Category: Guest Authors

Befriend Cuba Already

By Chris Freind

In 1961, an American-backed, CIA-trained paramilitary force stormed Cuba in the hopes of deposing Fidel Castro. After an initial victory, the counter-revolutionaries were routed, proving a major embarrassment to the United States and reinforcing the notion throughout Central America that the U.S. was a nation hellbent on imperialism. That ill-fated operation came to be known as the Bay of Pigs.

Over the last 53 years, America’s policy has been, and continues to be, isolating Cuba through a strict embargo in the hope that its socialist government collapses. Given that a half-century has gone by with no results, it’s safe to say that the policy is flawed, and the leaders who refuse to change it are pigheaded.

But what else is new dealing with our own hemisphere?

America freely gave away one its most strategic assets, the Panama Canal, while gaining nothing. It is continually at odds with Venezuela, which happens to have the world’s largest proven oil reserves. And it can’t gain Mexico’s good-faith cooperation to control drugs and illegal immigration. Rectifying any of those, let alone all three, is an extremely tall order, no matter what party controls Washington.

That’s not exactly a stellar track record. But with bold leadership and foresight (along with a little humility), we can change direction and gain huge victories for freedom and free enterprise right in our backyard.

It’s called befriending Cuba.

To be fair, enacting the embargo on and restricting Americans’ access to Cuba during the height of the Cold War, when Castro cozied up to the Soviet Union, was reasonable. Common sense should have told us that if it didn’t produce the desired results in five or even 10 years, it was never going to work. But since political common sense is an oxymoron, the sanctions continue to this day.

As a result, Americans and American products are denied a huge market within close proximity. We lose access to cheap Cuban goods, and perhaps most important, the relatives of Cuban-Americans continue to suffer under authoritarian rule in a stagnant economy, while U.S. law makes family reunions in Cuba all but illegal.

Since it would be a win for everyone to lift the embargo and improve relations, it’s a fair question to ask why we aren’t doing so. Consider:

1. Too many presidential candidates (along with Florida’s congressional delegation) still bow to the demands of an increasingly small but highly vocal minority of Cuban Americans who detest the notion of “helping” a Cuba ruled by anyone named Castro. Given Florida’s paramount importance in electoral politics, it’s understandable for candidates to think that opposing this lobby could lose them the state (much like opposing ethanol subsidies in Iowa).

But they have failed to see that the Cuban voting bloc is no longer tied to the embargo issue as it had been decades ago. The number of first-wave Cuban refugees with the strongest passion are dwindling, and each successive generation not only places less importance on the sanctions, but view closer ties as the path to prosperity.

Being beholden to a special interest is never good, but placating one that doesn’t exist is stupidity.

2. Despite the embargo, development in Cuba is on the upswing, fueled by European businesses that are snatching up the prime real estate and business opportunities — an easy task when American competitors are nonexistent. American jobs take a hit, and economic growth lags when it should be booming. If the embargo’s objective was (and is) to collapse the Cuban economy, and it didn’t work before, it certainly can’t be successful now that numerous other countries are stepping up Cuban involvement. It’s time for us to get in the game.

3. No one likes to admit they were wrong, but 53 years of isolation with nothing to show? We can’t wait for three minutes at the drive-thru without complaining, yet, we patiently adhere to a woefully ineffective law that will soon approach six decades of failure. What exactly do we think will miraculously change?

4. The embargo hurts the very people we purport to be helping: The Cubans themselves. By denying them economic opportunities, we keep them in poverty with no chance at prosperity. The way to win people’s hearts is through their wallets, as a growing middle class produces stability and respect for law — a rising tide that floats all boats. Yet, that unique American lesson is not being taught.

5. Defenders of the embargo love to rattle off conditions Cuba needs to meet: institute human rights; hold fair elections; free political prisoners; embrace democratic ideals; and compensate families of the oppressed. Gee, that’s nice. And it would be great if the world were filled with rainbows and lollipops! Except that it’s not. To make those demands shows a naivete at best, and hypocrisy at worst.

If those are prerequisites for doing business with other nations, our list of trading partners would shrink to Antarctica and Santa’s workshop.

Out-of-touch politicians aside, there is a growing call to lift the embargo and increase diplomatic, economic and cultural ties with Cuba.

In doing so, America would get back to what it does best: Be a beacon of hope to the world, showcasing that freedom and capitalism are its biggest exports. China still has a long way to go, but America, not through force but by its values, has transformed that nation in a revolutionary way, guiding it toward liberalism (small “l”). A vibrant middle-class has been born and they are starting to taste the good life as more freedoms are earned and opportunities realized.

If we can accomplish that with China, doing the same with Cuba, with its dynamic people and incredible cultural heritage, would be a walk in the park.

So let’s build a bridge to our neighbor just 90 miles from our shores, and tear down that wall.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Befriend Cuba Already
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Befriend Cuba Already

 

Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered

By Chris Freind

The great ship moved silently through the water, knifing the
jet-black Caribbean Sea as it approached Panama. As dawn broke and the
fog lifted, it finally appeared, in all its glory: The massive Gatun
locks of the Panama Canal, lifting ships 1,000 feet long and 90,000 tons
85 feet above sea level to a water bridge crossing the Continental
Divide and connecting the Pacific. The 50-mile canal, separating two
continents but uniting the world, shaves a whopping 8,000 miles off a
run from New York to San Francisco. A dream that goes as far back as
Columbus undisputedly stands as one of the greatest achievements of in
all of human history.

Yet it almost never came to be, as centuries’ worth of attempts to
construct a path between the seas all resulted in disaster due to
ineptitude, disease and the deaths of more than 30,000 workers.

So what changed? Who found success where others had failed? How were
seemingly impossible obstacles, literal and otherwise, bulldozed on the
path to victory?

Easy. The United States got involved.

As we look back from this 100th year anniversary of the canal, it’s
abundantly clear that “America” was synonymous with “greatness” at that
point in history. The country was alive and vibrant, forging ahead with
bold ideas carried to fruition by bold leaders. Men like Teddy
Roosevelt, who innately understood what was in America’s strategic
interests and pursued those initiatives with a gusto that made success a
foregone conclusion. Failure simply wasn’t in the lexicon.

How things have changed. The nation that once valued decisiveness
over impotence, and risk over fear, somehow morphed into a timid,
risk-averse politically correct shell of its former glory that too often
tries to be all things to all people — so long as those people aren’t
its own citizens.

And there is no better example of that warped mindset than the
giveaway of the Panama Canal. While seeing the canal makes one gape in
sheer awe, it also evokes a fury, a constant “what were we thinking?”
refrain, reinforcing a notion that our nation is in decline, entirely of
our own making.

An outline of the canal’s history seems too far-fetched to be true,
as it defies the common sense expected of the world’s most powerful
nation:

» Thousands die trying to connect the oceans. Project declared impossible.

» America defies the odds by constructing canal ahead of schedule and under budget.

» America saves countless lives by eradicating yellow fever and
discovering the cause of, and thus controlling, the region’s ultimate
killer: Malaria.

» America operates canal not for profit but to facilitate
international commerce, even for those not trading with the United
States.

» America, despite its 85 years of flawless operation, freely gives
the canal to Panama in exchange for absolutely nothing, netting a zero
return on investment.

» American ships now pay massively increased fees (passed on to
American consumers) while Panama laughs all the way to the bank.

» Despite the giveaway, America continues to guarantee Panama’s security in perpetuity, with no benefit to the U.S.

If this story weren’t so tragic, it would be a comic, because giving
away the canal made America’s strategic vision a complete joke.

President Jimmy Carter negotiated and signed the 1977 treaty giving
away the canal (which took effect in 1999). The list of American
giveaways is substantial: The canal itself, the huge Gatun Lakes dam,
the hydroelectric plant, the isthmus-wide railroad, and the 10-mile wide
Panama Canal zone, with all its infrastructure. Rubbing salt in the
wound, even Titan, one of America’s largest cranes (war booty from
Hitler’s Germany) was given to the Panamanians in 1999 after 50 years of
operation in Long Beach, Calif. All invalidate the blood, sweat and
yes, deaths, of the Americans who worked so proudly on the canal.

Perhaps most startling, no consideration was given to America for all
it had done, despite it being the largest user, by far, of the canal.
Virtually all the new equipment, from the “mule” trains that guide the
ships to the massive steel doors going into the enlarged locks now under
construction, is made everywhere but America.

Five other nations are involved in the construction of the new locks,
but America is not one of them. And yet that consortium has already
experienced money problems, labor disputes and cost overruns for the $5
billion project, whereas we spend that amount every 12 hours. Nor does
America manage the large ports on either side of the canal. Instead,
that honor goes to China. Naturally.

Not only does Panama rake in $2 billion annually from its fees, but
it doesn’t spend a penny on an army, because thanks to Uncle Sam, it
doesn’t have one. So if Nicaragua becomes belligerent, American men and
women will fight and die solely for Panama’s sake. Help me out on that
one.

Some may ask, “Nice history lesson, but why bring it up now? What’s done is done.”

Wrong, for two reasons:

1. While the treaty won’t be scrapped,
America could clearly exact concessions from Panama to benefit American
shippers and consumers. Our ships, at a minimum, should receive a
substantial discount for passage (the Colombian Navy passes for free. Go
figure). Those savings would make our products and companies more
competitive, and keep jobs in America. If Panama resists, the protection
deal could be immediately revoked along with all other foreign aid to
Panama. No third-world country should be dictating to America,
especially one in our own backyard.

2. Infinitely more important, it should be a wake-up call to stop
engaging in one-sided deals that only hurt America. The Panama giveaway
is not an isolated incident, but a mindset that persists to this day.

Both parties are complicit, but it is we the people who are
ultimately to blame, as we no longer demand excellence and strategic
vision from our leaders. Instead, mediocrity with no eye to the future
rules the day, and with it, a lingering pessimism that seems destined to
be with us until a leader like Teddy Roosevelt emerges. Someone who, in
Teddy’s words, “is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust
and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly … who spends himself in a
worthy cause … so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Let’s re-read our history, learn from our mistakes and regain the greatness that is uniquely American.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered

Paycheck Protection Lies

By Bob Dick

Should you be forced to subsidize government union politics? That’s the question asked by a reform gaining steam in Harrisburg called paycheck protection. But you wouldn’t know it by listening to government union bosses, who are deliberately misrepresenting paycheck protection legislation and engaging in personal attacks on its supporters in an effort to preserve their exclusive political privilege.

Pennsylvania law allows government union bosses—and only government union bosses—to negotiate the use of public resources to bundle union dues and political money and send it to union headquarters. In many cases, this dubious deal is made with politicians who receive contributionsand campaign support funded by the same political money.

Paycheck protection would end this flagrant conflict of interest and level the political playing field for all.

Given their lucrative arrangement, it’s no surprise that government union leaders don’t want to play by the same rules as everyone else. They’ve launched a misinformation campaign to confuse the public and their own members about the details of paycheck protection.

For starters, they claim that only a few outside interest groups support paycheck protection.  In reality, nearly 80 percent of Pennsylvanians—including 75 percent of union members—believe taxpayer resources should not be used to collect union dues and campaign contributions, according to a recent poll of likely voters.

Government union leaders also claim that paycheck protection is actually “Right to Work” in disguise. The truth is paycheck protection doesn’t affect government unions’ ability to collectively bargain. Even if paycheck protection were to pass, government workers—like most public school teachers in the state—would still have to pay union dues or fees or lose their jobs.

So, what would change? Government union leaders would simply have to collect their dues and campaign contributions directly from workers, rather than forcing taxpayers to do it for them. Either union bosses don’t understand the legislation, or they’re intentionally misleading their members and the public.

Another pernicious claim about paycheck protection is that it constitutes an attack on union members’ free speech. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paycheck protection does not stop government unions from spending money on politics; it merely removes taxpayers from the process of collecting their political money.

The U.S. Supreme Court agrees that paycheck protection supports, rather than violates, freedom of speech. In 2009, the court ruled in Ysursa v. Pocatello that Idaho’s paycheck protection law, which ended taxpayer collection of political money, “does not restrict political speech, but rather declines to promote that speech by allowing public employee check-offs for political activities.”

Indeed, requiring union leaders to collect their own political money would actually make them more responsive to members’ free speech rights.

Perhaps government union bosses’ greatest trick is claiming that dues cannot be used for politics. In reality, union dues fund a variety of political activities including lobbying, candidate endorsements, get-out-the-vote efforts, candidate and issue advocacy, contributions to “independent” political and partisan organizations, and fundraising for campaign contributions.

Pennsylvania’s major government unions spent nearly $5 million of members’ dues on lobbying and political activities in 2012—that’s according to their own reports to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Moreover, union Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions are also collected via public payroll systems. Government union PACs contributed an additional $4 million directly to candidates during the 2011-12 elections.

This perverse power cycle allows elected officials to sign checks giving money to union PACs and later accept campaign contributions from those same PACs!

Former State Senator Jane Orie was recently released from prison after being convicted of using public resources for campaigning. Why do we allow government union leaders to engage in the same behavior without batting an eye?

The debate over paycheck protection must be informed by facts, not half-truths or conspiracy theories from those clinging to their government-granted political privilege. Here’s the bottom line: Public resources should never be used for partisan politics.

This article was provided by Commonwealth Foundation

 

Paycheck Protection Lies at BillLawrenceDittos.com
Paycheck Protection Lies at BillLawrenceOnline.com

 

Obamacare Tortures Disabled

Obamacare Tortures Disabled

While the negative issues with Obamacare abound, one chronic disease treatment issue reveals the underlying purpose for the existence of Obamacare.  It is not universal access to care.  It is about the routine, codified inhumane cruelty of denying  treatment for the global purpose of skimming money from the sick and the elderly. Jim Angle of Fox News gets close but no cigar. Kudos to Mr. Angle  and Fox for reporting this story.
From Fox’s Report: “One of the problems is that drugs for some diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis do not have generic versions so without cheaper alternatives and no help from ObamaCare, patients could face huge personal out-of-pocket bills, forcing some to skimp on their medications”

There will be no out of pocket to face if the cost is so unreachable as to in all practicality deny Obamacare treatment.  It comes to MS there is no “skimping on your meds”  You are being treated or you are not.  There is no inexpensive one-size-fits all treatment.  As Mr. Angle reports, there are no generic drugs for MS.  Most advances in the treatment of MS have been made in the last 15 years or so. Thus the ONLY real treatments are only a few years on the market or even months. These meds require a regular and consistent administration of the drug. There is no “skimping” in Multiple Sclerosis. A person is  being treated with the right drug, at the right dose or they are not.   A person will either live happily with treatment or they will live languishing in pain and isolation.

Mr. Angle’s report supports this: “this may drive patients to not buy their medicines, which we know is dangerous. We know MS can be a bad disease when you’re not treating it. When you’re treating it, for most people they handle it pretty well, but we know when you don’t treat (it), it’s the kind of disease where people end up in wheel chairs potentially.”

Multiple Sclerosis slowly takes away a person’s abilities to think, to move, to care for themselves. There is often considerable pain involved. Yet a person does not die from the disease, but from its secondary effects.  As helpless as we can become, we live almost as long as a healthy person does with whatever pain and disabilities we have.

This is exactly why the MS drugs have been excluded from the Obamacare formulary.  The formularies of many other drug plans   have been altered to reflect the cost savings ideology of Obamacare, including the formulary of Medicare D.  MS treatment is expensive and it lasts a lifetime.  This was not an unconscious move on the part of the authors of the ACAs. It is a targeted move.  To the socialist central planner types, it is a gold mine of expenditure denial

Thus denial of treatment of Multiple Sclerosis patients is codified into the Obamacare nightmare.

Since my diagnosis in 2002, many new treatments have been developed with the power to slow the advance of the disease and often improve the quality of life. A new drug called Tysabri gave me new life. Although I was still affected by the disease, it lifted what is known as brain fog, improved my endurance, and lessened the crushing fatigue. I went from frequent use of a walker, to the use of a cane. It was nothing short of miraculous.

I developed antibodies in 2013 that made treatment with Tysabri no longer advisable, even after years of positive results. My physician recommended that I begin taking a new pill, I will call Drug X. Paperwork was submitted the second week in November to the manufacturer who had a program to facilitate start-up treatment.

I was told by my private insurance companies navigator that my coverage by my private insurance had changed because of Obamacare. My private insurance, a benefit gained as compensation during my working years, would cover this drug but so minimally as to be useless. You can’t buy half or a quarter of a pill.  In order to be treated, I must come up with approximately 50 grand a year, cash, out of pocket.

It might as well be a million.

My desperate personal trip to the private drug plan web site without “navigator” assistance revealed that I was covered for the cost of the drug minus my co-pay. There may also be a deductible of about 3 grand.  I called the navigators for both the drug insurance and the drug’s manufacturer and told them that I had determined that I was indeed covered and sent them screen shots of the on-line determination of benefits.

At this writing, I have since received my first dose with observation (as required by FDA) of Drug X and suffered no detectable side effects.  I am feeling much better. However because of the pattern of inaccuracy established by multiple navigators, I cannot be sure of this untåil it is time to check out the drug shipment with the Specialty Pharmacy.

The charge could be one hundred dollars or thousands.  I still don’t know with any certainty. If it is thousands, I will simply not be able to be treated.  I will remain untreated and be left to the consequences of the disease.   I will not bankrupt my family for the “greater good” that Obamacare alleges.  I am sadly confident that others will be forced toå make the same choice.

The take away from this narrative is not that poor me doesn’t have access to treatment.  The brutal fact is that Obamacare offers NO drugs for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis.  Consequently, all people with MS will by default be denied treatment.  Inclusion in the Obamacare formulary is based on per patient per drug, per cost.  Multiple Sclerosis?  Sorry.   Lupus?  Any life long disease with only non-generic treatments? Sorry, no help for you.  What other treatments does Obamacare deny?

People with MS and other neurological diseases will likely stay alive in spite of the denial of treatment, but they and their families will be burdened with their horrific quality of life.  So as untreated patients can anticipate a future that includes visions of some day lying in their own waste, they can be assured that their colonoscopy will be free.

Ms. Carfagno broadcasts and publishes on FreedomRadioRocks.com. She has M.S.

 

Obamacare Tortures Disabled

How Obamacare Tortures Disabled

Fear Takes Over

By Chris Freind

If running scared was an Olympic sport, America would get the gold. Hands down.

In stark contrast to the pioneering spirit that built this country — taking risk and enduring danger — living in fear has now become our nation’s favorite pastime.

Nowhere was that on bigger display than leading up to the Olympics in Sochi. From the government to the media, the fear-mongers were out in force, many of whom urged Americans to stay home from Games — with some all but guaranteeing catastrophic terrorist attacks.

Congressman Peter King, R-N.Y., relying on the ever-so-convenient “I can’t tell you what I know” line thrown out whenever a claim can’t be substantiated, stated, “I would not go myself. If I were an athlete, that’s one thing, but just as a spectator, I don’t think it’s worth the risk.” Incomprehensibly, though, he then said, “Odds are nothing is going to happen.”

Well, if odds are nothing will happen, why shoot your mouth off at all? It instills fear needlessly — and angers a powerful nation.

Likewise, U.S. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, stated, “I would not go, and I don’t think I would send my family.”

Really? When did we become such wimps? It’s bad enough that some leaders are afraid to live, but to broadcast their fears is inexcusable. Without question, doing so handed every terrorist in the world a huge moral victory. The message? Make threats and watch America flee with its tail between its legs.

There would be nothing better than to see the ultimate cold warrior Vladimir Putin pull off an attack-free Olympics to show the world that the way to defeat terrorism is to take the fight right to them. Never back down, and never live in fear.

And so long as we’re keeping score in the other “metal” count — Olympic bombings — Russia still has zero, one fewer than America. And in that game, low score wins.

Kind of ironic that, despite the immense doom-and-gloom heaped upon the supposedly unsafe confines of Sochi, the only bombing deliberately targeting the Olympics occurred at the Atlanta Games in 1996, killing one and injuring more than 100.

So much for being “risk-free” in America, a point sorely lost on our leaders. Despite their attempt to sanitize everything, pretending that we can be 100 percent safe, there is, and always will be, risk. From walking out the front door to attending Olympic Games, risk goes with the territory as an everyday part of life. We can mitigate it to the best of our ability, but risk, in its infinite forms, is our lifelong companion.

It’s how we deal with risk that defines our courage and character.

?

Let’s look at several points regarding the Sochi fear factor:

1. Has the region around Sochi seen its share of terrorism? Yes, but there have been plenty of Olympic venues where terrorism was a potential threat. The separatist group ETA had a history of bombings in Spain, yet Barcelona hosted in 1992. China clearly had issues with terrorism, yet the 2008 Games were played. And who could forget the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and a German police officer during the 1972 Olympics in Munich?

America endured bombings in Oklahoma City (1995) and Atlanta, got walloped on 9/11, and has seen countless other attacks, from the Times Square bomber to mall and school shootings — despite the best intelligence in the world. Does that mean we should never host again? Of course not. But the constant fear-hyping — especially by those who live in glass houses — takes the magic out of the Games.

2. Let’s be honest: Much of the government’s fear-mongering was politically motivated. It was payback to make Russia look bad due to major policy differences, such as its alliance with Syria, its stance on gay rights, and, most significantly, its harboring of Edward Snowden, who leaked the NSA’s spying secrets — an extreme embarrassment to the United States.

The U.S. also overstepped its bounds in criticizing Russia over its preparedness, even questioning whether it would be ready to host the Games. Well guess what? It’s been flawless. Too bad we didn’t learn from former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s major gaffe four years ago when he criticized the Brits in exactly the same way and was roundly chastised on both sides of the Atlantic. No wonder he had trouble getting foreign policy photo-ops for his campaign.

Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games, followed by the Soviets’ embargo of L.A. four years later (encompassing 15 nations), were horrendous decisions. They accomplished nothing except to showcase the stupidity of shortsighted leaders while victimizing their own athletes (many of whom missed their only Olympic opportunity) and millions of fans. You want to be at odds with your adversaries? Fine. That’s life. But leave the purity of sport out of it. Stop politicizing Sochi.

3. The best security plan is the one you don’t broadcast. So, was it really necessary to tell the world (and the terrorists themselves) that our Navy moved ships into the Black Sea to help evacuate athletes and spectators in case of an attack? It has a counter-productive effect, as people start believing that an attack must be imminent given the immense preparations. The security freaks love showing off their toys, but our leaders should know better. They’d be a whole lot better off adopting former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach rather than scaring the bejesus out of people.

?

Americans’ history of courage has been exceptional. Our Founding Fathers risked (and many lost) everything, when they could have done nothing. Americans engaged in wars to save the world from tyranny, yet never flinched. Civil rights leaders, at risk to life and limb, overcame unimaginable hurdles to achieve freedom and justice.

How have we lost such a legacy?

The real world doesn’t change. It’s always been, and always will be, filled with risk and danger. Coping with this without being a prisoner of fear is the only way for a nation, and a people, to prosper.

With the only vision that matters, Helen Keller said, “Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold.”

In that spirit, let’s leave our fears behind and return to what made America great — always going for the gold.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Fear Takes Over
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Fear Takes Over

Defending Freedom Means Proclaiming Truth

By Father Frank Pavone

It’s an election year, and it’s time to open our mouths, in the Church, about politics, candidates, and the right to life.

Our fight for our unborn brothers and sisters is a fight for freedom and against tyranny; for people and against oppressive governments. Our Founding Fathers fought this fight, and so must we, with the same readiness for self-sacrifice.

This is true for every American. How much more true is it for us as the Church, as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ? The Gospel is a Gospel of freedom. “I have come to proclaim liberty to the captives…to let the oppressed go free,” Jesus said in defining his mission.

Carrying out this mission requires the freedom to speak the truth as we understand it. Not only was this fundamental right explicitly acknowledged by our Founding Fathers and placed at the top of the Bill of Rights, but it has been affirmed time and time again by the Supreme Court, not only to point out the existence of such freedom, but also its characteristics.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)), the Court asserted that the protection of citizens to advocate for particular issues reflects our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open”

In 2010, the Supreme Court also affirmed the following:

“Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.’”

“[I]t is inherent in the nature of the political process that voters must be free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)).

The corresponding freedom of the Church to speak and teach the truth — a freedom also contained in the Founders’ recognition of freedom of religion — is something explicitly insisted upon in the Church’s own documents. This freedom is, in fact, an essential aspect of the Great Commission left by Jesus Christ: “Preach the Gospel to every creature.” “Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you.” Because the Gospel covers every aspect of life and human activity, the Church must also be free to comment on political matters. In this regard we see the following strong statement from the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes):

“At all times and in all places, the Church should have the true freedom to teach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgment even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”

Rev. Pavone is national director of Priests for Life

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Defending Freedom Means Proclaiming Truth
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Defending Freedom Means Proclaiming Truth

 

 

Tech Addiction Stronger Than Storm

By Chris Freind

Thank God for Starbucks. Or, more accurately, their Wi-Fi. Because of that “gift,” many who lose power during storms don’t miss a beat being themselves, otherwise known as anti-social, bratty, and downright rude behavior caused by an acute obsession with iPads and smartphones.

Hey, I love technology as much as the next guy. Lost? Activate GPS. Need to check on the kids while stuck for hours because you’re behind all the idiots who crashed their 4-wheels thinking they could do 65 in snow and ice? Call home.

But one of the saddest commentaries on society is our ridiculous addiction to technology. Go to any coffee house, restaurant or family dinner table, and you will hear very few words spoken, and see even fewer eyes, both kids’ and adults’, looking at someone else. Instead, they gaze at their phones.

I know we’re all extremely important people, but for once, couldn’t we delay text messages and Facebook updates — you know, the ones with fantastically stupid inspirational quotes and postings fishing for “Likes” and “you look awesome” comments? (Reality check: you don’t look awesome. We’re lying. Get a nose job, and please, go see a dentist.)

God forbid that in a power outage, families actually talk, play board games, or read books — real books, with real pages.

People have become so fixated with their phones that they can no longer communicate like humans, and it shows. Person-to-person conversations are becoming archaic, writing is appalling (in schools and the business world) and public speaking is abysmal.

Before this technology, surveys showed that people feared making a speech worse than dying. Since we have devolved from that point, where are we now? Do we fear it more than watching Denver in another Super Bowl?

Call me a dinosaur, but living in the ’80s, before things became so impersonal, wasn’t such a bad thing. And living for a few days like they did in the 1880s isn’t so horrible either. It builds character. Even better, when families put down the phones and actually do things together, some kids might find out they have siblings. And that there are things called sleds and snowballs and, the biggest shocker, shovels to clear neighbors’ sidewalks for money. Which is also known as “work.”

And can we stop bashing power companies, at least for now? Many East Coasters who lost power were up in arms within the first 24 hours, clearly part of the “entitlement class” who think they have the “right” to never lose power. Heavy snow, followed by ice? So what? How dare I be in the dark without heat!

To those, a simple message: shut up and buy a generator. I know. Everybody’s going to get one now because they’re fed up. Except that they won’t. They’ll talk it about ad nauseam, but once the winter ends, they’ll forget about it. Until it snows again next winter (and the cycle of complaining continues).

It is routine procedure for power companies to be audited after every large outage to gauge how well they well prepared for, and responded to, large storms. Since millions of Americans don’t yet know how their respective providers performed, let’s give those companies the benefit of the doubt and applaud the guys working 16-hour shifts in frigid weather, braving many dangers, including generators that can backfeed the lines and kill the workers.

And let’s not forget how quickly huge work forces were mobilized, as linemen typically come from far and wide. In fact, after this latest storm, crews came from two other countries: Canada and Arkansas.

Meanwhile, the debate du jour is whether we should be placing power lines underground. Great idea, but there’s nowhere near enough money to do it, as it’s ungodly expensive (estimates are a million dollars per mile).

Could we get that cost down? Probably. And, most certainly, communities should explore a 10- or 15-year underground program for the most sensitive or loss-prone areas. Power providers’ revenue comes from its customers, so there would be a rate increase, but some of the cost could also be borne by local and state governments allocating our taxpayer money (it’s ours, not theirs) to such an important initiative.

If a local utility could place between 500 to 1000 miles of wires underground per year, outages would decrease, maintenance costs would go down, and businesses would stay open — producing more tax revenue and keeping people’s paychecks rolling. It would be a win for everyone.

Government wastes billions a year (and trillions when you throw in the federal stimulus program that produced zero return on investment). So for a change, maybe we could allocate those funds more intelligently, such as securing our highly vulnerable electrical infrastructure.

But of course, that would be a common sense solution, so expect to see it when hell freezes over.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Tech Addiction Stronger Than Storm
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Tech Addiction Stronger Than Storm

 

Ignorance Or Arrogance?

By Jim Vanore

I follow sports for what I consider the proper reason: They are a pleasant diversion from life’s everyday annoyances—from things like car payments, health issues, bank balances, income tax, political correctness, the shrinking waistband on my trousers…

I don’t follow (listen to, watch, or read about) sports for lessons in life. And certainly not for updates on what is and is not proper social behavior. So I became annoyed (infuriated actually) when I recently heard a 28-year old sports commentator (who by the way, has been on Earth less than half the time I’ve been following sports) make the blasé declaration that, “We’re not offended by that anymore,” while referring to the use of profanity in a public forum.

Really? We are not offended? Who the hell is “we” in his absolute affirmation? Was he referring to our society in general? Was it sports fans in particular? Was he perhaps singling out 20-something-year-olds, for whom he obviously (thinks he) is the spokesman?

His remark was made in objection to a penalty levied by the National Basketball Association on a player for shouting the profanity de rigueur, politely called the ‘f-word’, not once, but multiple times (to anyone who would listen, I guess) during a well-attended game.

Neophyte adults such as this Harvard graduate (Could the banter around that campus cafeteria be any worse than that heard in a military chow-hall?) often seem to make the mistake of believing that anything happening before their birth (indeed, before their cognizance) should be relegated to pre-history. Using that reasoning, I suppose I must accept his view (elsewise I might offend him).

So I suppose I could casually babble that language in his presence, or that of his wife, mother, sister, grandmother, daughter, or anyone he values, since, “He is not offended by that anymore.”

If the f-word does not offend him, what does? The n-word?  The s-word?  The q-word?  The c-word?  The r-word?  The m-word?

How about the a-word? Oh, hell…I’m just going to say it: The kid is arrogant! He must actually believe that his sensibilities set the standard for society…for sports fans…for 20-something-year-olds…

He certainly does not speak for most of the 20-somethings I interact with. (Of course, none attended Harvard.)

This is not the first time I’ve been resolute on this topic, and it’s not the first time that I’ve qualified my opinion by citing my résumé: After four years in the military and 22 years in the Philadelphia Police Department, I doubt there’s any expletive a novice could come up with that I haven’t heard, imagined, or broadcast myself.

Read more at Good Writer’s Block

 

Common Core Questions

By Joanne Yurchak

Common Core State Standards (recently renamed PA Core Standards) is a costly, untested, educational experiment that was foisted on Pennsylvania’s schools without legislative approval. When full math and language arts implementation began in PA’s public schools in July of 2013, few educators, school administrators, school board members and legislators understood the particulars of this initiative that will fundamentally transform our educational system. Currently, even fewer parents and taxpayers understand the variety of motives for its formulation, its methodologies, its huge unfunded mandates, and its potential harmful effects on Pennsylvania’s educational system and economy.

Listed below are several questions that citizens should pose to their own district’s school board members and school administrators in order to gain a better understanding of the Common Core initiative and parental and student rights with regard to its mandates.

1. There are multiple indications that the federal government will wrest control of our educational system from local school boards and parents via the Common Core initiative.

Question: Is this likely to occur in our school district? If the answer is “No,” can you provide assurances and convincing reasons why this will not happen?

2. Beginning in 2017, the passage of three Keystones — Algebra I, Biology, and Literature – will be a requirement for high school graduation in PA.

Question: What is the estimated cost to our district for the remediation and/or project- based assessments that must be provided to students who are unable to pass these Keystones?

3. Pennsylvania’s regulations describe: (1) an opportunity for students to opt out of the PSSA’s and the Keystones on religious grounds, and (2) the right of a Chief School Administrator to waive the Keystone graduation requirements on a case-by-case basis for “good cause.”

Question: Will our district fully explain the specifics of each of these options to parents?

Question: If the number of students opting out and/or being given waivers is too large in a given school: (1) how will that affect the performance ratings of that school, and (2) how will that school’s compliance with PA’s regulations be evaluated?

4. There are major concerns that the student data collection that is tied to acceptance of federal funding for the Common Core initiative will intrude on students’ privacy rights.

Question: What specific information will be included in a student’s data file? Will data be exclusively academic or will behavioral, familial and/or biometric categories be included?

Question: Will parents be permitted to review what is in their children’s data files? If not, why not? With whom can PA schools legally share information in students’ data files?

5. Over the last several decades, educrats have devised educational experiments such as “Outcome Based Education,” the “New Math,” and the vastly unpopular “No Child Left Behind,” in which our nation’s students have been used as guinea pigs. All of these experiments have proven to be abject failures in improving educational outcomes and each has disrupted learning in a multitude of ways at great expense to the taxpayer.

Question: In light of the failures of the aforementioned experiments, why should we believe the “experts” when they say that Common Core, often described as “No Child Left Behind on Steroids,” will improve the educational performance and learning outcomes of our students?

Citizens must be persistent in obtaining answers from their school districts and must remember that an unasked question won’t be answered. A fully informed public is essential to impede governmental overreach into our educational process and also to understand the toxic consequences of Common Core. The well-being of our most precious possession – our children – is at stake!

For additional information, E-Mail nocommoncoreinpa@yahoo.com.


Editor’s note: Gov. Tom Corbett is on board with Common Core.  Bob Guzzardi, who is challenging him in the May 20 Republican gubernatorial primary is against it.

Colette Moran tweeted the below image of an answer key of her daughter’s Common Core-based third grade work book back in October.

Save Charter Schools

After Barack Obama gave a thousand campaign speeches on Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and the economy, one of his first actions upon taking office as president was to begin gutting a tiny school-choice scholarship program in Washington, D.C. And now newly inaugurated New York mayor Bill de Blasio has, as one of his first agenda items, begun the gutting of the city’s charter schools, which are public schools that operate with some limited measure of independence from the usual education bureaucracies. Like President Obama, Mayor de Blasio is here engaged in plain, naked payback, rewarding the teachers’ unions that funded and manned his campaign by taking hundreds of millions of dollars away from projects they despise. If a private city contractor had bankrolled the mayor’s campaign and been repaid by having him hobble its competition, we’d call it simple corruption. And it is simple corruption, legal though it may be.

Mayor de Blasio intends to redirect money from the city’s charter schools to help pay for expanded pre-kindergarten education, which is to say for a full-employment program for his union supporters. Expanding pre-kindergarten education is a questionable investment: The premier federal pre-kindergarten program, Head Start, has been shown time and time again to provide no lasting results  to its supposed beneficiaries. Robust support for early-childhood education sounds like the sort of thing that should work, but the empirical results are that it does not deliver on its promises.

New York City’s charter schools are consistently flooded with applications from parents desperate to rescue their children from the city’s dysfunctional standard-issue public schools. There are many metrics by which the success of an educational institution can be measured, but if we are guided in some part by the revealed preferences of New York City’s parents, then the evidence is overwhelming that charter schools are a much more attractive choice when the alternative is the product Mayor de Blasio’s union bosses are offering up. Charter-school operators, pointedly seeking to remind the administration that they are, still, operating city public schools, have asked only that their capital and operating funds be proportional to the populations they serve: “A kid is a kid is a kid,” as charter-school executive Eva Moskowitz put it. “We are public charter schools. The operating revenue should be the same. The capital revenue should be the same.”

New York’s charter schools serve a largely minority and low-income population, in a city where the traditional schools barely manage to retain half of the young black men who enter the ninth grade to graduation four years later. Educating the children of New York City entails some serious challenges, and the charter schools have not achieved what anybody would call dramatic success. They simply provide a superior alternative to traditional schools for many families. Results need not be spectacular to be meaningful.

As a report from the Brookings Institution put it:

Two recent rigorous evaluations have found that NYC charter schools are, on average, doing a substantially better job for students than the regular public schools with which they directly compete. For example, student gains in math in charter schools compared to traditional public schools are equivalent to roughly five additional months of schooling in a single school year. Likewise, students attending the small high schools of choice opened by the Bloomberg administration have high school graduation rates that are about 10 percentage points greater than students who wanted to attend these same schools but lost a lottery for admission.
Judging by the application rates, New York City parents love charter schools. The evidence suggests they do a meaningfully if not radically better job than their traditional counterparts. They are seeking only the same resources to which they would be entitled if they were not charter schools, meaning they place no special burden on taxpayers. The only faction opposed to them is the teachers’ unions, which seek to legally eliminate all competition and all alternatives.

Charter schools are a tiny crack in the Berlin Wall of the government-school monopoly, far short of the liberalized approach to education we would prefer. But they are a significant improvement that comes at very little cost, and Mayor de Blasio’s attack on them elevates the interests of his political cronies over those of the city’s children. It is low and it is shameful, and the Panel for Education Policy, which has the opportunity to stop this abuse in March, should see to it that the mayor’s proposal does not stand.

Visit National Review Online for similar stories

Save Charter Schools