Category: Guest Authors

Philly Cigarette Tax Fails

Philly Cigarette Tax Fails
By Chris Freind

One can strongly argue that the greatest contribution of our city and state officials is comic relief. And that’s exactly what we have in Harrisburg, as 114 representatives, 39 senators and one lame duck governor just passed the biggest joke legislation in recent memory – an increase in the tax on cigarettes bought in Philadelphia to $2 a pack. The tax revenue is intended to bail out the Philadelphia School District – a black hole that sucks endless amounts of taxpayer money into its coffers – despite its monumental failure to educate.

And the cycle continues: even though the district has more than enough money (over $20,000 per student, per year, yet somehow that’s not “fair”), it cried poor, and, like clockwork, got rewarded with more funding by gutless elected officials. The tragic punchline? The district will continue to score an “F” on the only test that matters: our children’s education.

Any seventh-grader could tell you that the cigarette tax will not only fail miserably in achieving its goal, but will, in fact, hurt Philadelphians. Consider:

1. The cigarette tax will supposedly raise $49 million, though, not surprisingly, projections continue to change. Since the district maintains that it has an $81 million deficit, a gap still remains. And given that Philadelphia taxes damn near everything already, making it one of the highest-taxed cities in the country, what’s next?

2. How exactly is $49 million – out of a $2.6 billion budget – going to help improve anything? Answer: it’s not.

3. It seems like all the justifications we have heard for more taxes and more funding are rooted in saving jobs. But let’s be honest: A) the district is massively inefficient and bureaucratically top-heavy; thousands of jobs can, and should be, eliminated, and B) the only thing that matters is the children, but like always, much of the money never finds its way to the classroom, where it’s needed most. More money doesn’t educate children; accountable educators do.

4. This column has discussed common sense, free-market reform measures ad nauseam. None have been implemented (one of Gov. Corbett’s many failures), nor will they be, because too many politicians fear the teachers’ unions. Until the status quo is turned upside down, nothing will change. All the money in the world won’t improve a thing, and once again, the only ones who really matter – the students – take the hit.

5. The results for standardized state exams are in, and are right where you’d expect – in the toilet. They’re worse than last year’s scores, with reading and math achievement dropping even further. Bottom line: After spending two-and-a-half billion dollars last year, fewer than half of all students met state standards. That’s insane.

6. Republicans who voted for the cigarette tax either A) know it won’t solve anything but knuckle under to pressure, or B) really think throwing more money into a bottomless pit will work. On either count, they deserve to be removed from office by the voters. Here’s hoping.

7. Now for the real world implications of the tax:

First, the anticipated revenue projections are a joke, and won’t come close to being met. Why? Because Philadelphia isn’t New York or L.A., where it would take an hour just to get outside the city limits to buy cheaper cigarettes. In Philly, it’s a quick drive to the surrounding counties where a pack of smokes is significantly cheaper.

And remember that Philadelphia already imposes an 8 percent sales tax (not 6, like the rest of the state), driving up the price that much more. Bottom line: smokers aren’t going to quit, but will simply buy their cigarettes elsewhere.

One wonders if the budget gurus factored in this “bootleg” factor of Philadelphians buying their cigarettes outside the city when they compiled their revenue projections.

Second, the tax will significantly hurt small business owners. Customers who normally bought their cigarettes (and numerous other things) at the corner store now will take their business elsewhere – a boon to convenience stores right over the border but a death knell to city shop keepers. And as they go by the wayside, so do jobs, as well as the income and property taxes they generate.

Nothing like putting more Pennsylvania small business owners out of business. One would think the job of the governor and the Legislature is to keep people employed and grow the economy, instead of forcing businesses to close, move out of state, and put people out of work. Guess not.

Rather than a “smoke” and mirrors approach, the governor and Legislature should have sent the message that enough was enough; instead of sending more blank checks to Philadelphia, it was time to finally overhaul a failed educational system. In doing so, they would have won the support not just of suburbanites sick of seeing their tax dollars wasted, but also the parents of those trapped in abysmal Philadelphia schools with no way out.

Instead, the promise of their new tax law will go up in smoke, and with it, another generation of lost children.

Philly Cigarette Tax Fails

State Police Fitness Suit Doesn’t Add Up

State Police Fitness Suit
By Chris Freind

After taking careful aim, he let the bullets fly, killing one Pennsylvania state trooper and severely injuring another in an ambush outside a police barracks. Suspect Eric Frein, a survivalist and sharpshooter, then fled into the wilderness, where he has eluded an army of police officers and FBI agents for almost two weeks.

Executing an unsuspecting police officer, while cowardly, nonetheless shows the sheer brutality of the shooter and his take-no-prisoners mentality. And given that he deliberately planned his attack on police, it is clear he wouldn’t discriminate shooting a male or female officer. In his mind, he was (and is) at war with law enforcement (he passed on shooting a civilian outside the barracks), so any officer in his sights would have been, and remains, a target, gender be damned.

Should Frein still be in the wilderness, all officers, male and female alike, hoping to successfully track him must be in peak physical shape because of the region’s rugged terrain. And should Frein be cornered by an officer, he will undoubtedly attempt to strike back with lethal force, attempting to kill a female officer just as quickly as he would a male to facilitate his escape.

Bottom line: Frein will show no discrimination killing police, treating all officers with equal opportunity contempt.

Therefore, since all officers face the same threats (not just from this suspect but in all situations, from car stops to home invasions), common sense tells us that all officers should be trained in the exact same way — and subject to the exact same fitness and academic standards, where gender has no bearing whatsoever.

Yet, if the Obama administration has its way, that standard would be shot to pieces.

In his belief that employing the same physical standards for both male and female cadets is discriminatory against women and a violation of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has filed suit against the Pennsylvania State Police, attempting to force it to change its physical requirements for females (and compensate women who have failed the test). The Justice Department claims “through the use of these physical fitness tests, defendants (the state police) have engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination against women” and that “defendants’ use of physical fitness tests are not job-related for the entry-level trooper position, (and) is not consistent with business necessity.”

And there you have it. Another classic example of a lawsuit dreamt up by armchair bureaucrats completely lacking real-world experience — and real-world common sense.

How are physical fitness tests not “job-related” or a “business necessity?” When a bad guy flees, the police pursue, often on foot. Physically giving chase to, and ultimately overtaking, criminal suspects is a big part of the job. And since catching lawbreakers (usually involving intense physical exertion) is the core “business” of being a police officer, how exactly is that not consistent with “business necessity?”

Criminals aren’t chivalrous — they don’t let up when being chased by a female officer (or an overweight male); by definition, they are fleeing to escape capture. So why would the federal government want to give them an advantage by mandating officers be on the force who aren’t physically up to snuff? Why would we ever want standards implemented that not only help the bad guys, but devalue the abilities of all police officers — especially women, who are more than capable of passing the same tests as their male counterparts. (More than seven of 10 female cadets pass the physical requirements).

And let’s be honest. If anything, the existing requirements are far too lenient: Three chances to vertically jump a whopping 14 inches (fat people jump higher than that when the pizza guy arrives); a 300-meter run in 77 seconds (a feat easily accomplished by your average sixth-grader); a 1.5-mile run in 18 minutes (you could catch a quick nap and still make it); and 13 pushups with no time limit.

Are these requirements discriminatory? Absolutely! And they should be; the whole point is to weed out those who would not be able to perform on the job. Are we supposed to hire female lifeguards who can’t swim? Bus drivers with failing eyesight? Out-of-shape combat pilots who can’t sustain G-forces? Where does it end?

The police requirements are meant to simulate real-life, on-the-job situations that officers will — not may, but will — encounter: Foot pursuit, CPR, climbing stairs, lifting and pushing various things.

Yet, the Justice Department somehow doesn’t see it that way, stating that it “is deeply committed to eliminating artificial barriers that keep qualified women out of public safety work.” If cops never encountered any of the above situations, then the requirements would indeed be “artificial barriers.”

But they do. And therefore the requirements must not only stay, but be strengthened.

If the requirements are dumbed down, and the inevitable negative consequences occur, will Holder or President Obama take responsibility? And would it even matter to victims and their families if they did?

“We’re sorry that the rapist got away to strike again because our officers weren’t able to run a few hundred yards without wheezing; it’s a shame the drug dealer killed your young child because he was able to elude out-of-shape cops time and again; too bad those victims died in the fire because the police couldn’t mount the steps quickly.”

Not much solace there.

Except, of course, to a smug administration, content with a warped belief that its social engineering is changing America for the better. Here’s a news flash, Mr. President: Such assaults on common sense and work ethic don’t work, and only sow the seeds of resentment across all classes and all genders.

Hillary Clinton didn’t earn bonus votes because she was female. In the same way, if an applicant — for any job — can’t meet the requirements, the answer is to move on to something else, or work harder until you can pass the tests. Instilling a sense of misguided entitlement solely because of gender (the true “artificial barrier”) not only isn’t rewarding, but extremely dangerous.

So hats off to the Pennsylvania State Police for not caving, unlike their Corpus Christi, Texas, counterparts. That department, upon having after a similar suit filed against them, agreed to eliminate its physical fitness test, dole out $700,000 in compensation to women who had failed the test, and give priority hiring and retroactive seniority and benefits to females who didn’t pass the test.

And that is downright criminal.

Let’s hope the courts have the stamina to run rings around Obama’s frivolous lawsuit in Pennsylvania and push it to where it belongs: In the trash.

State Police Fitness Suit Doesn’t Add Up

Common Core Fails Says School Director

By Lisa Esler

Isn’t it strange that since the Federal Department of Education was established in the late 70’s, education has been on a disastrous downward decline even though America spends more money on education than any other nation? I think most of us older folks would agree we learned the 3 R’s very well before the FED started “improving” education.

Over the past several years, schools across the country have been implementing Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This is the latest centralized federal attempt to nationalize a new, one-size-fits-all, untested, convoluted teaching experiment with students as the guinea pigs.

These new Common Core Standards emerged from the wreckage of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. These two failed experiments are now part of the history of bad education reform along with the “Sight Reading” and “New Math” fiascos.

If the end goal of those who pushed Common Core was a truly honest attempt to improve education, wouldn’t they have used best practices from those states which were already proven to be successful? That did not happen. They also did not consult with Child Behavioral Scientists to see if the standards for each grade were age appropriate. In many cases, they are not age appropriate and therefore undue pressure is put on a child to perform above his developmental ability.

Furthermore, the standards were not state-led and voluntary as claimed by proponents. States have always been the laboratories of innovation and competition. Instead, a bunch of educrats and special interest groups got together and developed standards, ignoring concerns and alarms from professional, well-respected educators and psychologists. Just like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, in 2009-2010, CCSS was falsely packaged as rigorous, internationally-benchmarked standards. Because a large federal grant (bribe) was offered, Governor Rendell and then his successor Governor Corbett blindly accepted the standards, sight unseen, without consultation with our elected representatives in Harrisburg. Since then Pennsylvania has changed the name to “PA Core Standards” to ward off Common Core opponents but the standards are basically the same.

Opponents are worried that what was sold as minimal standards will lead to national control of curriculum in order to conform to the ‘Core Aligned’ tests. Bill Gates, who pushed for the CCSS through the financial generosity of his Foundation, said “when the testing is implemented, the curriculum will follow.” He even referred to students as his “customers.” He is absolutely right! Implementation of Common Core has created many “customers” for Microsoft and Pearson Publishing and the testing companies that are all salivating at the thought of the money they can make from the tests, new books and technology.

Great teachers are boxed in by new evaluations which are tied to the tests. They will lose their autonomy and creativity in the classroom since they will be forced to teach to the test. I don’t understand why more teachers, administrators speaking out!

Many parents know something has changed. Their kids are frustrated, have lost self-confidence and no longer like math. They tell me they can’t even help their elementary students with math homework since the old (simple) ways they use are now ‘incorrect’.

In addition to the manipulation of the curriculum and the tests, there is another aspect of Common Core which is known as “Core Data.” Are you aware that an enormous amount of ongoing data is being collected on our students and their families? At this time, it is unclear HOW all that academic and personal information will be used and, worse yet, uncertainty about who can access the data.

The potential for input errors and breach of privacy rights is daunting since the data follows every student from kindergarten through career.

Opposition to Common Core is growing stronger by the day. Our children’s education is far too important to be dictated by educrats and special interest groups in Washington that are counting their profits. Constitutionally, the federal government is prohibited from dictating curriculum. Let’s make sure education decisions are preserved at the state and local level with input from parents.

Please learn as much as you can about Common Core. There are many informative Youtube videos, Facebook Pages and Websites on the subject. Get informed, and if you agree with me, that CC is rotten to the core, speak up at your local School Board meetings.

Also, Common Core is one of those issues that cross political party lines. It seems that Gov. Corbett has recently requested a review of the CCSS by the Pennsylvania Department of Education but more needs to be done. Contact your State Senator and Representative. These politicians are hard at work worrying about the upcoming election yet not a peep out of most of them concerning one of the most basic responsibilities – the education of children.

Ask them where they stand on this important issue.

With your help, we can put an end to Common Core in Pennsylvania.

Mrs. Esler is a director on the Penn Delco School Board

 

Common Core Fails Says School Director

 

Common Core Fails Says School Director

Obama Performance No Fireside Chat

Last evening the American people were yet again treated to a performance given by President Obama. His speech used the usual collection of patriotic catch phrases to win over the audience to his much anticipated “strategy” for ending the genocide in the middle east. It was not a strategy. It was a political check list. Consult with Congress, check. Consult with UN, check. Consult with military advisers, oops.

His robot-like persona struggled uncomfortably to use American euphemisms in the right context. Think Mork from Ork on meth. Thirteen years after September 11 he remains incapable of projecting an understanding of American culture and honor. If he’s got it, he’s doing a hell of a job of hiding it.

Note to constitutional professor: America is a republic. Mysteriously they didn’t teach that anywhere between the madrasah and Harvard. Pretty sure they taught it at one of Sarah Palins alma maters. Read the text in parcels; spare yourself the audio. Only so much pomposity and pretense can be digested at one sitting.

He’s no FDR. This was no fireside chat. It was a campaign promise. It was a gift for those Democrat incumbents struggling to hold on to their Senate seats in Novembers mid term elections. THIS is his priority. Avoiding telegraphing his punches to a deadly enemy for the safety and success of our military is not.

Its purposes were devoid of connection to the realistic needs of a REPUBLIC under threat. His dishonesty and duplicity were breathtaking;

“And our own safety, our own security, depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for –- timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth.”

versus

“It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”

Excerpted from FreedomRadioRocks.com

Obama Performance No Fireside Chat
Obama Performance No Fireside Chat

Common Core 5 Big Half Truths

By Rick Hess

School is back in session, and debate over the Common Core is boiling in key states. As governors and legislators debate the fate of the Common Core, they hear Core advocates repeatedly stress five impressive claims: that their handiwork is “internationally benchmarked,” “evidence-based,” “college- and career-ready,” and “rigorous,” and that the nations that perform best on international tests all have national standards.

In making these claims, advocates go on to dismiss skeptics as ignorant extremists who are happy to settle for mediocrity. The thing is, once examined, these claims are far less compelling than they appear at first glance. It’s not that they’re false so much as grossly overstated. Herewith, a handy cheat sheet for putting the Common Core talking points in context.

Internationally benchmarked: Advocates tout their handiwork as “internationally benchmarked.” By this they mean that the committees that penned the Common Core paid particular attention to the standards of countries that fare well on international tests. It’s swell that they did so, but benchmarking usually means comparing one’s performance with another’s — not just borrowing some attractive ideas. What the Common Core authors did is more “cutting-and-pasting” than “benchmarking.” Some experts even reject the notion that the standards are particularly good compared to those of other nations. Marina Ratner, professor emerita of math at the University of California, Berkeley, and winner of the 1993 international Ostrowski Prize, has written, “The most astounding statement I have read is the claim that Common Core standards are ‘internationally benchmarked.’ They are not. The Common Core fails any comparison with the standards of high-achieving countries….They are lower in the total scope of learned material, in the depth and rigor of the treatment of mathematical subjects, and in the delayed and often inconsistent and incoherent introductions of mathematical concepts and skills.”

Evidence-based: Advocates celebrate the Common Core as “evidence-based.” The implication is that whereas we used to make things up as we went along, decisions about why students must learn this and not that in fourth grade are now backed by scientific research. In fact, what advocates mean is that the standards take into account surveys asking professors and hiring managers what they thought high school graduates should know, as well as examinations of which courses college-bound students usually take. The fact is that it’s difficult for anyone to claim that evidence “proves” in which grade students should learn to calculate the area of a triangle or compare narrative styles. Vanderbilt professor Lynn Fuchs has put it well, noting that there is no “empirical basis” for the Common Core. “We don’t know yet whether it makes sense to have this particular set of standards,” she explains. “We don’t know if it produces something better or even different from what it was before.” Looking at evidence is grand, but what the Common Core’s authors did falls well short of what “evidence-based” typically means.

College- and career-ready: Advocates claim that the Common Core standards will ensure that students are “college- and career-ready.” As former Obama domestic policy chief Melody Barnes wrote in Politico last year, “Too often, the path to a diploma is not rigorous enough to prepare our graduates for their next steps.” Critics have observed, however, that the Common Core drops certain high school math topics (including calculus and pre-calculus, about half of algebra II, and parts of geometry) and moves other material to later grades. When asked whether this might leave students less prepared for advanced college math, proponents explain that the Common Core is a “floor, not a ceiling.” Achieve, Inc., a driving force behind the standards, describes the “floor,” explaining that the standards are meant to make sure students can “succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing postsecondary coursework” in “community college, university, technical/vocational program[s], apprenticeship[s], or significant on-the-job training.” The result adds up to something less than the recipe for excellence that the marketing suggests.

Rigor: Advocates declare that the Common Core is more rigorous than the state standards that previously existed. It’s actually quite challenging to objectively compare the “rigor” of standards. After all, one could insist that fifth-graders should master calculus, note that the Common Core doesn’t require this, and thus dismiss the standards as too easy — even though such an appraisal might indicate impracticality rather than rigor. The Common Core’s authors judged that the old standards had too much material but were insufficiently rigorous, which tells us that, in their view, we shouldn’t equate rigor with quantity. Thus, the question is how to weigh subtle claims of relative rigor. More often than not, the case for the Common Core’s superiority rests on the subjective judgment of four evaluators hired by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. These four hired evaluators opined in 2010 that the Core standards were better than about three-quarters of existing state standards. Not an unreasonable judgment, but hardly compelling proof of rigor.

Leading nations have national standards: Advocates have made a major point of noting that high-performing nations all have national standards. What they’re much less likely to mention is that the world’s lowest-performing nations also all have national standards. There is no obvious causal link between national standards and educational quality.

When it comes to the Common Core, advocates have become quite adept at delivering their familiar talking points. They’re quite proud of these. In fact, they think them so compelling that they’re befuddled that popular support appears to be steadily eroding. A more skeptical observer surveys these talking points and sees a series of half-truths and exaggerations that have been trumpeted as fact. As states reassess the Common Core, advocates should be challenged to offer more than stirring rhetoric and grandiose claims. Given how avidly Common Core boosters celebrate “evidence,” they really ought to be able to be able to muster more than, “Trust us, we’re really smart.”

This column was passed on to us from this site by Joanne Yurchak. Thank you, Joanne.

Common Core 5 Big Half Truths

Common Core 5 Big Half Truths

Ferguson Shows Widening Racial Gulf

CHRIS FREIND
By Chris Freind

For all the pain endured during the Civil Rights movement by people of all colors, the racial chaos that has descended on Ferguson, Mo., makes one wonder how disenchanted those equality pioneers must be.

In the 1960s, barriers were knocked down by heroes who fought courageously and peacefully, not just to be equal, but to live in a color-blind society. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best, stating that people should not be judged by the color of their skin. Those ideals won the day back then, yet it is with tragic irony that today, race relations have been hijacked and taken on a race to the bottom.

It is no exaggeration to say that, in many respects, race relations are worse today than they were half a century ago. And that is a tragedy of our own making. As Ferguson shows, the racial gulf continues to widen, a trend that will only accelerate until we take a hard look in the mirror and remember what the Civil Rights movement fought for in the first place.

In Ferguson, an 18-year-old was shot and killed by a police officer after the two struggled in and around the officer’s patrol car. An autopsy is being performed, and an investigation is ongoing.

That should have been the story line from the beginning. Period. Nothing about race should have entered into the equation until, and only until, it was determined to be warranted.

Instead, protests ensued. Confrontations between citizens and a heavily armed police force were displayed before a national TV audience. The unrest in Ferguson spurred the FBI to launch a civil rights investigation, and the U.S. Justice Department is conducting what will be a third autopsy. Calls for the officer to be charged as a way of bringing “justice” for the deceased, Michael Brown, further enflamed tensions. Curfews were imposed and the National Guard mobilized.

Disregarding the spin and not-so-hidden agendas of some shameless self-promoters, let’s take a sober look at the situation:

1. Brown, who is black, was killed by white police Officer Darren Wilson. Does that mean Wilson, a decorated police veteran, is racist, and that his shooting was racially motivated? Absolutely not, especially because, up to this point, no racist elements have surfaced regarding Wilson. He deserves the benefit of the doubt that his encounter with Brown had nothing to do with color and everything to do with performing his job.

Obviously, if it is determined that race was involved, there should be consequences. That’s why God invented investigations. Common sense tells us that only after the investigation is concluded should anyone be protesting. To do so now is flying blind, since virtually no facts are known, and at least one eyewitness statement — that Brown was shot in the back — seems to have been contradicted by the medical examiner hired by the Brown family. Let’s not forget the innocent until proven guilty principle.

2. Inflammatory rhetoric only ignites the powder keg. Calling Brown’s killing an “execution” (as the Brown family attorney did) is not just ludicrous, but dangerous to everyone. Where are the leaders denouncing such statements?

3. There are conflicting stories as to how far away Brown was when he was shot. Police state that the first shot was fired while the two tussled in the police car, yet we don’t by whom (some reports have Brown shoving Wilson into the car). Regarding the ensuing shots, let’s assume that Brown died 35 feet away from the car, as some reports state. First, that doesn’t mean he was shot 35 feet away, as people can stagger quite a distance after being shot. Ballistics tests and autopsy results should provide the answer.

The medical examiner hired by the family stated the bullet that struck Brown’s in the front of his head could have hit when Brown was giving up or charging the officer. He stated that he found no gunpowder residue near the entry wounds, preliminarily indicating the shot was not from extremely close range, but also said he hadn’t examined Brown’s clothes, which could contain that residue. Again, we must wait for the full picture before casting judgments.

If Wilson shot Brown while the two struggled, that would seem justified, especially if Brown, as reports say, was grabbing for Wilson’s weapon. If, however, Brown was shot at a considerable distance (and not charging the officer), then Wilson is at fault. A shooting can never be justified (if the assailant is unarmed) from a considerable distance, no matter how much adrenaline may be pumping through an officer. Part of the job is to make correct split-second decisions, especially when firing a gun. Noble as being a police officer is, wrong actions in the line of duty have consequences.

4. There was a video released allegedly showing Brown, reported to be 6-foot-4 and 292 pounds, stealing cigars from a liquor store 15 minutes prior to the shooting. The Justice Department and the Missouri governor both criticized the video’s release, but why? Irrelevant is whether Officer Wilson knew of that situation (we don’t know yet). What matters is that Brown had allegedly been engaged in a criminal act, pushing and threatening a much smaller clerk on his way out the door. Therefore, whether or not the shooting was justified, he should not be made out to be a hero.

5. The Ferguson police have been criticized for their strong showing. OK, help me out on this. Given the unrest, including burning and looting, and Molotov cocktails and gunfire being directed at police, what exactly should they have done?

Sadly, race relations will never improve until we stop viewing everything through a racial prism. As long as race is our go-to answer for everything, Dr. King’s dream of a color-blind society will remain just that — a dream.

Ferguson Shows Widening Racial Gulf

Obama Albatross

By John Fund
Courtesy of National Review

With less than four months to go until Election Day, Democrats increasingly have no confidence in the Obama White House’s political instincts. As a result, more and more Democratic candidates are avoiding the president when he comes to their neighborhood. Senator Mark Udall  famously avoided showing up with Obama at a fundraiser in the senator’s honor in Colorado last week. John Foust, the Democratic congressional candidate in a suburban Virginia district just outside Washington, D.C., snubbed the president this week by failing to show up for a presidential event in his area.

Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas was flabbergasted by Obama’s petulant refusal to visit the Texas border last week, calling him “aloof” and “detached” and his decision “bizarre.”

The Virginia Progress PAC, a Democratic committee supporting Senator Mark Warner, issued a list of talking points for potential donors that laid out the challenge the Obama albatross represents for Democrats this fall: “The 2014 midterm elections are shaping up to be similar to the wave elections of 1994 and 2010, particularly with an unpopular President and an unpopular piece of major legislation that will serve as a referendum on the sitting President. . . . A difficult political climate coupled with the rising unpopularity of President Obama could affect the Democratic brand as a whole and hurt Senator Warner.”

Bob Beckel, a former Democratic campaign consultant, said on Fox News this week that he spoke with a Democrat “intimately involved in [Obama’s] campaigns, both of them.” The message was sobering: “He said you have to know what it’s like to get through [presidential counselor] Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama, and I think that’s a tough deal for anybody on a staff to do. . . . [Obama] lives in a zone that nobody else goes to.”

Indeed, Democrats are becoming increasingly vocal about their concern that their president is isolated and not connecting with the political reality around him. “The Democratic party is like a wedding party with the common goal of getting to the ceremony on time,” a former Democratic congressman told me. “There is a caravan of cars, but the lead car is driven by a guy who is weaving in and out of traffic and is dangerous to the other cars behind him. Do you follow the guy you agreed to follow, or do you make your own way to the wedding? More and more people are leaving the caravan.”

All of Washington is talking about our detached president — one who would go to two fundraisers in New York last night after a plane carrying 23 Americans was shot down over Ukraine. In 2012, Obama famously flew off to fundraisers in Las Vegas the day after the Benghazi attack killed our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

“Obama does not appear to relish being chief executive,” writes liberal journalist Edward Luce in the Financial Times. Luce notes that Obama has headlined 393 fundraisers since he took office, double the number that George W. Bush had attended at this point in his presidency. Veteran journalist Patrick Smith writes, “I can think of two names for this. One is ‘outmoded arrogance.’ The other is ‘asleep at the wheel.’  Whatever the moniker, some measure of incompetence lies behind it.”

Democrats are happy for the president to raise money, which he can still do by appealing to the fat cats in the party’s environmental, gay, and feminist bases. But they increasingly don’t want to appear with him in front of ordinary voters or follow his lead on policy. For example, more and more Democrats in swing districts or states are looking for a way to separate themselves from the Obama White House’s chaotic border policy. Much of the grumbling is private for now, but it is increasingly seeping into public discourse.

And the grumbling goes beyond politics. A disengaged, petulant president who gives the impression that someone else is minding the White House store isn’t good for the country.

One presidential historian says that if the president’s bizarre behavior deepens, people will start making jokes comparing Obama to President Woodrow Wilson, who was debilitated by illness during his last two years in office, with decisions increasingly made by his aides and his wife, Edith. “The comparisons of course wouldn’t be fair, but they don’t have to be to have elements of truth to them.”

 

Obama Albatross

Obama Albatross

Barack Obama DACA Cruelty

Courtesy of National Review

Barack Obama’s disdain for the slow, grinding mechanisms of government has become unmistakable of late. So it is little surprise that, frustrated by congressional inaction on his proposal for “comprehensive immigration reform,” the president last month declared that he would “fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own.” The result, intimated by White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer last week, is a “very significant” executive action to be unveiled by the end of the summer. If reports of the contents of the order are credible, not only will the action fail to “fix” America’s immigration system, it will further undo the constitutionally prescribed separation of powers that this administration has already done so much to weaken.

The White House is reportedly weighing two options for executive action similar in kind to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that was implemented — also by executive fiat, via memorandum — in 2012. One option would grant temporary legal status to illegal-immigrant parents of U.S. citizens, authorizing them to remain in the country and to work here. The second option would do the same for illegal-immigrant parents of DACA recipients. These actions could affect anywhere from 3 to 6 million people.

Although the specifics are unknown, any unilateral action of this magnitude and type would be unprecedented. Permission to work would secure for millions of illegal immigrants the benefits of lawful status despite the absence of a green card or a pathway to citizenship. Already illegal immigrants, taken in toto, represent a net drag on the American economy of $55 billion a year, according to the Heritage Foundation, since they and their families make use of direct benefits (such as Social Security and Medicare), means-tested welfare benefits, public education, and other government-funded resources. The tacit moral sanction granted by a new DACA-type program would ensure that program participants are eventually guaranteed these services.

It is not unlikely that a new program would, like DACA, be pitched as a temporary measure. DACA deferrals, for instance, are given in two-year increments, after which recipients must renew their grant. But these “temporary” programs are no such thing. Consider Temporary Protected Status, established in 1990 to provide for illegal immigrants who, for reasons of war or natural disaster, cannot return to their home countries at the moment, but who do not qualify as refugees. Not one TPS beneficiary has been deported because his status expired. TPS status still shields Honduran refugees fleeing Hurricane Mitch, which struck in 1998. By this precedent, there is no reason to believe the Obama administration will aggressively enforce any new, supposedly temporary program.

In addition, any new DACA-style program will have the tendency to encompass persons beyond its target demographic. As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers report in the wake of DACA, anyone who appears to be under the maximum deferral age — that is, any illegal immigrant who appears younger than 33 years old — is presumed to be eligible for DACA. As of March 31, some 550,000 “DREAMers” have received permits under the order, but the program has functionally shielded from investigatory and/or enforcement actions probably 2 to 3 million illegal immigrants. No doubt a similar presumption would obtain under a new program, protecting millions who are technically ineligible.

DACA also belies the claim that unilateral executive actions are simply large-scale enactments of prosecutorial discretion, pragmatic measures necessitated by the federal government’s lack of resources. DACA has proven to involve a massive expenditure of both time and money that has required USCIS officers to table entrance applications from legal immigrants to accommodate the deluge of applicants from illegal immigrants. A de facto amnesty of 5 million illegal immigrants would overwhelm an already inundated system.

The problem, though, is finally one of constitutional order. Is Congress — and, through it, the electorate — responsible for the laws governing America’s borders? Or does one man get to decide who may enter and work in the United States? The assumption by the president of the ability to unilaterally welcome or reject migrants is a rank violation of the separation of powers. The president would no longer be enforcing existing law; he would be writing it anew at will on a scale heretofore unimagined.

Earlier this month Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill (S. 2666) that would cut off federal funds for the continued implementation of DACA and would prohibit any “agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government” from using federal resources “to authorize any alien to work in the United States” who was not lawfully admitted under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Although the bill is unlikely to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate, it will put pressure on red-state Democrats to defend their decision to countenance this executive-branch power grab.

Perhaps that can assist in the Republican campaign to retake the Senate. The campaign to restore immigration laws, and the rightful place of Congress in our constitutional order, will take much longer.
Barack Obama DACA Cruelty

Barack Obama DACA Cruelty

White House Mole

By

Personal mockery is a well-oiled and perpetually used tool from the Alinsky toolbox. The right tends to shy away from it. They should get over it. If rocks are being thrown at you, its perfectly reasonable to pick them up and throw them back. Palin, Bush and their spouses and children’s were fair game to the left. If you want to take higher ground, stick to the politicians themselves.

There is one thing that has always disturbed me about Barak Obama. Always. Even before I knew anything about him. He is touted as one of the biggest intellects in the world. From the day he came on our radar I wondered why he wasn’t smart enough to get that hideous growth nestled outside his nostril removed. After all he was being sold as perfection. If he wasn’t always sticking his nose in our business, I wouldn’t pick on it (sorry).

(Read more at FreedomRadioRocks.com)

 

White House Mole

White House Mole

Build Border Wall

By Chris Freind

The humanitarian crisis engulfing the United States — tens of thousands of parentless Central American children pouring across the southern border — will surely increase in scope. And the reason is simple: America continues to send the message that we welcome illegal immigrants with open arms, even young ones traveling alone.

That’s not just insane, but downright cruel.

It’s one thing if illegal immigrant advocates lobby for amnesty and open borders, but openly encouraging parents to send their children on a perilous journey is heartless. And make no mistake: That’s exactly the message being sent. Not surprisingly, the biggest advocate of all is the U.S. government.

The influx of these children has taken the immigration issue to a whole new level. And here’s the underlying short-term problem: While most are eventually designated for deportation (the key word being “eventually”), it often takes years to get a hearing in immigration court. In the meantime, the children are left in a scary, isolated limbo, not living a productive life, and, worst of all, remain far away from where they belong: at home, with their parents and families.

The parents, not seeing their children return home a short time after sending them off, assume deportations are not taking place, and that their kids have been officially accepted into American society as part of an open amnesty program. As the old shampoo commercial said, those parents tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on, to the point where it becomes widely perceived that sending more children to America is the right thing to do.

But it’s not.

With so many dangers confronting these defenseless children during their trek to America, from sickness to being taken advantage of by unscrupulous adults in a host of horrible ways, we should be doing everything in our power to stop this exodus from Central America. Now. That would be the humanitarian thing to do.

Instead, as is the case for every major issue we face, we look to tactics, not strategies, to solve the crisis, amounting to Band-Aids on hemorrhaging wounds. America has lost its gift of foresight, becoming reactive instead of proactive and jettisoning its ability to eliminate problems before they start, or, at the least, confronting them head-on with the iron will to solve them.

A glaring example of this is the clamor, on both sides of the aisle, to better fund and staff our immigration courts as a way of alleviating the massive backlog of cases, now exponentially higher given the influx of children. (There are 243 immigration judges, an average of one to every 1,545 pending cases).

Nice idea, but it misses the whole point. Ramping up the immigration courts will never solve the problem, because it doesn’t address it. More courts, judges and hearings may slightly alleviate the supply side of illegal immigration, but does nothing to cut down the demand. Until we get serious about reforming a broken immigration system, which neither party has any interest in doing, things will only deteriorate, and more people will attempt to cross the order for the perceived amnesty. Tensions will continue to escalate between citizens and illegal immigrants they see as threatening their physical and economic security, and the situation will become measurably uglier. And when that occurs, no one wins.

Here are some common sense solutions, which, if articulated correctly, would be reasonable to the vast majority of Americans, while providing compassion to people who yearn for the better life America provides:

1. Build the border wall. This is the single most important step to fixing the problem, as a formidable barrier will instantly send the message that America has gotten serious about stopping illegal border crossings. When families in Central America understand this, they will stop sending their children into harm’s way, saving countless lives. Since we have a $17 trillion debt, funding the wall won’t be an issue (what’s a few billion more?), but costs could be controlled by utilizing nonviolent prisoners and illegal immigrants to construct it. If we were smart, we would also stop giving foreign aid to any nation that encourages illegal immigration, and that refuses to accept their citizens whom we deport. That funding alone would be enough to build the wall.

Common sense tells us that a secure border wall would absolutely cut down the “supply” side of not just illegal immigrants, but drug traffickers and terrorists. Protecting our children and eliminating al-Qaeda’s free pass (possibly with a nuclear weapon) should be top priorities. For proof of effectiveness, look at Israel’s success with its wall. Walls work. Build it. Now.

2. There is no need to militarize the border, as some advocate. The smart utilization of current resources (and a secure wall) would be more than adequate. The numbers tell the story: The southern border is 2,000 miles long. As of 2012, there were over 21,000 Border Patrol agents. Even if we take 3,000 agents out of the equation (more than enough to patrol the Florida shores and those sneaky Canucks), that leaves nine agents per mile, which is an extraordinarily high staffing level. Making America into a military state is anathema to what we stand for and totally unnecessary.

3. Marketing America’s legal immigration policies in Central American nations is not mutually exclusive to instituting “self-deportation” policies for illegal immigrants. America is the most generous nation on Earth regarding legal immigration, and immigrants have always made America stronger. But the emphasis must be on entering the country legally.

One easy and cost-effective way to cut down on undocumented workers skirting the law is to mandate that all employers utilize the free E-Verify system, which quickly determines the legal status of a potential hire. Companies that do not comply should face stiff penalties. This is a win-win, as stringent law enforcement measures on businesses would also serve to eliminate lavish public benefits enjoyed by illegal immigrants — the mammoth costs of which are borne by taxpayers.

4. We must place partisan politics aside and reasonably deal with illegals already here. Failure to do so will only exacerbate an already bad situation.

We can document the workers already here by issuing long-term or lifetime work visas (after they pass a criminal background check), while permanently denying them citizenship and possibly levying fines. In doing so, they would begin paying their “fair share” through taxes and lessen the financial burden on U.S. citizens.

That’s not amnesty, but the only realistic approach to finally solving a huge, decades-old problem. It penalizes lawbreakers, documents millions (bringing them out of the shadowy underworld) and makes them, and Americans, considerably safer. It would increase tax revenue and make formerly illegal workers pay into benefits programs.

Solving America’s illegal immigration crisis amicably and reasonably, while protecting the most vulnerable of any society — the children — can be summed up by the quote, “The solutions are simple; they’re just not easy.”

For everyone’s sake — Americans, immigrants, and especially the youngest generation — it’s time to finally roll up our sleeves and get the job done.

 

Build Border Wall