiative to provide one-to-one devices for every child in order to replace textbooks. Meanwhile, legislators across the country are working with groups like Jeb Bush’s Digital Learning Now to implement this federal agenda which profits conservative and liberal foundations joined at the hip with government. Foundations profit from federal “turn around” school mandates that turn public district schools into public charters based on data controlled by assessment companies receiving federal grants.

The implications behind this reality are obvious. Big data becomes the new global commodity. Technology turns teachers into facilitators, local districts into administrators and students into social activists working to improve “democracy” and solve “global issues;” poverty, health rights and global warming — using governments as the solution. Collectivism in, individualism out.

UNESCO’s values rise as one-to-one technology puts real-time, updatable curricula and tests outside the review of parents. Federal privacy laws, stripped in December 2011 now allow the federal government and third parties to collect information from children’s class work and tests (tying existing databases together for third party research, health data, workforce data, criminal data, census data and family information). America is being prodded toward a skills-based economy where education control is further centralized, test scores slot children into workforce tracks, elites pool taxpayer money into global coffers and crony capitalists benefit from cheap labor by standardizing our children’s educations.

Politicians claim that “education should be aligned to the needs of the workforce” and that “the future of our economic prosperity” requires us to align education to jobs. Renowned author Hugh Nibley wrote that scriptural principles reveal “when the Economy becomes the main and engrossing concern of a society — the economy will self-destruct.”

Do Utahns have the fortitude to change course? Most recognize that the family is the fundamental unit of society, yet our politicians tout the economy as the fundamental unit. This gives rise to early childhood education initiatives that undermine and harm childhood attachment to family. Workforce aligned education systems make children beholden to, and fearful of, test scores that decide their future. The state becomes master and parents are marginalized.

Charles Krauthammer said that insurance companies are “becoming wholly owned subsidiaries” of the federal government. And, as federal education reforms turn local school districts and boards into wholly owned subsidiaries, families will suffer the loss of local control over what children learn — and taxpayers will watch our savings dwindle while crony capitalists reap the rewards of big government.

JaKell Sullivan graduated from Utah State University and is an advocate for parental rights in education. She is a mother of two and resides in Sandy, Utah. This article originally ran, Tuesday, in the Deseret News of Salt Lake City

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale
Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale
Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

Houston Government Endangers Liberty

Houston Government Endangers Liberty
By Chris Freind

Houston, you’ve got a problem.

Based on disturbing events in Texas’ largest city, it’s clear that Ebola is a distant second in the “greatest threat” category.

That honor goes to political extremist Annise Parker, the mayor of Houston.

In a move that is anathema to religious liberty and freedom of speech, Houston, under Parker’s direction, has issued wide-ranging subpoenas to five pastors who attempted to overturn the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). An “anti-discrimination” law, HERO is also known as the “Bathroom Bill” because a provision allows transgender people to use either male or female restrooms, which the pastors opposed.

After HERO became law in May, the pastors helped gather more than 50,000 signatures to place the issue on a ballot referendum. Since only 17,000 signatures were necessary, it appeared Houstonians, not the mayor and city council, would ultimately decide the fate of the ordinance.

Not so fast.

Even though Houston’s city secretary certified the signatures, city Attorney David Feldman deemed 38,000 — yes, thirty-eight thousand — to be invalid, killing the referendum initiative. Not only do some legal experts contend Feldman acted without legal authority, but much of his reasoning is flawed (such as circulators having to be registered voters, a requirement that has been consistently invalidated by federal judges nationwide).

A lawsuit filed by several citizens challenging the city’s action led to subpoenas of massive scope, demanding privileged information from the pastors in 17 different categories. According to the Houston Press, subpoenaed information included:

–Anything related to Parker, Feldman, HERO or any HERO drafts, and any copies or drafts for the petition to repeal the ordinance;

–Anything related to “the topics of equal rights, civil rights, homosexuality, or gender identity;”

–Any language related to rest room access or “any discussion about whether or how HERO does or does not impact rest room access;”

–Communication with anyone at the religious rights group Alliance Defending Freedom, which has criticized the ordinance.

–“All speeches, presentation, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by your or in your possession.”

Hell, they might as well try to find out who killed JFK.

After heavy criticism, the mayor slightly revised the subpoenas, “removing” sermons, which means nothing since sermons are actually speeches, and Parker acknowledged some could still be fair game.

Let’s analyze:

1. None of the subpoenaed pastors are even party to the lawsuit against the city.

2. Parker’s rationale is, “We want the instructions on the petition process.” In other words, how the preachers instructed their congregants regarding the petition drive. The mayor claims that if preachers are politicking from the pulpit, sermons and other communications are fair game. Two problems:

First, this case is only supposed to be about whether there are enough valid signatures to warrant a referendum. The pastors’ viewpoints on the mayor and HERO are completely irrelevant.

Second, one needs to define “politicking.” It’s true that a preacher advocating the election of a particular candidate from the pulpit may place the tax status of his church in jeopardy. But there is nothing illegal about a religious organization advocating positions on various issues. That has been a time-honored tradition in America and, no pun intended, thank God for that.

For example, the push to outlaw slavery was rooted in northern churches as pastors encouraged their flocks to support the abolitionist cause. Same goes for much of the impetus behind the Civil Rights Movement.

America’s freedoms are supposed to prevent religious persecution by government. The actions of Mayor Parker fly directly in the face of that.

3. One has to ask, “Why?” Why is the mayor pushing these subpoenas? Does she have a hidden agenda? One can reasonably conclude that it may be an attempt to intimidate religious leaders — who face jail time for contempt of court if they don’t comply — into accepting the radical agenda of a political ideologue hell-bent on social engineering. In other words, flat-out political retribution.

If the mayor believes so strongly in the ordinance, she should do the honorable thing: Agree to the referendum. If it passes, great. If not, Parker should start doing what the people elected her to do: govern a world-class city, albeit one with many problems.

4. This case has the possibility of setting groundbreaking legal precedent. If the mayor’s actions are upheld, America’s unique freedoms are in mortal danger. The door will be opened for more rights to be obliterated — and once that door is opened, it will never close.

This isn’t a Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal issue, as its outcome will affect every American. Even supporters of the HERO ordinance should be extremely concerned, for anyone who thinks attacks on free speech and religious liberties are limited to one side of the political spectrum is dangerously misinformed.

Just as those on the Right would be wise to accept the right to burn the flag or protest military funerals, no matter how tasteless, the Left should be up in arms about this frontal assault on the liberties that allow us to express who we are and what we believe, without fear of government intrusion.

Perhaps more than any other state, Texas knows a thing or two about fighting oppressors and protecting rights. So here’s hoping they take the steer by the horns and throw the subpoenas right where they belong — in the trash.

Otherwise, start saying your prayers.

 

Houston Government Endangers Liberty