Good News, Elizabeth Warren: Women Already Have Equal Pay by Diana Furchtgott-Roth

/in , , , /by

At the Democratic Convention, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker lamented that American women do not earn “equal pay for equal work.” A Hillary Clinton administration, they promised, would right this wrong.

The latest U.S. Department of Labor data show that women working full-time make 81 percent of full-time men’s wages. But this figure is both inaccurate and misleading. This statistic looks only at raw averages and does not take into account factors such as education, skills, and hours worked.

Control for the Obvious

After controlling for other factors, the gender pay gap practically disappears. Indeed, among single, childless workers under 30, women earn more than men. Legislation to close the gender “wage gap” is misguided: in reality, there is no gap to close.

Likewise, the BLS statistic is misleading because it averages earnings for all full-time women — no matter their education, profession, experience, or hours worked — and earnings for all full-time men. As such, it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Even in President Obama’s White House, women earn 84 percent of what men earn, according to published data analyzed by American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Perry.

The Labor Department classifies “full-time” work as any workweek of more than 35 hours; but men typically work more hours than women. Among full-time workers, men work 43 hours per week, on average, and women, 41 hours per week. Women who work exactly 40 hours per week earn 89 percent of what their respective male peers earn. (When unmarried, childless workers under 30 are compared, a “reverse wage gap” appears, with women earning $1.08 for every dollar earned by comparable men.)

Women and Men Make Different Choices

The causes of the remaining 11 percent wage gap are numerous. Take men’s and women’s field of study in college. Men outnumber women in nine of the ten highest-paying majors, while women outnumber men in nine of the ten lowest-paying majors. According to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, women make up a statistically insignificant share of petroleum-engineering majors and only 7 percent of electrical-engineering majors — degrees that open the door to lucrative professions. On the other hand, women account for 59 percent of studio-art majors, 56 percent of drama majors, and 88 percent of elementary-education majors — degrees that lead to relatively low-paying careers.

Employers often pay more for employees with strong quantitative skills. And, according to the American Community Survey, majors with high SAT math scores are more likely to lead to higher salaries; yet for various reasons, women are less likely to choose majors that require high math SAT scores. After graduation, more women than men work for nonprofits, which pay less: according to the DOL, of the 9.3 million U.S. workers in the private, nonprofit sector in 2015, 6.3 million were female.

Women are also more likely to leave the labor force temporarily to raise children, which contributes to the work-experience gap between men and women. (According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 97 percent of adults who identify as “homemakers” are women.) In a 2016 paper, Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn of Cornell University find that “recent research suggests a continued and especially important role for work force interruptions and shorter hours in explaining gender wage gaps in high skilled occupations.”

Women are more likely to work part-time, too. In 2015, 25 percent of women worked part-time, compared with 12 percent of men, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, when part-time workers are compared in apples-to-apples fashion, the wage gap is reversed: women earn $1.03 for every dollar earned by comparable men.

It is also true that men work in more dangerous jobs, which often pay more to compensate for the greater risk: in 2014, men experienced 92 percent of fatal injuries on the job, despite working 57 percent of total hours. Men, in other words, are roughly nine times more likely to die from work-related injuries. Employers cannot be blamed for the fact that men are vastly more likely to enter professions that kill or severely maim them.

Look before You Legislate

Various academic studies have found that, when American women are compared with men in the same jobs, the same credentials, and the same job tenure—true apples-to-apples comparisons — the wage gap narrows to 3 cents to 7 cents on the dollar. This small remaining wage gap may be due to discrimination or to factors that have not yet been measured.

To correct this alleged injustice, congressional Democrats introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA). But despite President Obama’s enthusiastic support, the PFA failed to pass a Democratic-controlled Congress. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wants to require companies to report the wages, occupations, hours worked, and race and sex of their employees in an effort to implement the PFA by regulation and circumvent Congress.

If the EEOC succeeds in collecting this data through its expanded EEO-1 form, the increased threat of litigation over pay differences between men and women, as well as between certain minorities and whites, would undoubtedly raise the cost of employment, thereby discouraging hiring.

It is currently illegal to pay women less for the same work.American women who believe that they are victims of wage discrimination have legal avenues for redress. Indeed, since 1963, it has been illegal to pay women less than men for the same work. Isolated incidents of discrimination no doubt exist and may never be stomped out entirely.

But when all the factors behind divergent pay numbers are accounted for, men and women earn roughly the same. America’s equal-pay-for-equal-work crusaders have already won.

This post first appeared at E21.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, is director of Economics21 and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

VIDEO: We Expose the real Khizr Khan as Trump meets with 6 Gold Star Families

/in , , , , , /by

We interviewed Dr. Andy Bostom who details the shariah-compliant views of Democratic National Convention speaker, Gold Star Father, Khizr Khan. At the same time Donald Trump met with six Gold Star families in Jacksonville, Florida on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 (see the Military Times story below).

, from the Military Times reports:

… Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump met Wednesday with the families of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to hear their concerns about the campaign and broader national security issues.

The private conference, which attendees said lasted about 30 minutes before a rally in Florida, included top Trump defense adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and was organized by Karen Vaughn, the mother of a fallen Navy SEAL and a featured speaker at last month’s Republican convention. Ten parents, siblings and spouses of fallen service members were included.

“It was really a chance to tell our stories, but also talk about problems with the rules of engagem ent [for troops in war zones] and the failed policies of the current administration,” Vaughn said. “I walked out feeling like I understood where his heart is, regardless of the comments that he made that may seem insensitive to some.”

[ … ]

Vaughn said she and other families in the Florida meeting sympathize with Khan, but also feel the ensuing media coverage has overshadowed more important issues for their community.

She accused those supporting Trump’s rival, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, of exaggerating those comments in an effort to cover her own national security shortfalls. Vaughn also lamented what she see as insensitivity toward the families of several Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Clinton was secretary of State at that time, and she has come under intense scrutiny for what her critics say was gross miscalculation and inaction as the attack occurred.

Read more.

It appears that not all Gold Star families are interested in scoring political points. Rather they are interested in insuring no other Blue Star families become Gold Star families.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Khan story reminds me of the food stamp fraud stories that so intrigued me

Pope Francis labels Hillary’s Running Mate Tim Kaine a ‘Violent Catholic Politician’

/in , , , , , , /by

Judie Brown, President of the All American Life League, in an email states:

Pope Francis nailed it! American Life League would like to thank the Holy Father for condemning as violent killers those who support and enable abortion in America. In particular, the supposedly Catholic, monumental hypocrite, Tim Kaine.

The Holy Father was asked in an interview by the online Catholic website “Crux” at the conclusion of the recent World Youth Day gathering about the violence of radical Islam. Pope Francis responded, “They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics,” Francis said, adding that if he speaks of “Islamic violence,” then he has to speak of “Catholic violence” too.

The Pope made his remarks in a wide-ranging news conference with journalists traveling with him back to Rome after a five-day visit to Poland … He said that, in every religion, there are violent people, “a small group of fundamentalists,” including in Catholicism.

We could not agree more. Catholic pro-abortion fundamentalists like Tim Kaine, Joe Biden, Nanci Pelosi, and Kathleen Sebelius are a cancer to the Catholic faith. They enable and espouse violence at incomprehensible levels as 3,000 children die horrifically violent deaths from abortion every day in America.

They work against the Catholic Church’s fundamental teachings of the simple right to live. They hide behind a façade that falsely distinguishes between a public and private self, yet their deception fools absolutely no one, except those who are complicit and those who intentionally deceive.

Thank you Pope Francis for speaking with clarity and strength in condemning the violent Catholic pro-abortion fundamentalist killers, be they politicians, judges, academics, health professionals, or apostate clergy.

We applaud and support your courage Holy Father.

Brown in a column titles “Raising Kaine, Despising Christ“notes:

There are a couple of things about Tim Kaine that apparently a lot of people neither know nor understand.

Democrat Tim Kaine has been defined by the media as a Catholic who is “a Catholic—and personally pro-life,” a man who “says his views on the issue have not changed over his career. But asked if he would characterize himself as ‘pro-life,’ [has] said: ‘I’ve never embraced labels.’” In addition, he has been described as a man with a “complicated stance on abortion” and a man who “defies the religious stereotype.” These are not ways in which a faithful Catholic should be proud to describe himself.

These definitions of Kaine’s position on abortion are confusing, of course. But that is because the man himself is a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of abortion who has chosen to use his Catholic background as a mantle to misrepresent his true nature. Naturally, the media is all too pleased to collaborate in this charade.

And as surely as night follows day, Planned Parenthood’s words clinch the deal: “He has voted over and over to protect access to care at Planned Parenthood health centers for people who rely on public health programs.”

Apparently Kaine is a self-identified Catholic who has never learned the meaning of the words “intrinsic evil.” If he had, he would do everything in his power to advocate for the total protection of preborn children rather than their killing by barbaric methods that I prefer to define as acts of terrorism perpetrated against the innocent preborn.

What is going on? Why haven’t the bishops done anything about this problem? Where are our heroes?

Well, we did find a couple of them, but we also found a statement from Kaine’s bishop that sort of gets in the way of truth and explains a whole lot. Let’s start with him—Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. In a statement about Catholics in politics, he said, “We continue to maintain an open communication with public officials who make ongoing decisions impacting critical, moral and social issues. . . . It is the duty of all Catholics, no matter their profession, to decide through an upright and informed conscience as to their worthiness to receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.”

In other words, Mr. Kaine, even though you have publicly advocated for abortion, your bishop will not instruct you on the reasons why, until you repent of your public advocacy of acts of abortion, you should not be allowed to receive the body and blood of Christ.

Read more.

Whitewashing Muslim Violence and Blacklisting Reality

/in , , , , , /by

The media and effete powers-that-be have been twisting themselves into Halal pretzels Islamsplainin’, rationalizing how a given Muslim terrorist attack isn’t really “Islamic” or isn’t significant. These contortions can become quite ridiculous, such as suggesting that recent Allahu Akbar-shouting Munich shooter Ali Sonboly might somehow have had “right-wing” motives because, among his violent passions, was an interest in Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

A more common (un)intellectual contortion is the minimizing tactic of claiming, as is politically correct authorities’ wont, that a given jihadist attacker “has no ties to IS” (the Islamic State), as if there’s nothing to see here if a man doesn’t provide notarized evidence of allegiance to the boogeyman du jour. Yet this is much as if we’d claimed during the Cold War that a Marxist terrorist attack wasn’t really a Marxist™ terrorist attack because we couldn’t find a connection to the Soviet Union. The issue and problem wasn’t primarily the Soviet Union but communism (Marxism birthed the USSR, not the other way around), an evil ideology that wreaks havoc wherever it takes hold. Likewise, the IS didn’t birth Islam; Islam birthed the IS.

Nonetheless, moderns will often use the misdirection of focusing inordinately on national or group associations when discussing terrorism. This is a dodge, one designed to help us avoid uncomfortable truths and which relegates us to playing an eternal game of whack-a-mole. The USSR is gone but communism is still a problem (witness North Korea and Cuba), and insofar as it’s less of a threat, it’s largely because its ideas have been discredited. Bad ideas’ standard bearers will change. But as long as the bad ideas remain tolerated and credible, they’ll always win converts.

In fact, the reality that today’s terrorists are diverse makes the point. They may be Iranian, Afghani, American, Albanian, German or from any nation whatsoever; they may be part of Hamas, IS, al Qaeda, the U.S. Army (Maj. Hassan), some other organization or no organization; they may be of any race or ethnicity, be rich or poor, and male or (occasionally) female. They only have one truly common thread: being Muslim.

The point is that, ultimately, this is a battle not of nations or organizations but of ideas, and ideas are powerful. Beliefs matter. Every action begins with a thought — or, at least, with a reflex response reflecting a world view that has shaped one’s thoughts and emotions.

Yet there’s more to understanding Muslim violence. A comprehensive German study of 45,000 immigrant youths, reported in 2010, found that while increasing religiosity among the Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among the Muslim youths actually made them more violent. Not more violent “if they join Islamic State” — but more violent, period. And while the study authors had their own, mostly politically correct explanations, I think I know a major reason why.

Becoming serious about a faith and digging into it generally means getting closer to its actual teachings. A lukewarm cradle Catholic may have little knowledge of even the Bible, but a devout one will likely have read that and the Church’s catechism. Likewise, an indifferent nominal Muslim (you know, the kind they call “moderate”) may not know much of the Koran, nine percent of which is devoted to political violence. Yet a pious Muslim may scour that book — and more. He may also imbibe the remaining 84 percent of the Islamic canon, the two books known as the Hadith and Sira.

And, respectively, 21 percent and 67 percent of their texts are devoted to political violence.

That’s what you call a full dose. Also note that while access to these two more obscure Islamic canonical texts was once limited, the Internet age places them at everyone’s fingertips. Couple this with the violent preaching of immigrant Imams and that Muslims consider violent warlord Mohammed “The Perfect Man” and thus the ultimate role model, and the German study’s findings are no mystery. Speaking of mysteries, though, the true effect of Islam will remain one unless we delve further — and break ourselves of certain misconceptions common to our times.

In the grip of religious-equivalence doctrine, many moderns have a habit of painting all faiths with the same brush; militant secularists hiss that they’re all bad while many conservatives will behave as if all “real” religions are good; consequently, conservatives sometimes reconcile dislike for Islam by insisting it is “not a religion.” But like ideology, “religion” is a category, not a creed; it contains the good, the bad and the ugly. So while religion isn’t bad, there is bad religion.

Now, most belief sets that have been embraced by man — whether we label them “ideology” or a “faith”; be they Nazism, communism, the Aztec religion involving mass human sacrifice or something else — have been what we today would call lacking to awful. This understanding lends perspective:

Islam is not an anomaly, historically speaking.

Rather, it aligns more closely with man’s default for belief sets: violence-enabling/tolerating wickedness. It is Christianity that is anomalous — as a real religion of peace.

Why does grasping this matter? The common assumption that a belief set labeled “religious” must involve generally peaceful injunctions is a result of projecting our own historically anomalous Christian standards onto other, often historically normal belief sets. This understanding can break us of the emotional reluctance to accept that what we call a “major religion” could be destructive. Instead of wrongly believing we must place Islam in a lonely, sparsely occupied “abnormal” category, we realize we merely have to accept that it’s closer to that oh-so tragic, bloody human norm. Now, there’s yet one more thing to consider about the impact of Islam.

When analyzing the effect of a religion, people understandably focus on its injunctions. What does it dictate? Yet such an analysis is insufficient because man’s default is not to be saintly but uncivilized; people will naturally display many if not all the Seven Deadly Sins and be generally barbaric unless some civilizing agency tempers their fallen nature. Thus, as with a person, the true measure of a religion is not just what it does but what it fails to do — its faults of omission, not just of commission.

It is clear to me that while Islam may be better than the Aztec and some other pagan religions, it nonetheless does a relatively poor job taming the beast. In fact, it apparently gives great license to our sinful nature. Considering greed, lust and sloth, why is it that many Muslims believe it’s licit to rob, rape and leech off kuffars (non-Muslims)? Does Islam do much to temper the envy and pridefulness inspiring so much anti-Western hatred? What of the officially approved bearing of false witness called taqiyya? Then there’s that father of violence, wrath. Danish psychologist Dr. Nicolai Sennels, who worked for years with incarcerated Muslim youth, points out that anger is highly accepted in Muslim cultures; moreover, the ability to intimidate, he writes, “is seen as strength and source of social status.” He concludes, “Islam and Muslim culture have certain psychological mechanisms that harm people’s development and increase criminal behaviour.”

Also note that the West’s foundational faith, Christianity, and its root, Judaism — the two faiths Westerners are best acquainted with and whose norms they may reflexively (and unwisely) project onto Islam — have as the basis of their moral law the Ten Commandments. Islam’s moral law is Sharia. And ne’er the twain shall meet.

In other words, even if given Muslims aren’t mindful of their canon’s violent injunctions, even if jihad is the furthest thing from their minds, they will as a group still be more prone to violence. That is, as long as their hearts and minds embody what Islam does, and what it fails to do.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

A Tale of Two Conventions

/in , , , , , , , /by

Having attended the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Cleveland two weeks ago and having intently watched the Democratic National Convention (DNC) on TV last week, I couldn’t help but notice how distorted both conventions were, especially in terms of the media’s coverage of them.

In the Black community, when grandma said, “boy, you telling a tale,” she meant that you were telling a lie. So, a tale of two conventions can easily be translated to mean a lie of two conventions.

There is no debating that the Democratic convention had much more production value than the Republican convention, which made for better TV. There is also no debating that the Republican convention was much more substantive than the Democratic convention.

The Democrat’s convention was put together like the Hollywood production that it was, but there was absolutely no substance to it. All the speakers rattled off the typical liberal mantras: higher taxes on the rich, more government regulations, tons of “free” stuff, increase in the minimum wage, homosexual entitlements, amnesty for illegals, etc.

But like all things Hollywood, it was all make believe.

For President Obama to describe Hillary Clinton as the most qualified candidate in the history of America is quite insulting, as well as an outright lie, but of course lying is consistent with Clinton’s M.O.

According to Obama, “There has never been a man or woman more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United States of America.”

One need not go back one hundred years to disprove Obama’s statement about Clinton, one need only go back to former presidential candidate George H.W. Bush. He was a Navy fighter pilot during World War II, former Congressman from Houston, Ambassador to the United Nations, chairman of the Republican National Committee, Envoy to China, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), chairman of the Executive Committee of the First International Bank of Houston, professor at Rice University, director of the Council on Foreign Relations and two term vice president of the United States.

There can be absolutely no doubt that George H.W. Bush is by far the most qualified person to ever seek the office of the presidency. For Obama and the media to perpetuate this lie about Hillary’s qualifications is political and journalistic malpractice.

The media is in bed with the Clinton campaign in particular and with Democrats in general. No honest person would even argue that point.

One need look no further than this video of the media receiving Clinton paraphernalia during the Democratic convention and actually rooting for her.

The RNC was not as polished as the DNC, there is no doubt, but there can be no argument that Trump and the Republicans presented more substance at their convention.

Democrats and the media refused to separate the messages coming out of the RNC from their dislike of Trump and all things Republican.

Everyone knows that Trump is against amnesty for those in the country illegally, against these horrible trade deals that Obama and Hillary are promoting, having more stringent vetting of those wanting to come to the U.S. from certain countries, rethinking the U.S.’s relationship with NATO, etc.

The philosopher, Socrates, taught us that asking questions is the beginning of understanding. Trump has challenged the status quo by forcing us to question the usual way we have done things.

Why do we allow NATO members not to pay their dues? Why spend millions of dollars with the same ole mercenary consultants that go from one losing campaign to another? Why do we allow American companies to move overseas and export their products back to the U.S. without consequences? Why do we allow anyone to come into our country illegally and then demand all sorts of rights and benefits? Why do we go around the world and defend our allies when they put no skin in the game?

The Democratic convention was four days of uttering the usual automatic party ticks of how the government is the solution to every problem, whereas the Republican convention, with our nominee Trump, forced the nation to question everything that we are doing.

Fundamental change never comes without first posing a question?

Herein lies Hillary Clinton’s Achilles heel. Almost 70 percent of the American people say the country is headed in the wrong direction. Clinton claims to be the agent of change, but all she’s offering is the same Obama policies on steroids. She cannot reconcile these diametrically opposing ideas, and that’s why the election is basically tied right now.

Trump has successfully tapped into this desire for change that seems to confound the liberal media. They are still trying to figure out why the public believes in “The National Enquirer” more than the mainstream media.

The Democratic convention was very predictable, with no surprises. They got people charged up and ready to go with no underlying roadmap as to where the party wants to take them.

The Republican convention was very unpredictable, but you knew what direction they wanted to take you, one could argue whether the destination was where the majority of the public wanted to go.

But there is absolutely no arguing that under Trump, the country will go in a different direction.

Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Goals Would Irrevocably Undermine National Security

/in , , , , , /by

Our nation’s immigration laws are completely blind as to race, religion and ethnicity, and were enacted to protect national security and the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

My previous post for CAPS, “Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Goals Make Her Economic Promises Impossible to Achieve,” focused on how providing potentially tens of millions of illegal aliens with an equal standing in the overflowing labor pool of unemployed or underemployed American and lawful immigrant workers would exacerbate the plight of these desperate workers and their families.

Today my focus will be on how Hillary Clinton’s proposal to provide millions of illegal aliens with lawful status would do irreparable harm to national security and public safety.

Hillary has made much of having been Secretary of State. During her acceptance speech at the DNC she said, in part, “We will not build a wall,” thereby echoing the remarks of her successor at the State Department, John Kerry who, in his commencement address at Northeastern University several months ago, said, in part, that America could not remain great by hiding behind walls.

I recently wrote a commentary about Kerry’s dangerous globalist agenda that apparently is paralleled by Clinton, “John Kerry: Enthusiastic Proponent of a ‘Borderless World.’”

Metaphorically, America’s borders are her walls.

One of the critical roles of the State Department is to issue visas to aliens who seek entry into the United States. The visa process came under scrutiny by the 9/11 Commission. It identified failures in border security and failures of the visa process that enabled the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 hijackings and terrorists who preceded them. Visa fraud was a means to enter the U.S., allowing them to embed themselves in the country as they went about their deadly preparations.

Given this, any journalist who interviews Hillary Clinton should ask if she has read “The 9/11 Commission Report.”

That report should be required reading for the president of the U.S., all high-ranking members of the administration and every member of Congress.

The official government report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,” focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the U.S. and ultimately embed themselves here as they went about their deadly preparations to carry out an attack. The preface of this report begins with the following paragraph:

“It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.”

The U.S. admits approximately one million lawful immigrants each year. These are aliens from around the world who are immediately placed on the pathway to U.S. citizenship when they are granted lawful immigrant status and provided with an Alien Registration Receipt Card to provide documentary evidence of their lawful immigrant status.

Such aliens are supposed to be carefully screened to prevent criminals and terrorists from gaining entry into the U.S. That system lacks sufficient resources, however, to properly screen them all. In some instances, terrorists such as the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the Boston terror attack, had been granted lawful immigrant status, and one of them had become a naturalized citizen.

Faisal Shahzad, the “Times Square Bomber” who detonated a car bomb in Times Square in 2010, also had naturalized prior to carrying out his attack.

My recent commentaries, “Immigration Fraud Linked to San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family” and “Immigration Fraud and the California Terrorist Attack in San Bernardino,” called attention to the nexus between immigration fraud and the terror attack in San Bernardino, California.

Other terrorists had been granted political asylum or participated in the previous amnesty program. Yet Hillary Clinton promises to greatly increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. even though, according to FBI Director James Comey, they cannot be vetted. I wrote about this issue in “How Obama’s Refugee Policies Undermine National Security.”

The U.S. also admits tens of millions of nonimmigrant alien visitors – aliens who are admitted for a temporary period as tourists, students, workers or for other lawful purposes.

However, every American should be concerned about providing millions – perhaps, indeed, tens of millions – of aliens who evaded the vetting process conducted at ports of entry by entering the U.S. without inspection. There are no resources to interview them and no resources to conduct any field investigations. We could not be certain of their identities, their backgrounds or even how long they have been present in the U.S.

While the open borders anarchists blithely refer to these aliens as being undocumented, they are un-inspected.

Think of it this way, you cannot tell a “good guy” from a “bad guy” without a scorecard.

“Undocumented” aliens have no scorecards!

Florida Pot Industry has been planning this all along … 2000 Pot Shops

/in , , , , /by

2000 pot shops in floridaAmendment 2 is back on the November 8th, 2016 ballot which can only mean one thing: the same radical army of legal pot pushers is back in the Sunshine State with just ONE OBJECTIVE – to execute an age-old scheme cooked up Big Cannabis.

According to Vote No on 2, “The good news is: WE CAN STOP THEM. But not without your help.”

Nearly a quarter century ago the former Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Richard Cowan, laid out the pot industry’s plan to initiate the full legalization of marijuana:

“The key to [legalization] is medical access,” said Cowan. “Once there’s medical access and if we continue to do what we have to do, and we will, then we’ll get full legalization.”

Here is an infographic on how much energy the pot industry will consume in Florida:

pot-energy-graphic1-xx

Vote No on 2 notes:

Ever since, Big Cannabis has been working overtime to infiltrate America – state by state.

But not even Richard Cowan could have imagined a better outcome when in 1996 California passed Proposition 215. Prop 215 proved to the pot industry that if you can sneak enough loopholes into your medical marijuana law, then a recreational marijuana law won’t even be necessary.

The legal pot pushers did their best to pressure Florida’s Legislature into passing a California-style pot law of their own. But after a number of failed attempts, they came up with a plan even more diabolical than the first: to PERMANENTLY EMBED a California-style pot law into our state’s constitution by preying on the compassion of Florida voters.

Now the pot industry has embarked on a 10 MILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN to make Florida the next California.

If Amendment 2 passes, Florida will be home to more pot shops than McDonald’s, Starbucks and 7-Elevens combined. The Pot Industry will be free to advertise their kid-friendly pot candy on every corner and marijuana that’s 10 time more potent than at Woodstock will be legally sold to anyone who wants it.

Vote No on 2 has a plan to stop them.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Dirty Little Secret Pot Pushers Don’t Want You to Know About

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may keep kid-friendly pot candy, 2,000 pot shops and pot 10x stronger out of Florida. IMMEDIATE ACTION is critical please click here to learn more.

Obama Administration turning ‘Sanctuary Cities’ into ‘Safe Zones’

/in , , , , /by
christina ziegler

Christian Ziegler

Christian Ziegler, State Committeeman, Sarasota County, in an email writes:

Just when I thought that the Federal Government couldn’t act more ridiculous than allowing “Sanctuary Cities” to harbor law-breakers, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency recently put out a “How To” guide to avoid enforcement by instituting “Safe Zones” for illegal aliens. These “Safe Zones” have been put in place to allow law-breakers the ability to “participate in activities” or “utilize services” in our country “without fear or hesitation”.

Yes, you read that right. Our Federal Government has put out instructions on how to avoid justice for committing a federal crime. The continued encouragement of lawlessness and refusal to hold individuals accountable for their actions by our Federal Government is both concerning and infuriating.

It’s time that we do something about this and it’s just another reason why we must elect Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton in November. Of all of the issues discussed during this election cycle, I believe that the illegal immigration issue is one of the most important issues facing our country. And while Donald Trump has made it clear that we must build a wall and hold illegal aliens accountable for breaking our laws, Hillary Clinton allowed numerous illegal aliens, including one facing a deportation order, to speak during the DNC Convention and made it clear she’s running for Obama’s 3rd term.

Please take a moment to read the article (below) and reply back with any thoughts that you may have on this issue!

U.S. Border Protection Agcy. Advertises SAFE ZONES for Illegal Aliens

Just about any illegal alien can avoid arrest by following these simple rules, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) advertises in a post on its website’s homepage.

Providing a virtual “how-to” guide for illegal aliens in its “Sensitive Locations FAQs,”  CBP explains that immigration laws are not to be enforced at any of a wide range of designated “sensitive locations” – so that illegal aliens may be “free” to live their lives “without fear or hesitation”:

“The policies provide that enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations such as schools, places of worship, and hospitals should generally be avoided, and that such actions may only take place when (a) prior approval is obtained from an appropriate supervisory official, or (b) there are exigent circumstances necessitating immediate action without supervisor approval.  The policies are meant to ensure that ICE and CBP officers and agents exercise sound judgment when enforcing federal law at or focused on sensitive locations, to enhance the public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people seeking toparticipate in activities or utilize services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation.”

“This policy is designed to ensure that these enforcement actions do not occurat nor are focused on sensitive locations such as schools and churches” without meeting special exceptions, the ICE Sensitive Locations Policy states.

Locations covered by these policies include, but not be limited to:

  • Schools, such as known and licensed daycares, pre-schools and other early learning programs; primary schools; secondary schools; post-secondary schools up to and including colleges and universities; as well as scholastic or education-related activities or events, and school bus stopsthat are marked and/or known to the officer, during periods when school children are present at the stop;
  • Medical treatment and health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care facilities;
  • Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples;
  • Religious or civil ceremonies or observances, such as funerals and weddings; and
  • During public demonstration, such as a march, rally, or parade.

So, just almost any illegal alien can escape arrest by either walking with a second person (a march), attending some type of class, or finding a nearby church, medical facility or school bus stop.

“The enforcement actions covered by this policy are (1) arrests; (2) interviews; (3) searches; and (4) for the purposes of immigration enforcement only, surveillance,” the ICE policy says.

Each “FAQ” answer is accompanied by a translation for Spanish-speaking illegal aliens – but, not in any other foreign language.

The CBP website also provides a toll-free number and email address to enable illegal aliens report immigration enforcement efforts taking place at any of the “sensitive locations.”

RELATED ARTICLE: NATO Commander STUNS Media… Vindicates Trump With 1 Sentence

Egypt: Have Sex With Me Or I Won’t Give You an Abortion

/in , , , , /by

Egyptian doctors are willing to perform illegal abortions for a heavy price. Three women spoke to Deutsche Welle Arabic about their experiences.

Because of the traditions and the laws that prevent sexual relations outside of the framework of marriage, some Egyptian women have sex secretly and some become pregnant.

The solution can be either an abortion or keeping the child and becoming a mother out of wedlock. However, because abortion is illegal in Egypt, doctors who perform the procedure can face between three and 15 years in prison.

However, for a large sum of money — or worse — a woman can find a doctor who will perform an abortion in secret. It goes without saying that those abortions are oftentimes carried out in primitive and unsanitary conditions.

What follows is the experiences of three women who agreed to be interviewed by Deutsche Welle Arabic about their experiences:

Asma al-Sayyid, 24

“It started when I met a man when I was studying at university. We fell in love, and the relationship became physical. I was quite surprised when I became pregnant. He had promised to marry me , but when I asked him to keep his promise, he refused. I was even more surprised when I learned that everything he had told me about himself were lies,” Asma al-Sayyid, 24, related.

Asma thought about committing suicide, because she feared the shame the pregnancy would bring her and her family, but she was unsuccessful. She then decided to have an abortion and found a doctor willing to perform the operation. Because she couldn’t afford to pay, the doctor told her she would have to have sex with him in exchange for the procedure.

Asma rejected his offer and decided to keep the baby. “My family understood what happened, and my mother died of a broken heart because of the shame I had brought on them. They disowned me.”

Afterward,  Asma found a job to support herself. Her employer said he would help her out. But it wasn’t from a fatherly point of view, she says, but because he wanted to marry her. In fact, he had already proposed to her in secret.

“Despite the large age difference, I eventually decided to marry him to be able to adequately provide for my child,” she said.

Asma said she wished that abortion were legal in Egypt. “If I had been able to get an abortion, my family would not have known anything about my situation and there wouldn’t be a child in my life now. The government doesn’t allow abortions even for women who are married because of the sharia.

“I think about committing suicide all the time, but then I think about the future of my child and worry that no-one else will take care of her. I am alive because of her. Why has my life been destroyed because of a mistake I made? I have the right to live an honorable life with my child. Why does the society and the state make it so hard for me?” she asked.

Hiba Ahmed

Hiba said that her father forced her to leave her school and go to work so that the family  would be able to pay for her twin brother’s education. She got involved with a colleague at work, and they got into a physical relationship.

However, when she became pregnant, he abandoned her.

Hiba started looking for a safe way to have an abortion and went to a doctor. When offered her the choice of having to have sex with him or not having an abortion, she chose the former.

She blames her father and brother for what happened to her, because they took her out of school and sent her to work.

Amira Hussein, 19

When Amira was at university, she was duped by a senior scholar, who professed to love her and promised her an incredible future together with him which included a job at the university.

When she became pregnant, she was not upset, but later, after he abandoned her, she came to regret it.

“The scholar went on to obtain a very high position in the country,” she says, “but he left me when I became pregnant.”

Amira decided to have an abortion and was one of the fortunate women who was able to pay for it.

Noted Egyptian women’s rights lawyer Reda el-Danbouki is the director the Women’s Center for Guidance and Legal Awareness, a non-governmental organization that works for equality and opportunities for women. He says that even though abortion is a crime, the procedure is commonplace in Egypt and prosecutions rarely take place.

“This is because when it happens, it is done in secret and no-one speaks about it,” El-Danbouki said. “If news gets out it’s only because something happens, especially if the mother dies as a result of the abortion.

“Even if it is discovered, it’s a very hard thing to prove. The number of convictions is very low as well, because the judges understand the social and economic reasons that can cause a woman — married or unmarried — to have an abortion. In these cases, judges try to look for reasons to acquit the defendants.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim Mob Attacks Christian Homes in Egypt

The Two Faces of Egypt’s Al-Azhar

New Terror Group Kills Egyptian Major, Promises More Strikes

Al-Azhar Bans Pokemon Go as a “Harmful Mania”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is an illustrative picture of Egyptian women protesting sexual harassment. (Photo: © Reuters)

Daughter taken to Saudi Arabia by Father and Locked in a Cage

/in , , , /by

British-Saudi dual citizen Amina al-Jeffrey was taken to Saudi Arabia by her father after she kissed a boy at 16. She is desperate to return to the UK.

Amina al-Jeffrey was born in Swansea, UK, and taken at age 16 to Saudi Arabia by her father, who disapproved of her Western lifestyle.

Now 21, she is fighting a court battle in the High Court in London against her father to be allowed to return to the UK.

She alleges that her father, Mohammed al-Jeffrey, put “metal bars” on her bedroom and described being a “locked-up girl with a shaved head.”

Still a judge in the High Court, Justice Holman, has asserted, “We have to be careful about asserting the supremacy our cultural standards.”

Holman also said that it is unclear whether or not Britain had jurisdiction in the matter since al-Jeffrey was an adult with dual Saudi and UK citizenship.

Al-Jeffrey said her father hit her, deprived her of water and forced her to urinate in a cup.

Although “metal bars are no longer in her room” according to her lawyers, “she is still locked up in the house” and “not allowed to use the phone or internet.”

“Steps need to be taken to ensure Ms. Jeffery is returned to the UK where her safety can be guaranteed,” the Foreign Office Forced Marriage Unit said in a statement.

“Her treatment has extended to depriving her of food and water, depriving her of toilet facilities, physical assault and control of her ability to marry who she wishes and creating a situation in which she feels compelled to marry as a means of escape,” Henry Setright, a lawyer acting on behalf of al-Jeffrey said in a statement.

He described the situation as a “fundamental breach of human rights.”

Saudi Arabia does not recognize al-Jeffrey’s British citizenship. They are also paying for her father’s legal fees.

“Regarding returning Amina back to the UK, I am unwilling to do this as I fear she will go back to her old destructive lifestyle,” her father said in a letter submitted to the court.

“As her father, I fear for her health and safety and only want what is best for Amina, so she may focus on her education.”

“She is a normal Welsh girl and still has her Welsh accent,” said Anne-Marie Hutchinson, from the Academy of Family Lawyers who is representing al-Jeffrey.

“She wants to return home so she can have control of her own life and make her own choices.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Countries Shower Praise on Saudi Arabia’s Human Rights Record

5,702 Cases of FGM Reported in England Last Year

Headlines Misleading Describing Declassified Pages of 9/11 Report

Clinton, Bush Implicated in Covering Up Saudi Terror in U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Saudi women behind bars is for illustrative purposes. Photo: © Reuters

Florida Family Action Releases Legislative Scorecard Grading State Legislators on Social Issues 

/in , , , , , /by

FFA Scorecard Cover.pngOrlando, FL – Florida Family Action (FFA) announced the publication of its first Legislative Scorecard, tabulating combined legislative votes from both the 2015 and 2016 Florida Legislative Sessions.

“Our hope is that FFA increasingly becomes known for holding all legislators—Republicans and Democrats—accountable for supporting bad policy, and praise for supporting good public policy on issues related to life; marriage; family and religious liberty,” said John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of Florida Family Action.

Individual legislators were scored based upon votes favorable or unfavorable to FFA’s legislative agenda. The guide scored 12 issues on FFA’s legislative agenda from 2015 and 2016.  State legislators received both a letter grade from A+ to F and a corresponding numeric percentage score from 0-100%.

In the House of Representatives, the average House Democrat score was 41.35%.  The average House Republican score was 90.66%. One House Democrat received an A and one a D, and the rest received F’s.  Thirty seven (37) House Republican Legislators received a perfect “A+” score, twenty eight (28) received A’s.  Two GOP Representatives received D’s and five received F’s.

In the Florida Senate, the average Democrat score was 34.12% and the average Republican Score was 89.93%.  Eleven (11) Republican State Senators received a perfect A+ score and one GOP Senator received an A.  One Republican Senator received a D and all Democrat Senators received F’s.

Legislators in both chambers receiving an A+ score will be invited to be publicly recognized and honored as a “Champion of the Family” at the Florida Family Policy Council’s 11th Annual Policy Awards Dinner on Saturday, August 27, 2016 in Orlando, where Dr. Ben Carson will be featured as the keynote speaker.

To view the full scorecard available via PDF for download CLICK HERE

NOTE: Please allow a couple of seconds to fully load the document.

ABOUT FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION

Florida Family Action is the legislative arm of the Florida Family Policy Council. For more information or media interviews call 407-418-0250 or email info@floridafamilyaction.org

VIDEO: A simple act of kindness creates a ripple, that comes back to you!

/in , /by

Acts 20:35 reads:

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’

This short Asian film shows how an act of kindness can make someone’s day. For him who gives the kindness, it lasts a lifetime. This story is about a man who wants to pay tribute to a stranger’s good deed that moved him decades ago.

VIDEO: D’Soua speaks to young Americans about the Secret History of the Democratic Party

/in , , , , /by

New York Times best-selling author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza spoke to a sold out crowd of conservative students at the Young America’s Foundation High School Conference at the Reagan Ranch.

We suggest you start viewing at the 3:25 mark:

yaf logoABOUT THE YOUNG AMERICA’S FOUNDATION

Young America’s Foundation is committed to ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values.

As the principal outreach organization of the Conservative Movement, the Foundation introduces thousands of American youth to these principles. We accomplish our mission by providing essential conferences, seminars, educational materials, internships, and speakers to young people across the country.

Young America’s Foundation stepped forward to save President Reagan’s Western White House, Rancho del Cielo, in the spring of 1998 to preserve it as a living monument to Ronald Reagan to pass on his ideas to future generations. President Reagan committed himself to reaching young people with his ideas—a goal that is also central to the Foundation’s mission.

Preserving the Ranch and passing on the President’s lasting accomplishments is Young America’s Foundation’s way of thanking Ronald Reagan for all he has done for his country and the world. His beloved ranch is a place of learning, a place of encouragement and a place of inspiration for generations to come. The Reagan Ranch Center in downtown Santa Barbara is a “schoolhouse for Reaganism” where young and old alike can visit and learn more about one of America’s greatest presidents.

For more than 30 years, the National Journalism Center has trained aspiring journalists in the values of balanced, responsible and accurate reporting. Weekly seminars and on-the-job experience provide participants with the tools to become a leader in combating bias in the mainstream media.

Founded in 1977, more than 1,600 alumni have graduated from NJC’s 12-week training sessions, and some 900 of these have gone on to media and media-related positions.

In 2011, Young America’s Foundation unified with Young Americans for Freedom, which serves as the Foundation’s chapter affiliate on college and high school campuses across the country. Founded by William F. Buckley, Jr. and a group of young conservatives in 1961 at his home in Sharon, Connecticut, Young Americans for Freedom today promotes to youth the principles of limited government, individual freedom, free enterprise, a strong national defense, and traditional values, as outlined in the Sharon Statement. The chapters accomplish this by participating in a wide range of campus initiatives, such as the 9/11: Never Forget Project, Freedom Week, and the GPA Redistribution Contest, among others; and by hosting prominent conservative speakers.

Young America’s Foundation’s Center for Entrepreneurship & Free Enterprise educates and inspires young people to defend and articulate free enterprise principles. The Center’s program aim to popularize the ideas of free markets, limited government, and lower taxes necessary to generate economic growth and prosperity for more Americans.

The Ugly Truth Behind a College’s ‘Diversity’ Requirement

/in , , , /by

Hamilton College has for years had an open curriculum, allowing students the freedom to shape their education as they think best. Whether that’s a good idea is debatable, but the college is about to move in the opposite direction by instituting a “diversity requirement” for all students.

As a resident fellow at the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the last year, I have watched this drama unfold on the Hamilton College campus. This depressing story reveals much about the tactics of the academic left. A small group of radical but powerful professors, claiming to act on behalf of students, succeeded in instituting the diversity requirement.

Due to their efforts, starting in the 2017-18 academic year, every concentration will require a dedicated course or combination of courses to teach about “structural and institutional hierarchies based on one or more of the social categories of race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexuality, age, and abilities/disabilities.”

These specious topics furthermore ask students to “critically engag[e] with multiple cultural traditions and perspectives, and with interpersonal situations that enhance understanding of different identities. . . .” and to develop “an awareness of the challenges and responsibilities of local, national and global citizenship.” None of that will help Hamilton students who want to master one or more academic disciplines. Injecting those leftist tropes will be a distraction, or worse.

As further indication of the lack of scholarly justification, an email from Associate Dean of the Faculty Penny L. Yee, the administrator charged with overseeing each department’s implementation of the requirement, indicated that “ongoing discussions” involve questions about outcomes, faculty members’ “understanding of diversity,” and challenges to meeting the diversity requirement in the sciences.

One of the few faculty members who spoke out to criticize this was Robert Paquette, Professor of History and Executive Director of the Alexander Hamilton Institute. He has repeatedly complained about the decline in academic standards. Only recently, for example, did the history department, after years of internal debate, require of its history majors one course in American or European history.

Regarding the diversity drive, he notes that not only is there no academic basis for the requirement, there isn’t even a clear definition of “diversity” as it is being required!

In a May 16 email, Dean of the Faculty Patrick Reynolds nevertheless praised the requirement and said he looked forward to seeing “the development of curriculum where issues of diversity resonate and are integrated across all our disciplines.” He further claimed that the initiative is “a response to student interest that was strongly expressed two or three years ago.”

But is that true? Was there really any strong expression of student interest?

Reynolds’ assertion is thrown into doubt by his and faculty members’ encouragement of the Black Lives Matter protests beginning on campus in 2014. That fall, student activists commandeered the Burke Library and one of the group’s leaders ranted from the stairs about  standard leftist hobgoblins such as white privilege, plutocratic trustees, and capitalism.

These students received encouragement from literature professor Nancy Rabinowitz whose work with Planned Parenthood and “performance artist” Rhodessa Jones I described in a seriesof articles.

Rabinowitz, who has access to tens of thousands of dollars through the college’s Days-MassoloCenter, allied organizations, and the dean of the faculty’s office, is fond of bringing in “pricey rent-a-radicals,” as Professor Paquette calls them. This past academic year, she brought back Dr. Margo Okazawa-Rey, a faculty member of the School of Leadership Studies at Fielding Graduate University in Santa Barbara, California, to serve as the chair of Women’s Studies at Hamilton.

Okazawa-Rey’s academic bio boasts that her “primary areas of research and activism are gender, militarism, and feminist activist research.” In a 2003 talk at Hamilton, she pilloried President Bush, claiming that “The biggest terrorists are the ones who are calling for a war on terrorism.” (Titles of 2016 women’s studies senior theses she supervised include “Re-Examining the Battlefield: Gendered Intersections of Militarization and Genocide” and “Trans*formation: A Study of Partners of Transmasculine Individuals.”)

The timing of Okazawa-Rey’s appointment fit in with the efforts to impose the diversity requirement. A May 5, 2015, email from the Committee on Academic Policy (including Rabinowitz) and the Faculty Working Group announced that Okazawa-Rey would “facilitate” the effort.

The email repeated the claim that the project “grew out of our students’ heartfelt request to implement a diversity-intensive requirement,” and listed four demands meant to solve problems that some activist students had identified at a meeting in April:

  1. End overt acts of racism and other forms of hate speech and acts, e.g. [a fraternity-sponsored] “Mexican Night.”
  2. Provide continuity in change efforts to offset discontinuity and disruption of students coming and going and to interrupt the cycle of very overt incidents that seem to happen every four years.
  3. Create longer-term institutional change to make the College a truly diverse institution.
  4. Improve the campus climate so students, especially marginalized ones, will feel much more comfortable and will thrive not just survive.

Supposedly, this “intellectual project” involving “faculty across the disciplines” would provide solutions by encouraging “students to study and understand the exclusion, stratification, inequalities, and violence in its many manifestations on our campus and in the wider world.”

That language is standard leftist rhetoric used by faculty activists to indict American colleges and other institutions for falling short of the progressive utopia. Did it actually come from the students, though?

Other emails suggest that faculty members—specifically Okazawa-Rey—were instrumental in training and radicalizing the students to whom they pointed as justification for the diversity requirement through workshops, courses, and other activities.

In particular, Okazawa-Rey’s email to the “Hamilton community” in April informed them that eight Hamilton students, enrolled in a year-long study project, had attended a training session at the Highlander Center in Tennessee, “a social justice leadership training school,” on whose http://www.popecenter.org/2016/07/ugly-truth-behind-colleges-diversity-requirement/board of directors Okazawa-Rey sits. (It is not known how much Hamilton College paid for the training sessions.)

Guidestar lists Highlander’s tax-exempt classification as “Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Program,” but quotes the mission statement: “Highlander serves as a catalyst for grassroots organizing and movement building in Appalachia and the South. We work with people fighting for justice, equality and sustainability, supporting their efforts to take collective action. . . .”  Their programs and Justice Fund Fellows focus on racial, economic, and environmental “justice,” such as Black Lives Matter, reproductive rights, and “immigrant rights.”

Okazawa-Rey said that the students called the experience “transformative.”

Perhaps the experience was transformative. Or perhaps the eight students were already imbued with leftist “social justice” notions. Either way, their opinions are a feeble reason for a sweeping change in the curriculum.

In the email, Okazawa-Rey announced that these students would conduct a “teach-in” to share Highlander “methodologies” and “the contribution they hope to make to the lives of incoming first-year students.” They had already done a “Participatory Action Research Project” about challenges new students supposedly face.

It’s apparent that such professors, armed with boundless funds, go to incredible lengths to radicalize students. Then they capitalize on their “heartfelt” emotions to create demands for still more emphasis on their favorite project—“diversity.”

The vast majority of Hamilton College students are indifferent to such efforts, but they are never consulted.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy website.

Florida: Top 10 Reasons to Vote ‘No’ on Amendment 2

/in , , , , , /by

Vote No on Amendment 2 released the top reasons to vote against making marijuana legal in the Sunshine State.

1. It’s Permanent -Amendment 2 is a proposed Constitutional Amendment, that means it could never be changed, limited or altered by law enforcement, local governments or the state legislature. And while some Constitutional Amendments allow for a local option, Amendment 2 specifically does not.

2. Caregivers – So-called “caregivers” are empowered to dispense pot with no medical training required. This provision is just like California’s law, which one of its authors later called “dope dealers with storefronts.” And, once again, there’s NO LIMIT to the number of “patients” a caregiver can have.

3. Budtenders Not Pharmacists – “Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers” are not legitimate pharmacies, in fact, you won’t find a single licensed pharmacist behind the counter of any Amendment 2 style Pot Shop. Instead, you’ll find a so-called Budtender with no medical training, but lots of first-hand experience smoking pot.

4. It’s De Facto Legalization – The authors of Amendment 2 tried to hide their gaping Pot Legalization Loophole behind a long list of conditions, but if you read the fine print you’ll find this clause: “… or any other debilitating medical conditions of the same kind or class as or comparable to those enumerated …” Just like in California, anyone with anxiety, migraines, trouble sleeping or a sore throat will be able to legally purchase pot.

5. Kid Friendly Pot Candy-Amendment 2 specifically authorizes edibles and the pot industry manufactures them to look just like the junk foods your children know and love. In states like California, where medical marijuana is legally sold, children as young as 21 months are being rushed to the emergency room as a result.

6. It’s Not Your Father’s Mary Jane -Today’s pot is 10X more potent; which means this is not the marijuana of Woodstock. The average THC content has soared from less than 1% in 1972 to nearly 13% and higher today.

7. No Local Option – Because there’s no local option to allow communities to ban, limit or restrict the location of pot shops. If Amendment 2 passes you can expect the seedy elements of the pot industry to move in right next door to your neighborhood, your church, your business and even your child’s school.

8. 2,000 Pot Shops – The Florida Department of Health estimates that under Amendment 2 Florida will have 1,993 pot shops. That means Florida will be home to more pot shops than McDonalds, Starbucks and 7-Elevens combined.

9. No Prescription – Amendment 2 does NOT require a doctor’s prescription in order to obtain pot because a prescription would violate federal law. Instead “patients” are given a flimsy certification which has no medical standing and is not recognized by the medical community as legitimate.

10. They Didn’t Fix It -While the original amendment limited caregivers to just 5 “patients,” the supposedly “new and improved” amendment gives caregivers license to acquire, possess, administer, transfer and deliver pot to AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF USERS. So basically caregivers are no more than legitimized drug dealers. This isn’t the plan that someone would write if they were only concerned about providing medicine to the sick.