Tuesday, September 16, 2014

The answer to abusive lawsuits: LOSER pays

The answer to abusive lawsuits: LOSER pays:



By Charles Greene

Although America’s reputation as being a ‘litigious society’ has been debunked as a myth by some, the fact remains that there are far too many frivolous lawsuits being filed in our nation’s court system on a regular basis – particularly those involving class action complaints against corporations.

Often these types of lawsuits are settled quickly and out of court, but in a recent decision concerning a lawsuit against Boeing Co., one in which the company decided to fight back, a U.S. District Judge imposed rarely-used Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was Robbins Geller, a “notorious” securities litigation firm which has been accused numerous times of filing frivolous lawsuits.

Rule 11 sanctions require the plaintiff to pay the legal costs of defendants and the case has stirred debate regarding the application of ‘loser pays’ standards to prevent these types of costly lawsuits.

An article in the Washington Examiner explores the details of the case and the ‘loser pays’ concept:

“It was the sort of case that routinely costs companies millions of dollars in cash and stock value. Most companies settle such cases to make them go away, but Boeing did not. Its attorneys eventually deposed the confidential witness, only to discover that he was actually just a contractor in a job unrelated to the case who hadn’t even worked for Boeing until months after the period in question. The witness ‘repudiated each of the allegations’ in the Robbins Geller complaint, according to court papers.

The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the case because this firm, formed by the now-disbarred and once-imprisoned William Lerach (who reaped billions from similar lawsuits) had rare Rule 11 sanctions imposed upon it two weeks ago and must now pay Boeing’s legal costs. In his Aug. 21 sanctions order, U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo wrote that the firm had committed ‘repeated misconduct throughout this litigation.’ The case demonstrates how class-action investor litigation is often used as a form of legal extortion: ‘Settle now and we’ll go away.’ According to a recent study by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, such cases on aggregate cost shareholders more than six times as much wealth as they generate for plaintiffs.”

Lawsuits such as the one against Boeing often cost shareholders enormous amounts of money. In an op-ed piece published by The Wall Street Journal, Avrohom J. Kess and Yafit Cohn note:

“Fortune magazine recently estimated that $73 billion in settlements has been extracted from corporations between 1997 and 2012—$17 billion of which went to the pockets of plaintiffs attorneys. Yet many individual shareholders never collect the money that is due to them, with 40%-60% of these settlement amounts going unclaimed. The result is a tax on capital that serves little societal purpose but does encourage more litigation.

Legislative reforms, including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, have been somewhat effective. But we think a loser-pays rule, forcing plaintiffs attorneys to be more careful about choosing to file a claim, may be a better reform. And this reform can be adopted without legislation.”

The loser-pays concept is sometimes referred to as the ‘English rule.’ As the WSJ article points out, the rule has been effectively used in the UK for hundreds of years, and in lieu of effective legislation against frivolous lawsuits, many corporations are now considering writing loser-pays clauses into their bylaws:

“Loser pays is not a novel or untested idea—it has been the rule in the U.K. for centuries. Loser-pays bylaws, if widely adopted, could threaten the business model of many plaintiffs attorneys and may detour frivolous lawsuits by introducing true financial risk as a factor in the lawyers’ decision to bring a case on behalf of shareholders. The purchase of a company’s stock would constitute an agreement to abide by the loser-pays rule. At the very least, these provisions deserve genuine consideration by corporations and their shareholders.”

Opponents to loser-pays legislation are concerned that such laws will discourage meritorious lawsuits as well as frivolous ones. Kess and Cohn address these concerns, noting that:

“One compromise might be permitting a loser-pays bylaw triggered only if the plaintiffs do not pass the motion-to-dismiss stage of the litigation. This might deter frivolous shareholder lawsuits while not substantially discouraging meritorious ones. There may be other creative ways to achieve the same result that are worthy of consideration.

But one thing is certain: The current system is broken. Fixing it requires a thoughtful and collaborative approach that is fueled by what should be the primary motivation of corporations and shareholders, and their lawyers—to act in the long-term best interests of the corporation and maximize returns for shareholders.”

The Washington Examiner article shares the opinion of Kess and Cohn:

‘Loser pays’ is not a panacea. Where it has been tried in the United States, judges have applied it unevenly, letting plaintiffs off the hook but imposing it consistently on losing defendants. Moreover, many plaintiffs simply cannot pay if they lose. Several states have adopted laws that make losers pay only when a court determines such suits to be frivolous.

But if ‘loser-pays’ can work anywhere, it can work as a requirement on fellow owners of a company. A broader alternative might be the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, now filed in the House, which would make Rule 11 sanctions like the ones in the Boeing case much more common. Among other things, it would prevent attorneys from avoiding punishment by simply withdrawing their case after their bluff is called.

But with Congress unlikely to act for now, corporate loser-pays rules might be a good step toward preventing abusive lawsuits and protecting Americans’ retirement savings from unscrupulous trial lawyers like the ones at Robbins Geller.”

What is YOUR solution to nuisance and abusive lawsuits? Should losers of lawsuits be made to pay all associated costs? Do you think that would stop a lot of lawsuits from ever happening? What role should lawyers play? TELL us!

The post The answer to abusive lawsuits: LOSER pays appeared first on Absolute Rights.

Monday, September 15, 2014

How Democrats Destroyed the Senate to Stack the Federal Courts with Radical Leftists

How Democrats Destroyed the Senate to Stack the Federal Courts with Radical Leftists: by Elizabeth Slattery



In President Barack Obama’s second term, the Senate has confirmed more than twice the number of judicial nominees than were confirmed in President George W. Bush’s second term. This is due mostly to the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., succeeded in eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees (excluding the Supreme Court, at least for now) in November 2013.

In this post-filibuster world, it’s a relatively easy task to push through almost any nominee—even those (such as now-First Circuit Judge David Barron) who were opposed by some Democrats. But Republicans could stop this trend if they take the Senate in the upcoming election.





Read more at The Daily Signal.



Liberal bigots cannot handle truth

Liberal bigots cannot handle truth:

My syndicated Daily Rant titled “Time To Call A Spade A Spade” (Sept. 2, 2014) sent the Obama goons into an apoplectic tizzy. As we have long understood, the one thing leftists cannot abide is the truth. And let there be no doubt that the one thing that sets off white liberals more than anything else is a person of color who is better spoken and more intelligent than they are. Specific to that point, racist white liberals and their Negro cheering sections spared no attempt to inform me of their objection to my article.

For example, white bigots like Claire Bertorelli Pickett used to hide behind political correctness, but such is no longer the case. Today they’re quick to tell men such as myself that according to their perspective on skin color, I do not have the right to speak freely. According to Pickett, white people like her know best how blacks should think and behave. But I get ahead of myself.

In the above referenced article I wrote: “Obama is a malicious reprobate who no longer even pretends to govern within the constraints of the Constitution; he openly flaunts his demands that Congress do what he wants or he will bypass them.

“And as America comes to the end of Obama’s tyrannical reign, he is pulling the curtains back for all to see. He not only, in effect, sanctioned the murders of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods by refusing to lift a finger to save them from a deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi, but he openly lied – and it appears he will get away with it. He has sanctioned Eric Holder in his color-coded enforcement of justice. Holder can only do what Obama permits him license and approval to do.”

What I wrote was accurate and defensible on every level, but as I have said many times, the one thing white liberals in general, and race mongering liberals specifically, cannot abide is the truth.

Claire Bertorelli Pickett commented on Facebook: “You should be ashamed of yourself. The white racists use you to fuel their cause. I’m a Yankee living in the South. I first heard of you from them. My father was an Italian immigrant. I have not forgotten my roots. Very sad that you have. God is not looking very kindly on what you are doing.”

So in Pickett’s world, God frowns on those who refuse to be victims and don’t espouse antipathy based on skin color. The fact that my race is the human race and not some melanin-coded subsection of same is anathema to her.

Apparently, in Pickett’s world of limited understanding, speaking the truth is inconsistent with being a person of color. How unfortunate for her. The depths of her incomprehensible arrogance further presented itself when I apprised her that the first rule of insults is to make sure the person you are attempting to insult remotely cares about what you have to say. To which she responded: “You set no rules for me. Glad I got my point across. You live up to exactly who you are … a person with disregard for others including his own race. UGH.” One would anticipate a more cogent response from a small child. But liberalism is a disease, and race mongering obamanoids are carriers.

Pickett is by definition a bigot and morally opprobrious, ergo, her verbal assault was in perfect step with her character (or lack thereof). After all, white liberal Democrats have always known what was best for their black folks. My kind of man is a threat to them because my kind of man is not a color; we are men who stand up and boldly declare truth and embrace true freedom. Not the freedom Pickett supports, which is only acceptable if those like her approve. She defiantly (and ignorantly) tells me that I do not have the right “set rules” for her, but as a white liberal it is her right to set rules for me. Notwithstanding, she completely missed the point of the bromide with which I responded to her.

Then there was Denise Washington, who apparently believes being married to a person of color dictates she divorce herself from all reason pursuant to rebuking and exposing Obama for the Erebusic rogue that he is. Washington scoffed that I was a “disgrace” as “a public figure.”

How many different ways can one define the evil heterodoxy of color-coded politics, and how many of those definitions have Washington as the poster child? We can but marvel at her willful blindness when it comes to the debauched behavior, moral opprobriousness and unequaled abuse by the corrupt practices of the Obamas, and she decries me. Regardless of her opinion of me, my politics do not affect her standard of living nor impact her ability to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But that cannot be said of Obama, even if Washington is too blinded by his melanin content to realize it.

How can she and her ilk ignore the deconstruction of traditional America by Obama? How can she and her ilk ignore Obama’s indecent attitude toward the deaths, i.e., murders, that resulted from his illegal gun-running operation called Fast and Furious? How do Washington and Pickett reconcile Obama allowing Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty to be murdered in Benghazi? How do Washington and Pickett reconcile Obama refusing to take the appropriate action to provide quality of life for those who are suffering from the Fort Hood terrorist massacre? How do Washington and Pickett reconcile the bold, indefensible lies Obama has knowingly and repeatedly told We the People, specifically that if we like our current insurance we can keep it?

In what scenario can Washington and Pickett ignore the fact that Obama has dismissed the beheadings of two American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff? Obama even refused to take questions about Sotloff, presumably because he was in a hurry to board a waiting helicopter that would usher him off to play golf and fundraise.

What does it say about the Claire Bertorelli Picketts and Denise Washingtons of America who attempt to insult me because I refuse to dismiss the truth about Obama? Should I ignore the fact that Obama sent six special ops members to their deaths to rescue a Muslim terrorist sympathizer and military deserter, Bo Bergdahl, in exchange for five of the most high-value enemy detainees being held? Would they have me ignore the fact that Obama has done not one thing to free Marine Corps Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi from the Mexican prison he is being held in? Apparently, they support Obama retrieving a deserter who is now being living the good life while a true American patriot rots in a Mexican prison as Mexicans illegally flood out country carrying diseases and criminal behavior with them.

That said, Ken Kreider, who sent me a private Facebook message, goes even further in duplicitous defense of Obama than Washington and Pickett. Kreider, in response to a photo of Sgt. Tahmooressi I posted on my Facebook, wrote: “I find this photo is a lie, and distasteful. Would you please take it down? You are an idiot. There is NO truth here, this has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama. U.S. troops have been locked up in Mexico for misbehaving for years.”

It is hard to defend the right of these people to walk amongst us unattended by mental-health staff. For Kreider to say Sgt. Tahmorressi isn’t Obama’s problem makes clear the minds or lack of same of those who support Obama.

Media wishing to interview Mychal Massie, please contact media@wnd.com.


Receive Mychal Massie's commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Mychal Massie's alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Name*
    FirstLast

  • Email*
    Where we will email your daily updates
  • Postal code*
    A valid zip code or postal code is required

  • Click the button below to sign up for Mychal Massie's commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

Government Agencies Are Being Used to Forward a Far-Left Agenda

Government Agencies Are Being Used to Forward a Far-Left Agenda: New emails uncovered today and a Sharyl Attkisson exposé have revealed what should have been obvious for years. Our government is using agencies to obfuscate, cover up, and to circumvent the law of the land. It’s blatantly un-American. The George Soros – John Podesta think tank, the Center for American Progress in their definitive essay, The Power of the…


John Kerry’s Stupid Condescension

John Kerry’s Stupid Condescension:

There is a certain kind of personality that not only can’t admit an error, but becomes stupidly condescending when they are asked to explain their error. Barack Obama is one such person; Secretary of State John Kerry is another.

Let me explain what I mean. Face the Nation’s Bob Schieffer asked Secretary Kerry to clarify whether or not the United States is at war with ISIS (also known as ISIL). The reason the clarification is necessary is because the Obama administration, in the course of a few days, has had high-ranking officials say we’re both at war and we’re not at war with ISIS. Kerry himself said on Thursday that our mission was not a war but a counter-terrorism operation. By yesterday, in his interview with Schieffer, Kerry said we were at war with ISIS. In other words, Kerry was saying we aren’t at war with ISIS before he was saying we are.

When asked about all this, Kerry didn’t admit he was wrong. Here’s what he said instead:

Well, Bob, I think there’s, frankly, a kind of tortured debate going on about terminology. What I’m focused on obviously is getting done what we need to get done to ISIL. But if people need to find a place to land in terms of what we did in Iraq: Originally, this is not a war. This is not combat troops on the ground. It’s not hundreds of thousands of people. It’s not that kind of mobilization. But in terms of al Qaeda, which we have used the word war with, yeah, we went — we’re at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. And in same context, if you want to use it, yes, we’re at war with ISIL in that sense. But I think it’s a waste of time to focus on that. Frankly, let’s consider what we have to do to degrade and defeat ISIL. And that’s what I’m frankly much more focused on.
Memo to Secretary Kerry: the reason there’s a “tortured debate going on about terminology” is because the administration you work for is sending out not just different, but contradictory, messages about the nature of the conflict we have with ISIS. And while you may think it’s a “waste of time” to focus on whether we’re at war or not, it actually matters. The citizens of this nation deserve to know whether or not we’re at war; and one might expect a minimally competent administration to be saying the same thing rather than conflicting things. To dismiss these matters by saying he’ll answer the question “if people need to find a place to land” is quite patronizing, which raises this question: What exactly has Mr. Kerry ever achieved to make him believe he’s above the rest of us? He’s been wrong on virtually every major foreign-policy matter since the 1970s.

Beyond that, the semantics are important because they reveal the cast of mind of those in the administration. If the president and his top advisors are conflicted about whether even to call this a war, you can bet they don’t have the determination and strength of purpose to actually wage and win one. And oh-by-the-way: If Messrs. Obama and Kerry believe we can defeat ISIS without prosecuting a war–if they think a counterinsurgency operation is enough–they are living in a fantasy world.

The Obama administration increasingly resembles a clown act. If they were in charge of a circus, that would be one thing. But the fact that they are in charge of American foreign policy is quite another. The damage being inflicted on America’s national interests and the international world order by the ineptness of Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, Susan Rice & Co. is beyond immense. It now qualifies as incalculable. Those are not grounds for being haughty and supercilious.

Walter Williams: Multiculturalism Is a Failure

Walter Williams: Multiculturalism Is a Failure: German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that in Germany, multiculturalism has "utterly failed." Both Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spain's ex-prime minister Jose Maria Aznar reached the same conclusion about multiculturalism in their countries. British Prime Minister David Cameron has warned that multiculturalism is fostering extremist ideology and directly contributing to homegrown Islamic terrorism. UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said the United Kingdom's push for multiculturalism has not united Britons but pushed them apart. It has allowed for Islam to emerge despite Britain's Judeo-Christian culture. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the roots of violent Islamism are not...


OBAMA'S POLICIES ARE WRECKING THE MIDDLE CLASS AND DESTROYING THE AMERICAN DREAM

FEDERAL RESERVE SURVEY SHOWS OBAMA'S POLICIES ARE WRECKING THE MIDDLE CLASS AND DESTROYING THE AMERICAN DREAM: NYTIMES:

YOUNG families are better educated than ever before, but they are earning lower real incomes. 
The Federal Reserve Board’s newly released 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances indicates that the median family headed by someone under 35 years of age earned $35,509 in 2013 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, that is 6 percent less than similar families reported in the first such survey, in 1989. 
... The largest declines have come since the 2007 survey — the last one in which participants discussed their income in a year before the Great Recession began. 
The following survey covered income earned during the recession, and it was not easy to know how much of the falloff was a cyclical phenomenon that would disappear when the economy recovered. 
But the newest survey covered income in 2012, three years after the recession ended, and shows that most of the lost ground has not been recovered. 
In fact, the real median income for all of the age groups except those in the 35-to-44 group declined from 2010 to 2013.
REPEAT: MOST OF THE DECLINE HS OCCURRED AFTER THE RECESSION AND ONLY SINCE OBAMA'S POLICIES HAVE TAKEN HOLD.



IN OTHER WORDS: OBAMA'S POLICIES ARE WRECKING THE MIDDLE CLASS AND DESTROYING THE AMERICAN DREAM.



WE CAN STOP THE DECLINE IN NOVEMBER.



IN FACT; IT'S NOVEMBER OR NEVER.






Sunday, September 14, 2014

“Cruz’s action was an act of moral leadership”

“Cruz’s action was an act of moral leadership”:

I only followed in passing the incident where Ted Cruz was booed off the stage at a gathering to support Christians in the Middle East after saying that Israel was the best friend Christians have in the Middle East.

The Daily Caller reported:

Sen. Ted Cruz was booed offstage at a conference for Middle Eastern Christians Wednesday night after saying that “Christians have no greater ally than Israel.”

Cruz, the keynote speaker at the sold-out D.C. dinner gala for the recently-founded non-profit In Defense of Christians, began by saying that “tonight, we are all united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are all united in defense of Jews. Tonight, we are all united in defense of people of good faith, who are standing together against those who would persecute and murder those who dare disagree with their religious teachings.”

Cruz was not reading from a teleprompter, nor did he appear to be reading from notes.

“Religious bigotry is a cancer with many manifestations,” he continued. “ISIS, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, state sponsors like Syria and Iran, are all engaged in a vicious genocidal campaign to destroy religious minorities in the Middle East. Sometimes we are told not to loop these groups together, that we have to understand their so called nuances and differences. But we shouldn’t try to parse different manifestations of evil that are on a murderous rampage through the region. Hate is hate, and murder is murder. Our purpose here tonight is to highlight a terrible injustice, a humanitarian crisis.”

“Christians have no greater ally than Israel,” he said, at which point members of the crowd began to yell “stop it” and booed him.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/10/ted-cruz-booed-off-stage-at-middle-east-christian-conference-video/#ixzz3DL5tt6Qf

Some of the attacks on Cruz on Cruz after the event were extreme to the point of bizarre, that I had to wonder what was going on here.

David Benkoff at The Daily Caller claimed Demagogue Ted Cruz Is A Danger To The GOP.

Someone at The Week called it the most cynical, despicable political stunt of the year.

Really? Stating the obvious to a crowd that didn’t want to admit the obvious was dangerous demagoguery and a despicable political stunt?

I’m with Caroline Glick on this one:

G-d bless Sen. Cruz. He is a rare and extraordinary leader and he should go from strength to strength.
http://t.co/rncZo8ZCIe

— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) September 11, 2014
Glick writes at her website, Of politicians and moral courage:

Cruz’s action was an act of moral leadership.

He stood before his audience of fellow Christians and told his co-religionists that their hatred of Jews and Israel is un-Christian. He told them as well that their bigotry blinds them to their own plight and makes them reject their greatest ally in securing their future in the Middle East.

Cruz’s strategy for fighting Islamic oppression of Christians involves uniting all those oppressed and attacked by jihadists. In all honesty, it is the only policy that has a chance in the long term of securing the future of the Christians of the Middle East.

For Cruz to reach this conclusion, he first had to possess the moral clarity to recognize that Christian Jew-hatred is a major obstacle to securing the future of the Middle East’s Christians.

In other words his strategic vision is anchored in moral courage.

Was the $1 TRILLION spent on the Dept. of Homeland Security a total waste or only a partial one?

Was the $1 TRILLION spent on the Dept. of Homeland Security a total waste or only a partial one?: I have always hated the term “homeland security.” What are we part of Bismark’s Germany? That aside the name of the agency isn’t the only thing wrong with the agency. There’s the whole “that it exists at all” thing. Don’t misconstrue what I am saying as a belief that terrorism isn’t a legitimate threat. I think that it is. I actually buy that we are in a protracted battle, but that it is a low grade one with periodic flare-ups. Terrorism is not an existential threat to the USA. (The reaction to terrorism may be however.) The threat of a...


Govt Waste - Billions in failed programs wasted in Afghanistan

U.S. Inspector: Billions in failed programs wasted in Afghanistan: United States will spend up to $8 billion a year on reconstruction projects for years to come.


Saving Water, the Private-Sector Way

Saving Water, the Private-Sector Way:

To hear your standard environmentalist tell it, we’re well on our way to a perpetually parched world. True, freshwater is a precious commodity, and much of it gets wasted, but a number of private companies are finding new ways to streamline processes that save water—and thus to save money as well. The BBC reports:

Nestle USA’s pizza division factory in Little Chute, Wisconsin [...] has teamed up with GE Water to reduce its water usage in its cooling towers. [...B]y applying GE’s advanced water-treatment chemical technology to the plant’s cooling towers, the factory has been able to use re-use its water to a much greater degree – saving some 7.4 million gallons of water and reducing sewer discharges by the same amount.
And another example, this time in saving wastewater in the food and beverage industry:

Treating food and beverage wastewater can still leave an unpleasant by-product called ‘sludge’. It costs money to dispose of, not to mention creates greenhouse gases. [...] But US firm Nutrinsic has come up with a novel solution – turning the nutrients in factory wastewater into quality animal feed. [...] The plant reduces expenses while Nutrinsic benefits financially from sales of the feed.
In their quests to improve their bottom lines, businesses sometimes pursue efficiency gains that also benefit the environment. Economic growth and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive goals, but rather can work in tandem. Green policies can be more effectively implemented if promoted in the context of the savings they provide, rather than some platonic ideal of unsullied nature.

The modern green movement chooses to focus on instances in which development has marred our environment, but that myopic world view neglects to acknowledge humanity’s ability to find solutions to these problems.

Australians Admit: High Terror Alert Due To Muslim Immigration

Australians Admit: High Terror Alert Due To Muslim Immigration:

Australian Muslim 2
Hyde Park, Sydney demonstration September 2012 (H/T thejournal.ie)
What was refreshing about this story is that the Australians were honest:
Director-General David Irvine said the terrorist threat level had been rising in Australia over the past year, particularly in recent months, mainly due to Australians joining Islamic State to fight in Syria and Iraq….
Australia estimates at least 60 Australian citizens were fighting for the Islamic State group and another Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nursa, also known as the Nusra Front, in Iraq and Syria. Another 15 Australian fighters had been killed, including two young suicide bombers.
Another 100 Australians were actively supporting extremist groups from within Australia, recruiting fighters and grooming suicide bomber candidates as well as providing funds and equipment, the government said.
This of course brings to mind the very wise and honest retraction I discussed in 2011 in Australian Media Bigfoot Greg Sheridan Declares Against Muslim Immigration—Where Are U.S. Counterparts? It also raises again the question I asked earlier this year  in Why Does Australia Have A Muslim Immigrant Problem?
In that piece I said
How and why this atrocity was engineered is definitively analyzed at Kevin MacDonald’s Occidental Observer site here.
However very shamefully Australians are not allowed to discuss this matter as James Kirkpatrick recently reported in Free Speech Sacrificed To Diversity in Australia

Amnesty With Open Borders Equals National Suicide

Amnesty With Open Borders Equals National Suicide:

Source: Wikimedia Commons
Our president has made no secret of what his end game is.  Remember him with Joe the plumber?  He just wants to spread the wealth around.  He is perhaps not an avowed socialist but he is certainly an announced one.  Yet he has won two elections one way or another and he is coordinating the end game of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.   This is not a conspiracy…it’s a strategy….and it breaks my heart that as America dozed on the couch watching the game these Progressives have turned the American dream into a nightmare.

Now the Southern border has been all but erased by a pre-arranged catastrophe.  What does America’s Community Organizer in Chief say in response to Republican reticence in voting millions to pay for lawyers to argue against our own laws? He tells us he is going to unilaterally grant amnesty through executive edict to millions if not tens of millions while holding the door open to millions more.  Of course he will wait till after the 2014 midterms are over so that his party can campaign against amnesty while planning to grant it afterwards.

Does the GOP move to block this unconstitutional act of national suicide? Do they mount a national campaign to harness the vast majority of citizens who want to save America for Americans?  No, the congressional Republican leaders let everyone know they are for amnesty too.

How can they not know that amnesty for millions of undocumented Democrats is suicide for the GOP?  Call it executive action.  Call it comprehensive immigration reform.  Call it anything you want.  Amnesty under any other name is amnesty and amnesty with open borders is a siren call to the tens of millions who haven’t already come to come now.  Our leaders are actually working on a plan to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico into a new super state of North America. Our children and grandchildren will grow up in a third world hellhole that was once the land of the free and the home of the brave.

My question is….How can the GOP be so stupid….or…Why are Democrats smarter than Republicans?

I was a fourth generation Republican who cut my teeth in Nixon’s first presidential campaign, worked for Goldwater, Reagan, and all the following place holders until the impeachment debacle and the explosion of government growth and spending under Hastert, Lott, and Bush.  When the Republican Senate refused to impeach President Clinton for crimes he later admitted and when they then became Democrat Lite as the party of power and profit, I mailed my membership card to the party that was no longer the Grand Old Party of my great-grandfather and became an Independent.

For most of my life I was a party man: accepting some things I didn’t agree with for the greater good of electing a party with a platform I could agree with.  However, once it became apparent that as far as the budget went we had elected the foxes to watch the hen-house, that the conservative social agenda received a tip-of-the-hat during elections followed by no action, and that the only victims of the impeachment were those who brought the charges, the scales fell from my eyes.  Once I saw that the Republicans had lost their moorings and were swilling at the public trough, I realized the platform we conservatives battle so hard for and hold so dear is merely a mirage held in front of social and fiscal conservatives to keep them loyal to a party captured by the Progressives.

Back in the Dream Time, when my mind was still locked in the glow of Ronald Reagan and all his example and message meant to America, even then I wondered, “What’s wrong with these leaders of ours?  Why do the Democrats always seem to outsmart them at every turn?”

Even Reagan, the best of the best, was hoodwinked by Tip O’Neal in the amnesty bargain: we would grant amnesty and then seal the border.  The problem is the illegal immigrants got the amnesty, however America’s border was never sealed. He also signed several tax deals with the Democratic majority.  We the People lost many deductions in exchange for lower rates.  The deductions never came back even though the rates started rising again as soon as the Gipper said good night and George the First forgot to read his own lips.

George Bush the Elder was out maneuvered by the Progressives so many times that 20% of his base ran to Perot, opening the door for Clinton and the first attempt to ram national health care down America’s throat.  That time they overplayed their hand and the last great strategist among the Republicans, Newt Gingrich, was able to sell a Contract with America and bring the first Republican majority in Congress in 40 years.

Newt kept the promises and brought some fiscal sanity back to Washington.  Within a few short years the Republican led Congress ended welfare as we had known it for generations and balanced the budget.  Unfortunately the Party of Lincoln then nominated someone who campaigned as if he had voted for Lincoln.  The 1996 Republican campaign would have had to improve several thousand percent to make it to dull.  Suddenly, with an assist from the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media, it was Clinton who had been dragged kicking and screaming to the benefit and spending cutting table who was the author of everything positive Congress had accomplished.  The Republicans had been outmaneuvered and outsmarted again.

According to every one of the serial re-counts Bush the younger won Florida and legitimately the presidential race of 2000.  Yet, to this day people talk of him being selected not elected.  After the dastardly deeds of 9-11 the rhetorically-challenged George captured the hearts of America and the admiration of the Western world by taking a bullhorn and talking to a crowd at ground zero.  Yet by fighting and winning America’s first preemptive war and then losing the peace through the lack of planning, he soon lost the PR campaign which led to the Pelosi-Reid Congress and eventually absolute triumph of Progressivism in 2008.

The Progressives immediately took the reins of single-party rule and imposed their radical agenda to transform America into a Nanny-state based upon the re-distribution of wealth.  This wanton destruction of the traditional American society based on limited government and free enterprise sparked a vast rebellion in the silent majority, and the resulting teanami of 2010 brought a Republican majority back to the People’s House and an expanded minority to the Senate.

And what was the first thing these political savants did?  They struck a deal that anyone who was paying attention could see was tailor-made to save the discredited Obama presidency and set the stage for him to follow in Mr. Clinton’s footsteps, taking credit for anything good the recent election might have made possible.  What were these so-called leaders thinking?  They turned the victory of the grassroots into capitulation by the elites to the elites.  Not only did they sign a deal that extended uncertainty and raised estate taxes, they gave the administration cover for a stealth stimulus filled with pork designed to help re-elect the president.

So, “Why are Democrats smarter than Republicans?”  The answer is they aren’t.  It isn’t a matter of intelligence it’s a matter of people with dedication to something larger than themselves as opposed to people with dedication to seeing themselves as something larger than they are.

The leadership of the Democrats are committed radical Progressives.  They have a long-term agenda to transform America into a socialist welfare state with an unlimited government, and they never lose sight of that goal.  They’re willing to commit political suicide, or more accurately they’re willing to encourage their followers who do not inhabit safe seats to commit political suicide.  They never take their eyes off the ball.  They’re constantly pushing to move closer to the goal line even if it’s one inch at a time.

By comparison, the leadership of the Republicans is composed of professional politicians. They’re pragmatists who do whatever they have to do and say whatever they have to say to retain their seats, their power, and their perks.  They believe the inside the beltway press who tell them how visionary they are to compromise, losing sight of those back home in fly-over country who instead believed the campaign promises and expect their representatives to stand up for principles.

The outraged public may rise up and throw out the democratic majority of Harry Reid.  They may increase the majority for John Boehner.  What will be the result?  Will America reject the creeping socialism that is sapping our energy and subjecting us to the rule of bureaucrats and their regulations?  Will America get back on track?

No, in the unfolding amnesty debacle the Party of Lincoln once will once again choose to be on the receiving end of Pickett’s Charge instead of behind the spit-rail fence chanting “Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!” as their enemy wastes itself in a senseless charge against an immovable barrier.  Once again the leadership of the right will embrace the left, reaching across the aisle in a bi-partisan enactment of America’s Día de Muertos to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The post Amnesty With Open Borders Equals National Suicide appeared first on American Clarion.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

A legacy of failure

A legacy of failure: America can survive a Jimmy Carter and a Barack Obama. The real question is, can America survive its misinformed, class envious and easily distracted citizenry? Back during the 2008 presidential campaign a lot of conservatives predicted that if Obama were elected president his administration would amount to Jimmy Carter’s second term. Little did anyone at the time realize just how prescient those predictions turned out to be.


Wind Turbines but no Power

Wind Turbines but no Power: The highly touted, government-subsidized, unreliable, intermittent and expensive "alternative power" schemes currently in vogue are nothing but a phenomenal waste of money The first large scale wind-power installation, some 100 km (65 miles) offshore the northwest coast of Germany has finally been connected to the grid. The Offshore-Windpark Deutsche Bucht is a wind farm with a total of 80 wind turbine towers, each with a hub height of 100 m (300 ft.) above the sea and a combined design output of some 400 Megawatts in electric power.


The Utter Failure Of Our Political Class To Respond To Mortal Danger [Great Read!]

The Utter Failure Of Our Political Class To Respond To Mortal Danger [Great Read!]: September 13, 2014 The Utter Failure Of Our Political Class To Respond To Mortal Danger By James Lewis Nations are much like living organisms. One fundamental function of life is to tell the difference between friends and foes. When a nation fails to do that it will soon die. For more than two centuries the United States has known how to tell friend from foe, because we’ve had a robust sense of identity -- we understood how “a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” would be tested over and over again,...


Amnesty With Open Borders Equals National Suicide

Amnesty With Open Borders Equals National Suicide:






Our President has made no secret of what his end game is.  Remember him with Joe the plumber?  He just wants to spread the wealth around.  He is perhaps not an avowed socialist but he is certainly an announced one.  Yet, he has won two elections one way or another and he is coordinating the end game of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. This is not a conspiracy...it's a strategy....and it breaks my heart that as America dozed on the couch watching the game these Progressives have turned the American dream into a nightmare.


Now the Southern border has been all but erased by a pre-arranged catastrophe. What does America's Community Organizer in Chief say in response to Republican reticence in voting millions to pay for lawyers to argue against our own laws? He tells us he is going to unilaterally grant amnesty through executive edict to millions if not tens of millions while holding the door open to millions more. Of course, he will wait till after the2014 midterms are over so that his party can campaign against amnesty while planning to grant it afterwards.


Does the GOP move to block this unconstitutional act of national suicide? Do they mount a national campaign to harness the vast majority of citizens who want to save America for Americans? No, the congressional Republican leaders let everyone know they are for amnesty too.


How can they not know that amnesty for millions of undocumented democrats is suicide for the GOP? Call it executive action. Call it comprehensive immigration reform. Call it anything you want. Amnesty under any other name is amnesty and amnesty with open borders is a siren call to the tens of millions who haven't already come to come now. Our leaders are actually working on a plan to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico into a new super state of North America. Our children and grandchildren will grow up in a third world hellhole that was once the land of the free and the home of the brave.


My question is….How can the GOP be so stupid….or…Why are Democrats smarter than Republicans?


I was a fourth generation Republican who cut my teeth in Nixon's first presidential campaign, worked for Goldwater, Reagan, and all the following place holders until the impeachment debacle and the explosion of government growth and spending under Hastert, Lott, and Bush. When the Republican Senate refused to impeach President Clinton for crimes he later admitted and when they then became Democrat Lite as the party of power and profit, I mailed my membership card to the party that was no longer the Grand Old Party of my great grandfather and became an Independent.


For most of my life I was a party man: accepting some things I didn't agree with for the greater good of electing a party with a platform I could agree with. However, once it became apparent that as far as the budget went we had elected the foxes to watch the hen house that the conservative social agenda received a tip-of-the-hat during elections followed by no action, and that the only victims of the impeachment were those who brought the charges the scales fell from my eyes. Once I saw that the Republicans had lost their moorings and were swilling at the public trough, I realized the platform we conservatives battle so hard for and hold so dear is merely a mirage held in front of social and fiscal conservatives to keep them loyal to a Party captured by the Progressives.


Back in the Dream Time, when my mind was still locked in the glow of Ronald Reagan and all his example and message meant to America even then I wondered, "What's wrong with these leaders of ours? Why do the Democrats always seem to outsmart them at every turn?"


Even Reagan, the best of the best, was hoodwinked by Tip O'Neal in the amnesty bargain: we would grant amnesty and then seal the border. The problem is the illegal immigrants got the amnesty, however America's border was never sealed. He also signed several tax deals with the Democratic majority. We the People lost many deductions in exchange for lower rates. The deductions never came back even though the rates started rising again as soon as the Gipper said good night and George the First forgot to read his own lips.


George Bush the Elder was out maneuvered by the Progressives so many times that 20% of his base ran to Perot opening the door for Clinton and the first attempt to ram national health care down America's throat. That time they overplayed their hand and the last great strategist among the Republicans, Newt Gingrich, was able to sell a Contract with America and bring the first Republican majority in Congress in 40 years.


Newt kept the promises and brought some fiscal sanity back to Washington. Within a few short years, the Republican led Congress ended welfare as we had known it for generations and balanced the budget. Unfortunately, the Party of Lincoln then nominated someone who campaigned as if he had voted for Lincoln. The 1996 Republican campaign would have had to improve several thousand percent to make it to dull. Suddenly, with an assist from the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media, it was Clinton who had been dragged kicking and screaming to the benefit and spending cutting table who was the author of everything positive Congress had accomplished. The Republicans had been outmaneuvered and outsmarted again.


According to every one of the serial re-counts, Bush the younger won Florida and legitimately the presidential race of 2000. Yet, to this day people talk of him being selected not elected. After the dastardly deeds of 9-11 the rhetorically-challenged George captured the hearts of America and the admiration of the Western world by taking a bullhorn and talking to a crowd at ground zero. Yet, by fighting and winning America's first preemptive war and then losing the peace through the lack of planning he soon lost the PR campaign which led to the Pelosi-Reid Congress and eventually absolute triumph of Progressivism in 2008.


The Progressives immediately took the reins of single-party rule and imposed their radical agenda to transform America into a Nanny-state based upon the re-distribution of wealth. This wanton destruction of the traditional American society based on limited government and free enterprise sparked a vast rebellion in the silent majority and the resulting teanami of 2010 brought a Republican majority back to the People's House and an expanded minority to the Senate.


And what was the first thing these political savants did? They struck a deal that anyone who was paying attention could see was tailor made to save the discredited Obama presidency and set the stage for him to follow in Mr. Clinton's footsteps taking credit for anything good the recent election might have made possible. What were these so-called leaders thinking? They turned the victory of the grassroots into capitulation by the elites to the elites; nor did they sign a deal that extended uncertainty and raised estate taxes, they gave the Administration cover for a stealth stimulus filled with pork designed to help re-elect the President.


So, "Why are Democrats smarter than Republicans?" The answer is they aren't. It isn't a matter of intelligence it's a matter of people with dedication to something larger than themselves as opposed to people with dedication to seeing themselves as something larger than they are.


The leadership of the Democrats are committed radical Progressives. They have a long term agenda to transform America into a socialist welfare state with an unlimited government, and they never lose sight of that goal. They're willing to commit political suicide, or more accurately they're willing to encourage their followers who do not inhabit safe seats to commit political suicide. They never take their eyes off the ball. They're constantly pushing to move closer to the goal line even if it's one inch at a time.


By comparison, the leadership of the Republicans is composed of professional politicians. They're pragmatists who do whatever they have to do and say whatever they have to say to retain their seats, their power, and their perks. They believe the inside the beltway press who tell them how visionary they are to compromise, losing sight of those back home in fly-over country who instead believed the campaign promises and expect their representatives to stand up for principles.


The outraged public may rise up and throw out the democratic majority of Harry Reid. They may increase the majority for John Boehner. What will be the result? Will America reject the creeping socialism that is sapping our energy and subjecting us to the rule of bureaucrats and their regulations? Will America get back on track?


No, in the unfolding amnesty debacle, the Party of Lincoln once will once again choose to be on the receiving end of Pickett's Charge instead of behind the spit-rail fence chanting "Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!" as their enemy wastes itself in a senseless charge against an immovable barrier. Once again the leadership of the right will embrace the left, reaching across the aisle in a bi-partisan enactment of America's Día de Muertos to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


Ronald Reagan, Dr. Robert Owens, George Bush, Newt Gingrich, Ross Perot, Bill Clinton, Obama, Cloward-Piven Strategy, amnesty, progressive agenda, Obama agenda, North American Union, NAFTA

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

The post Amnesty With Open Borders Equals National Suicide appeared first on Freedom Outpost.

Thin Skin Threatens Free Speech

Thin Skin Threatens Free Speech: UC-Berkeley chancellor Nicholas Dirks recently attracted criticism after he sent students and faculty an e-mail attempting to honor the 50th anniversary of the university's Free Speech Movement. Critics contend that his message, titled "Civility and Free Speech," brimmed with equivocation and political correctness and amounted to a lukewarm defense of free speech. Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that Dirks's e-mail is "another example of the ambivalence and even outright hostility toward free expression found too often on today's campuses." George Leef, in a recent See Thru Edu

Read More ...


Reminder: Everything the Government ‘Gives’ Someone Must Be Taken From Taxpayer Dollars

Reminder: Everything the Government ‘Gives’ Someone Must Be Taken From Taxpayer Dollars:

Congress has returned to Washington, but not for long. The looming midterm elections mean that lawmakers are here only for what USA Today calls “a three-week sprint” before they’re back out to campaign. That, in an age of growing dependency on government, means voters can expect to hear more pandering.

‘Tis the season for promises of government largesse. The critical variable is how much the politicians will offer — or rather, how much taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for.

The problem, to put the matter very plainly, is that there’s no such thing as something for nothing. All money, goods and services — every last dollar of it — must be created through someone’s hard work.

Remember, government has no money on its own. It produces nothing, so it earns nothing. Government has only the money it takes from taxpayers or borrows against the payments of future taxpayers.

Everything government “gives” to one person or organization must be taken from another person or organization. Every dollar that government redistributes to someone, it must first take from someone else, and then deduct carrying costs before passing it on.

We can see some of the results of this in the 2014 Index of Culture and Opportunity, published recently by the Heritage Foundation. The index reports how food-stamp participation has soared over the past decade. From 2003 to 2013, it grew by more than 26 million people.

To show how much of a jump this is, consider that in 1970 the number of individuals receiving food stamps was well below 10 million. By 2003, it was just above 20 million. By 2013, it was fast approaching 50 million.

Meanwhile, the index also charts how total welfare spending has climbed, rising by $246 billion between 2003 and 2013. Today the federal government operates more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing and medical care to poor and low-income Americans.

According to Heritage poverty expert Robert Rector, government spent $916 billion on these programs in 2012, and roughly 100 million Americans received aid from at least one of them, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient.

That’s a lot of dependency. And it can’t be consequence-free.

“If we keep on this way, we’ll reach a tipping point where there are too many people receiving government benefits and not enough people to pay for those benefits,” writes Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, in The Wall Street Journal. “That’s an untenable problem. The receivers cannot receive more than the givers can give.”

Besides, charity through government redistribution is not real charity. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” That is what we see taking place through the government’s embrace of moral hazard.

It’s clear that the politics of government largesse and good policy (holding individuals and institutions responsible for their actions) don’t always coincide. The question is, how far down the dependency road will we go before we discover that we can’t turn back?

Originally appeared in the Washington Times.

The post Reminder: Everything the Government ‘Gives’ Someone Must Be Taken From Taxpayer Dollars appeared first on Daily Signal.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”:

One of the predictable effects of the secularization of our culture and our society is the debasement of our collective moral fabric, our social mores. The absolute and fundamental matrix of values that form the basis of our Judeo-Christian society have steadily eroded, and at an accelerated rate over the past few decades. This erosion of traditional values has contributed to proliferation of a moral relativism that is profoundly evidenced by displacement of social standards and individual religious belief systems.

c45c6c37e8873f733f2bbba629d700685a861605a5252b951e200da2d32d574cThe late Alan Bloom, professor of philosophy at Cornell, Yale, and the University of Chicago, wrote, “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” If all truth is relative, all morality becomes relative as well, for the elimination of absolute truth claims absolute morality as its first casualty.

This moral relativism has coincided predictably with the secularization of our culture. Supplanting our Judeo-Christian value system, by effectively removing it from the public realm, has effectively left our society as a ship without a moral rudder.

Moral relativism ensues when ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person’s individual choice. There are no absolutes. All morality is relative and up for individual interpretation. Fixed standards of value don’t exist aside from the changing whims of society, social trends, and sometimes even government regulation.

teaching-ethical-thinkingWilliam McGuffey, who authored the McGuffey’s Readers, which were the mainstay of America’s public school system for nearly a century, wrote: “Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man.” Today we witness the veracity of his statement with certitude.

Moral relativism weakens our collective cultural conscience. It weakens our ability to identify evil and our resolve to confront it as such. It leads to the perfidious exoneration of individual responsibility and culpability for perpetrators of evil, and seeks blame for such actions in social, parental, and educational failures. It prevents us from recognizing the evil in our midst that threatens our families, our neighborhoods, our culture, and our nation. And if allowed to continue unabated, it perpetuates the continued erosion of our entire civilization.

John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

qq1sgMosesMoralityBenjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said. “The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be [based] in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.  Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”

Noah Webster, for whom the Webster Dictionary is named, and often regarded as the father of American scholarship and education, echoed those sentiments. “The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution assures the free exercise of religion, yet due to fear of lawsuits from the ACLU and other malcontents, religion has been nearly expunged from the public square. The freedom of exercise clause has been consequently whittled to a sliver, as religious expression and any semblance of religious morality has been systematically extirpated from society in general.

secularismWe have become such a paranoid secular society due to political correctness that even the establishment clause of the First Amendment is incessantly challenged. And when you think about it, by far the most coercive element challenging the establishment clause is secularism itself, which is little more than a godless belief system that substitutes God with human intellect. A student uttering a Christian prayer at commencement no more violates separation of church and state (which isn’t even in the Constitution) than a secular commencement address. Neither violates the compulsory prohibition as expressed in the establishment clause, which disallows a state-sponsored religion.

moral-choicesLast November Rev. Billy Graham presented his final broadcast to the American people. In it he declared, “Our country’s in great need of a spiritual awakening. If ever there was a time this country needed the intervention of God, it is now. We can and should pray for America as a whole, but remember that when God sets out to change a nation, He begins by changing people. It starts with individuals.”

Former LDS Church President Harold B. Lee uttered a similar statement. “This nation, founded on principles laid down by men whom God raised up, will never fail…. I have faith in America. You and I must have faith in America.”

America was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a godless country. Secularism is euthanizing the soul of the nation, challenging even the bedrock institutions of civilization. If we are to survive, it will be by turning to God and reaffirming the natural rights acknowledged and ostensibly assured by our classical-liberal founders, and by those of moral clarity and conviction being involved in the political process.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

White House Watched as Benghazi Victims Died!

White House Watched as Benghazi Victims Died!:

Dear Conservative,

Exactly two years ago, we experienced one of the worst cover-ups in recent memory: the administration pushed the ridiculous narrative that the Benghazi terror attacks were caused by a low-budget YouTube video and were somehow our fault.

This was a message that was repeated for days and weeks following the attacks, even though the intelligence proved that the attack was pre-planned.

Even worse than that, however, was the fact that everyone within government was lying to convince the American people that Barack Obama did everything he could to help Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods.

We know for a FACT that the Obama administration didn’t do everything it could to help save these men. We now know for a FACT that “stand down” orders were given to the rescue team and these four men died as a result!

Honor these four men! Demand that Congress arrest everyone involved in the Benghazi cover-up!

Two years after that horrific terrorist attack, we are left with more questions than answers.

Where was Obama on the night of the attacks? Who told the CIA Station Chief in Benghazi to force the rescue team to “stand down?” Why was a stand down order given?

These four men paid the ultimate sacrifice: dying for their country. But Ambassador Stevens and these three other men never should have died. The CIA’s Security Annex Team would have been able to save Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, and the rest of the staff but they were ordered to stand down… they were ordered to sit on their hands and wait for half an hour…

Eventually, the rescue team just defied their orders and launched their mission anyway. If they hadn’t, who knows how much worse the attack would have been…

The point is that the entire administration has been claiming for years that a “stand down” order was never given. Literally everyone within the administration had bought into perpetuating the narrative that Barack Obama is tough on terrorism and that the government did everything it could to save these men…

The Select Committee on Benghazi is having its first public hearing this week. This is the chance to get to the bottom of the scandal and cover-up once and for all and to finally see some Obama administration officials put in handcuffs!

The Democrats and Obama administration bureaucrats are already mudslinging, trying to convince the American people that the Benghazi committee is a joke… But the only ‘joke’ is that President Obama really believes he can get away with letting these four Americans die!

Democrats are doing everything they can to perpetuate the lie that President Obama and his administration did everything they could on that fateful night… They are doing everything they can to shutdown the Congressional investigation…

They MUST be stopped! You MUST stop them!

The only way to get to the truth is through Congress and We the People must force them to get to the bottom of this scandal once and for all! The time for talking is over. It is time to put some administration officials in handcuffs!

Only you can DEMAND that Congress arrest everyone involved in the Benghazi cover-up!

Sincerely,

Joe Otto

Conservative Daily

Hiking the Minimum Wage Won't Help the Poor

Hiking the Minimum Wage Won't Help the Poor:

WalletThe ground has been shifting in the battle over
the minimum wage. With President Obama's
proposal
to hike the national minimum from $7.25 to $9 an hour
stalled in Congress, local labor activists have been aiming even
higher, getting behind a vastly higher minimum wage of $15 an
hour.

The proposals are gaining steam. The small city of SeaTac,
Wash., which includes Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, already
has a $15 minimum in force, while Seattle plans to implement one
over time. Similar "super-minimum" proposals also are under
consideration in cities like San Francisco and Chicago. Recent

state-level legislation
will phase in a minimum wage of greater
than $10 in California, Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii and Vermont.
Massachusetts' minimum will rise to $11 by January 2017, while the
District of Columbia's is set to rise to $11.50 by July
2016.

Predictably, market advocates and business interests warn that
such laws portend disaster: layoffs, benefit cuts, huge surges in
consumer prices, mass unemployment and business closures. Just as
predictably, labor unions and
their allies
on the left paint the subject in terms of
"fairness," arguing the higher wages will be paid out of what one
SEIU lawyer
called
"billions and billions" in “extra” profits earned by
fast food restaurants and others.

In truth, while the proposals are deeply flawed, the projections
of economic catastrophe are at least somewhat overblown. The best
reason to oppose a $15 minimum wage is that it's a bad way to help
the very people it is intended to help.

Though the economic literature on the subject is mixed, a
comprehensive
review
done in 2013 by the National Bureau of Economic Research
found most studies do find a small but measurable increase in
unemployment in response to minimum wage hikes. The effects tend to
be concentrated in a few industries that employ lots of low-wage
workers, often teens and seasonal employees.

That a rising minimum wage would have only a small impact on
unemployment shouldn't be terribly surprising, because government
regulation doesn't have that large an immediate effect on jobs
anywhere. The Bureau of Labor Statistics regularly asks employers
the reason behind layoffs. Those attributed to "government
regulations/intervention" are routinely less than 0.5 percent of
the total.

Both because they want to take care of their employees and
because they would lose customers if service levels get cut
sharply, business owners will avoid layoffs if they can. Nor are
the costs of higher minimum wages simply passed on to customers.
While a portion of almost any cost increase will almost certainly
be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, price
competition alone means that consumers will rarely have to pay
all of it. Instead, businesses may look to cut the
cost of non-labor inputs, or to slow cost-of-living adjustments,
cut raises for employees earning more than the minimum wage, or
increase employees' share of health-care costs.  And yes, some
will accept lower profits.

Of course, none of this makes a vastly higher minimum wage a
good idea.  Higher labor costs will encourage businesses to
automate more tasks and, over time, look for creative ways to avoid
filling vacancies.  This will encourage elimination of many of
the easiest-to-replace jobs.  And while mass insolvencies and
rampant unemployment may be unlikely, there will certainly be some
effect. Some already teetering businesses will almost certainly be
pushed over the edge and some jobs that could have been taken by
teenagers, the disabled and those lacking familiarity with work
itself will never be created in the first place.

What's more, raising the minimum wage is simply a terrible way
to help the poor. Only about 7 percent of those below the federal
poverty line work a full-time job of any sort. Meanwhile, many of
those who earn the minimum wage aren't poor at all. Roughly 42
percent live with a parent or relative, while another 18 percent
are married second income earners, which helps explain why the
average family income of a minimum wage earner is $53,000 per
year.

Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, a direct subsidy for
those who work for modest wages, is a much better and much more
direct way to help the working poor. Changes to healthcare,
nutrition and education programs could do still more to help those
in poverty. By comparison, a $15 minimum wage, even if not as
disastrous as some market advocates claim, is likely to do more
harm than good.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Despite proven academic success of NYC’s charter schools, the mayor and unions are waging a war on city’s charter kids

Despite proven academic success of NYC’s charter schools, the mayor and unions are waging a war on city’s charter kids:

Success Academy Charters Grades Black (%) Hispanic (%) Free Lunch (%) Statewide Performance 2014 (%)
Harlem Success Academy 1 K-6 80.1 17 77.7 96.7
Harlem Success Academy 2 K-4 77.9 20 75 97.8
Harlem Success Academy 3 K-4 64.3 30.9 80 99.5
Harlem Success Academy 4 K-5 73.5 20 78.5 97.8
The profiles of four Harlem charter schools, operated by Success Academy Charter Schools are displayed above, based on new 2014 data from the SchoolDigger website and national school database. All four Harlem Success Academy charters serve primarily minority student populations (all are 93.5 to 97.1% black and Hispanic) and low-income households (75 to 80% of students at these schools qualify for free or discounted lunch), and yet all are ranked academically higher than about 97% of all schools in New York state based on 2013-2014 standardized test assessments in math and reading.

What a truly amazing academic success story! Harlem Success Academy 3, an elementary school where 95.2% of the students are black or Hispanic and 80% are from poor households who qualify for free or discounted lunch, performed better on standardized reading and math tests than 99.5% of all elementary schools in the state.

Q1: With those kinds of impressive, eye-popping academic results for some of the city’s most at-risk student populations in Harlem, couldn’t that proven record of academic success be replicated in all public schools? Wouldn’t you think that these Harlem charter schools would be recognized as academic models for the rest of the city and the state? After all, the students at all four of the Success Academy charter schools in Harlem are performing at the same or higher level as students in the tony and upscale Scarsdale school district, where about 90% of the students are white or Asian, less than 1% are black, 0% of the students qualify for free/reduced lunch, and the median household income is $221,531.

A: Yes, except for a few major obstacles. The Success Academy charter schools are run by Eva Moskowitz, and her network of charter schools hire only non-union teachers, who are paid well but can be fired for non-performance. So the New York City teacher unions hate Eva Moskowitz despite her “off-the-charts success” at educating black and Hispanic kids in some of the poorest neighborhoods in the city. Likewise, instead of being thrilled that so many of the city’s low-income, minority students are being educated so successfully, the new New York mayor Bill de Blasio hates charter schools just as much as the entrenched teacher unions (who are a main part of his political base of support) and he is in a ferocious battle to stop Eva Moskowitz and the spread of charter schools.

Bottom Line: In a saner and more sensible world where students and learning are really the No. 1 priority, the educational establishment (including members of the teacher unions and the NYC mayor) would be “falling all over themselves” to copy the proven educational success of charter schools like the ones in Harlem profiled above. But in the insane world of New York City where unionized teachers have a stranglehold on public schools, the liberal mayor and liberal teacher unions are waging a war on the city’s successful charter schools like the ones operated by Success Academy Charter Schools. Preservation of the status quo and a continuation of the current failed public school model, and preserving its power, are the primary concerns of the teachers unions and their administrative enablers, which now includes the new New York mayor.

Q2: What’s happened, I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones who most want to help, not hurt minorities and poor people? How does waging a war on minority charter school students from low-income households in NYC fit into the liberal agenda of helping the poor?

President Obama Rejects Pentagon Military Advice To Combat ISIS – Instead Favors Political Advisors…

President Obama Rejects Pentagon Military Advice To Combat ISIS – Instead Favors Political Advisors…: The State Department and White House avoid the word “war” because they’ve already declared the “war on terror” over, so naturally they cannot take military advice to combat a terror threat… WASHINGTON DC - As he laid out his strategy to combat the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria, President Obama rejected the “best […]