And, adding insult to injury, the biggest chunk of their funding comes from you—the taxpayer!
Update! National layoff numbers skyrocket! Breaking story.
This storyfrom The Tennessean is meant to give the impression that this program of World Relief (National Association of Evangelicals) is doing wonderful humanitarian work by helping immigrants and refugees with advanced degrees find good paying jobs.
But, if you are like me, you reacted to this story by immediately asking these questions:
What about Americans who have advanced degrees and no work? What about all of our children, recent college graduates (with big student loan debt), who can’t find jobs? Shouldn’t they come first?
As is too often the case, one must read through refugee sob stories and eventually the reader learns that there are 10,000 immigrants in Tennessee who need high level jobs—-ahhhhhh! 10,000! I wonder how many Americans with advanced degrees are competing with them for limited job opportunities? Of course The Tennessean would never give us that number!
And, the American job seekers don’t have the services your tax dollars provide the immigrants through REACH. Here is what World Relief (a so-called Christian charity) does for the immigrants according to The Tennessean.
REACH, in Nashville, connects immigrants to mentors, who seek to introduce them to local individuals in their field, and coaches them through licensing processes. The organization also offers training on resumes and interviews. Between licenses and networking, it typically takes between nine and 12 months for an individual to move from a survival job to a professional one.
REACH, launched in 2011, has been able to help as many as 100 people a year. Among them are Coptic Christians fleeing Egypt, Kurds from Iraq and those coming from Congo after fleeing ethnic persecution in Rwanda.
Watch an unidentified REACH employee explain how they helped ‘Ahmed’ get a $93,000 a year job!
Here is what a reader said this morning about this story:
I have a very close friend, also an Ivy League masters graduate who is struggling to find a job in the Middle Tennessee job market. In fact, I have several friends, middle-age, well educated, intelligent, hard-working contributors to their communities who live in Middle Tennessee, and who are either unemployed or underemployed.
But the newspaper and the Chamber of Commerce isn’t taking up their cause.
Neil MacDonald of the Chamber of Commerce told The Tennessean: “If we want to continue to compete on an international basis, it’s essential we continue our growth in diversity.”
Nor do my friends have federal contractor agencies helping them find jobs.
And my friends aren’t wired-in either. They too are struggling.
At least the refugees and their federal contractors can blame the receiving community for not being more “welcoming” and ensuring that new arrivals get the jobs they thought would be waiting for them when they arrived.
According to this article, there are 10,000 refugees in Tennessee who can’t find the jobs they want. Predictably, federal refugee resettlement contractor World Relief and the refugees themselves blame the receiving community as “unwelcoming” because circumstances haven’t unfolded as they had planned.
But, this, of course, doesn’t stop World Relief from keeping their own cash flow going by bringing ever more refugees to the area.
And the Nashville Chamber of Commerce is telling us that businesses here value “diversity” over workers that are raised, educated and have roots in our Tennessee communities.
Speaking of World Relief’s financial position, World Relief Nashville directs people to its national headquarters where we can examine recent financial documentsand their Form 990s.
Here we learn that in 2014, World Relief (National Association of Evangelicals) is a $61 million a year operation and that $41 million comes directly from U.S. taxpayers.
They could not supply all of these benefits to job-seeking immigrants if you (or the good-for-nothing Congress!) weren’t willing to pay for it.
Go hereto see who else is funding World Relief’s REACH job hunting program.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/World-Relief’s-REACH-program.jpg352640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2016-02-06 05:08:582016-02-07 08:23:48Tennessee: Refugee agency places Muslim migrants in jobs Americans would love to have!
Representative Lori Berman, I thank you for sending me your email concerning Florida’s open carry bills. You stated that allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry openly their weapons in holsters on the streets and in public buildings gives you “great concern.”
You say they “pose a threat” to our “safety” in the community and to residents.
So that would be me and 1.4 million law abiding Americans who live in Florida with concealed carry permits that you are referring too, correct?
Seriously, please specify to me how an inanimate object in the hands of a well trained law abiding American poses a threat to residents and the community.
Please list for me all the threats that a holstered weapons poses. Give me 5 examples. List them 1 – 5.
I am an expert pistol and rifle shot. I have been federally and state screened to carry a concealed weapon. I was trained by the U.S. Navy to fire more weapons than your average person.
I am also a deadly shot so if a bad guy wants to play ball with me he will lose. I am not a threat to the community I am an asset.
People will feel at ease shopping in the store when they see my weapon in my holster. Bad guys will think twice about robbing the store I am in.
Ladies with a holstered weapon become secure in their surroundings knowing they have a means to defend themselves from bad people. 9-11 calls will drop dramatically.
It is you Representative Berman that is the threat to the community by refusing to uphold your oath of office to uphold and defend and protect the U.S. Constitution of the United States – the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment gives me and every other law abiding citizen in this nation the right to carry a weapon for self defense and to protect others either concealed or in an open holster.
It is liberals like you who make the streets more dangerous with your policies, just look at Chicago. You agenda is to disarm us but you will retain “your” weapons.
Perhaps it is time for you to pack your stuff and leave Boynton Beach Florida and go back to the “Peoples Republic” of New York where you originally immigrated from.
Slap your Hillary Clinton sticker on your Michael Kors over night bag, affix your Hammer and Sickle lapel pin to your made in China jacket and take your left wing, pro socialist anti American ideology with you and stay there.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/BermanHeadshotSmallerBlue3-e1454751685215.jpg387640Geoff Rosshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeoff Ross2016-02-06 04:35:592016-02-06 04:53:19Dear Representative Lori Berman, (D-FL District 90), Communist Party of Florida
Apparently oil prices are too low, so President Barack Obama thinks it’s a good idea to slap on a $10 per barrel oil tax. Politico reports:
Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.
Based on current prices, this would be a roughly 30% tax on a barrel of oil.
It’s disturbing that the president’s reaction to an industry slashing jobs and cutting investments in a tough business environment is to place a massive tax on the product they produce.
“You’re allowed to export, but we’re also saying is that we’re going to impose a tax on a barrel of oil,”President Obama said at a press conference.
Thankfully this tax is already “dead on arrival” in Congress, said House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
President Obama knows this, but doesn’t care. As Politico notes, “It’s mostly an effort to jump-start a conversation.” And it falls squarely with his mission to end fossil fuel use in the United States.
The president acknowledged this. When questioned by reporters, President Obama said if imposed, the tax “will have further weaned our economy off dirty fuels.”
But his sweeping plan runs straight up against reality. Americans will be using oil and other fossil fuels for decades to come. Until economically viable alternatives are developed that offer the same benefits (convenience, reliability, energy density), fossil fuels will be needed to keep America’s economy moving.
There’s no question we need more revenue to fix America’s broken roads and bridges, but the oil tax covers over the real intention behind the proposal: The radical transformation of America’s energy economy.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Obama is by photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bloomberg_obama_hollande_pressconference_1600px-e1454749145632.jpg388640Sean Hackbarthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSean Hackbarth2016-02-06 03:59:522016-02-06 04:04:54President Obama Wants You to Pay More for Oil
As you all know Florida has one of the highest illegal alien populations surpassed only by border states California and Texas costing us over $5,000,000,000.00 annually to educate, medicate and incarcerate them. Are you aware the State spends $1,600.00 more per illegal alien student annually to teach them to speak English? It is an unnecessary expense we suffer because of the lack of the Federal and state from enforcing the Rule of Law. It is a crime to enter the country, seek or accept employment if you are an illegal alien or over stay a visa.
In 2010 Rick Scott was elected with the promise he would make E-Verify mandatory so all Florida workers would be legal workers. He did install public E-Verify so supposedly all state agencies only deal with companies who use the voluntary system but he backed off forcing all employers to sign up. In 2012 he stated it was the Federal government’s responsibility and broke his promise to install mandatory E-Verify.
In 1986 Congress made three promises to President Reagan to get the only amnesty ever passed which turned out to be a promise broken several times. One of the promises was to make E-Verify mandatory for all businesses. The benefits of E-Verify would be to remove the job magnet for illegal aliens and visa over stayers, encourage illegal aliens and visa over stayers to self deport which in turn would lower various costs to residents.
Here it is thirty years later and Congress has still not passed E-Verify so only legal workers are employed. The illegal alien employed population is in the millions.
Last year Texas Representative Lamar Smith introduced the Legal Workforce Act H.R. 1147 which would require all companies to enroll in E-Verify so only legal workers are employed. He now has a total of 43 representatives, all republicans, co-sponsoring the legislation where it should have overwhelming support since it is designed to protect the representatives constituents who are employed.
Until very recently Florida did not have one co-sponsor of the bill. That is outrageous.
Representative Vern Buchanan of District 16 is the first representative from Florida to sign up. That leaves sixteen more Florida republican representatives, who should be vigorously supporting this legislation or be branded as “anti-American worker.” The list is below with their Washington numbers. Please take a minute, call and ask why the representative is not a co-sponsor of H.R. 1147?
Personally, I cannot think of a valid reason why they should not co-sponsor the legislation, can you?
If you wish to contact these Florida members of Congress here are the phone numbers:
District one is Jeff Miller 202-225-4136,
District three is Ted Yoho 202-335-5744,
District four is Ander Crenshaw 202-225-2501,
District six is Ron DeSantis 202-225-2706,
District seven is John Mica 202-225-4035,
District eight is Bill Posey 202-225-3671,
District ten is Daniel Webster 202-225-2176,
District eleven is Richard Nugent 202-225-1002,
District twelve is Gus Bilarakis 202-225-5755,
District thirteen is David Jolly 202-225-5691,
District fifteen is Dennis Ross 202-225-1252,
District sixteen is Vern Buchanan 202-225-5015,
District seventeen is Tom Rooney 202-225-5792,
District nineteen is Curt Clawson 202-225-2536,
District twenty-five is Mario Diaz-Balart 202-225-4211,
District twenty-six is Carlos Curbelo 202-225-2778
District twenty -seven is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 202-225-3931.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/everify-graphic-fnl-e1454707763533.jpg360640George R. Fullerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeorge R. Fuller2016-02-05 16:31:232016-02-06 16:14:15A List of Florida’s Republican ‘anti-American Worker’ Members of Congress
Americans often move between different income brackets over the course of their lives. As covered in an earlier blog post, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives, and over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners for at least one year.
Fortunately, a great deal of what explains this income mobility are choices that are largely within an individual’s control. While people tend to earn more in their “prime earning years” than in their youth or old age, other key factors that explain income differences are education level, marital status, and number of earners per household. As Mark Perry recently wrote:
The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes and are largely under our control (e.g. staying in school and graduating, getting and staying married, etc.), which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever.
According to the economist Thomas Sowell, whom Perry cites, “Most working Americans, who were initially in the bottom 20% of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20%. More of them end up in the top 20% than remain in the bottom 20%.”
While people move between income groups over their lifetime, many worry that income inequality between different income groups is increasing. The growing income inequality is real, but its causes are more complex than the demagogues make them out to be.
Consider, for example, the effect of “power couples,” or people with high levels of education marrying one another and forming dual-earner households. In a free society, people can marry whoever they want, even if it does contribute to widening income disparities.
Or consider the effects of regressive government regulations on exacerbating income inequality. These include barriers to entry that protect incumbent businesses and stifle competition. To name one extreme example, Louisiana recently required a government-issued license to become a florist.
Lifting more of these regressive regulations would aid income mobility and help to reduce income inequality, while also furthering economic growth.
Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/woman-climbing-a-ladder-e1454707013900.jpg426640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2016-02-05 16:19:302016-02-05 16:19:30Americans’ Incomes Are Unequal, But Mobile by Chelsea German
Remember peak oil? Remember when oil prices were $140 a barrel and Goldman Sachs predicted they would soon reach $200? Now, the latest news is that oil prices have gone up all the way to $34 a barrel. Last fall, Goldman Sachs predicted prices would fall to $20 a barrel, which other analysts argued was “no better than its prior predictions,” but in fact they came a lot closer to that than to $200.
Low oil prices generate huge economic benefits. Low prices mean increased mobility, which means increased economic productivity. The end result, says Bank of America analyst Francisco Blanch, is “one of the largest transfers of wealth in human history” as $3 trillion remain in consumers’ pockets rather than going to the oil companies. I wouldn’t call this a “wealth transfer” so much as a reduction in income inequality, but either way, it is a good thing.
Naturally, some people hate the idea of increased mobility from lower fuel prices. “Cheap gas raises fears of urban sprawl,” warns NPR. Since “urban sprawl” is a made-up problem, I’d have to rewrite this as, “Cheap gas raises hopes of urban sprawl.” The only real “fear” is on the part of city officials who want everyone to pay taxes to them so they can build stadiums, light-rail lines, and other useless urban monuments.
A more cogent argument is made by UC Berkeley sustainability professor Maximilian Auffhammer, who argues that “gas is too cheap” because current prices fail to cover all of the external costs of driving. He cites what he calls a “classic paper” that calculates the external costs of driving to be $2.28 per gallon. If that were true, then one approach would be to tax gasoline $2.28 a gallon and use the revenues to pay those external costs.
The only problem is that most of the so-called external costs aren’t external at all but are paid by highway users. The largest share of calculated costs, estimated at $1.05 a gallon, is the cost of congestion. This is really a cost of bad planning, not gasoline. Either way, the cost is almost entirely paid by people in traffic consuming that gasoline.
The next largest cost, at 63 cents a gallon, is the cost of accidents. Again, this is partly a cost of bad planning: remember how fatality rates dropped nearly 20 percent between 2007 and 2009, largely due to the reduction in congestion caused by the recession? This decline could have taken place years before if cities had been serious about relieving congestion rather than ignoring it. In any case, most of the cost of accidents, like the other costs of congestion, are largely internalized by the auto drivers through insurance.
The next-largest cost, pegged at 42 cents per gallon, is “local pollution.” While that is truly an external cost, it is also rapidly declining as shown in figure 1 of the paper. According to EPA data, total vehicle emissions of most pollutants have declined by more than 50 percent since the numbers used in this 2006 report. Thus, the 42 cents per gallon is more like 20 cents per gallon and falling fast. [Ed. note: And pollution is also mostly due to congestion.]
At 12 cents a gallon, the next-largest cost is “oil dependency,” which the paper defines as exposing “the economy to energy price volatility and price manipulation” that “may compromise national security and foreign policy interests.” That problem, which was questionable in the first place, seems to have gone away thanks to the resurgence of oil production within the United States, which has made other oil producers, such as Saudi Arabia, more dependent on us than we are on them.
Finally, at a mere 6 cents per gallon, is the cost of greenhouse gas emissions. If you believe this is a cost, it will decline when measured as a cost per mile as cars get more fuel efficient under the current CAFE standards. But it should remain fixed as a cost per gallon as burning a gallon of gasoline will always produce a fixed amount of greenhouse gases.
In short, rather than $2.38 per gallon, the external cost of driving is closer to around 26 cents per gallon. Twenty cents of this cost is steadily declining as cars get cleaner and all of it is declining when measured per mile as cars get more fuel-efficient.
It’s worth noting that, though we are seeing an increase in driving due to low fuel prices, the amount of driving we do isn’t all that sensitive to fuel prices. Real gasoline prices doubled between 2000 and 2009, yet per capita driving continued to grow until the recession began. Prices have fallen by 50 percent in the last six months or so, yet the 3 or 4 percent increase in driving may be as much due to increased employment as to more affordable fuel.
This means that, though there may be some externalities from driving, raising gas taxes and creating government slush funds with the revenues is not the best way of dealing with those externalities. I’d feel differently if I felt any assurance that government would use those revenues to actually fix the externalities, but that seems unlikely. I actually like the idea of tradeable permits best, but short of that the current system of ever-tightening pollution controls seems to be working well at little cost to consumers and without threatening the economic benefits of increased mobility.
Randal O’Toole is a Cato Institute Senior Fellow working on urban growth, public land, and transportation issues.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/cars-in-traffic-e1454696541376.jpg401640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2016-02-05 13:23:512016-02-05 13:24:00Is Cheap Gas a Bad Thing? by Randal O’Toole
U.S. President Barack Obama delivered his first speech from a mosque on February 3. He pushed the Muslim-American community to lead the Muslim world into a better future, but he missed a “tear down this wall” moment by speaking at a mosque with a radical history instead of giving a lift to Muslim reformists who confront Islamism.
Here are three hits and three misses from Obama’s speech in alternating order:
Hit: Using quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, Obama simultaneously countered Islamist preaching that Muslims cannot reconcile their faith identity with American patriotism. This is also a strong rebuttal to those that wish to exempt Muslims from constitutional protections simply for their choice of faith. He said:
Back then, Muslims were often called Mahometans. And Thomas Jefferson explained that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom he wrote was designed to protect all faiths — and I’m quoting Thomas Jefferson now — “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan.” (Applause.)
…Benjamin Franklin wrote that “even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.” (Applause.)
Miss: He implied that Muslim terrorists and extremists purposely “twist” Islamic verses to suit their agendas, as if groups like ISIS do not actually believe in the Islam they practice and impose. He said:
“Right now, there is an organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror. Part of what’s happened in the Middle East and North Africa and other places where we see sectarian violence is religion being a tool for another agenda—for power, for control.”
By denying the Islamist ideological root of these threats, President Obama removes the obligation from the Muslim world to directly address, debunk and reform Islamic interpretations that are dangerous and strongly-held. He disarms the chief argument of the best Muslim allies, like those in the Muslim Reform Movement.
Hit: Pressuring Muslim leaders to confront anti-Western propaganda, anti-Semitism in Europe and persecution of Christians.
Obama did not call on Muslim leaders to refute Islamism overall but he did directly tell them that they have an obligation to confront anti-Western views that present the U.S. and its allies as an enemy of their faith. He said:
“Muslim political leaders have to push back on the lie that the West oppresses Muslims, and against conspiracy theories that says America is the cause of every ill in the Middle East. Now, that doesn’t mean Muslim Americans aren’t free to criticize American-U.S. foreign policy. That’s part of being an American.”
“…The fact is, there are Christians who are targeted now in the Middle East, despite having been there for centuries, and there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault—sometimes by Muslims.”
The Islamists’ constant depiction of the U.S. and its allies as evil, including reflexive bashing of the integrity of law enforcement, acts as a trigger for radicals to become violent jihadists. We need genuinely democratic Muslims around the world to hold Islamist propagandists accountable for their incitements.
Miss: The choice of the Islamic Society of Baltimore as a venue, which he described as “an all-American story.”
The ideological war against Islamism is somewhat like a political campaign. The Muslim reformers need positive press, resources and a platform. By praising the Islamic Society of Baltimore, the president gave a helping hand to the Islamist side of the competition.
The Islamic Society of Baltimore, as documented in this impressive expose by the Investigative Project on Terrorism , has a long history of promoting Islamist extremism including the very same views Obama pushed Muslim leaders to confront.
A Muslim Brotherhood leader from Sudan named Mohammed Adam El-Sheikhserved as the imam for a total of 15 years from 1983 to 1989 and 1994 to 2003. He was instrumental in setting up the U.S. branch of the Brotherhood. He also led the radical Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, was regional director for an al-Qaeda-linked charity and said in 2004 suicide bombings are justifiable if authorized by afatwa and if it’s in a situation where “Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means.”
A screenshot from 2000 shows the mosque’s chosen resources for Muslims were radicals, including known supporters of terrorism like Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi, Bilal Philips and Jamal Badawi.
Even after El-Sheikh left, the mosque has not been a model for countering Islamist extremism. Its imam preaches against“progressive groups within Muslims” like those that tolerate homosexuals. It has radicals as guest speakers, such as Zaid Shakir in 2008.
The Obama Administration did a better job in selecting the Muslim participants in the preceding roundtable with Obama, but still included Imam Khalid Latif, who was a board member of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2008. The FBI’s official policy prohibits using CAIR as a liaison partner because of evidence linking it to Hamas. The New York chapter has been a particularly radical chapter of CAIR.
Hit: Advising Muslims to respond to negativity by rejecting extremist views and maintaining patriotism.
After ISIS’ attacks in Paris, Clarion Project wrote here and explained on Fox News how the group’s supporters were salivating at the prospect of reprisals against innocent Muslims. ISIS and other jihadists have a separatist view and want Muslims to see democracy as a failed concept for them and to accept Islamism as the alternative.
Obama urged Muslims not to respond to anti-Muslim sentiment by validating these views, decreasing their patriotism or accepting propaganda legitimizing hostility towards the West. He said:
“You’re not Muslim or American. You’re Muslim and American. (Applause). Don’t grow cynical. Don’t respond to ignorance by embracing a worldview that suggests you must choose between your faith and your patriotism. Don’t believe that you have to choose between your best impulses and somewhat embrace a worldview that pits us against each other—or, even worse, glorifies violence.”
Miss: Failing to endorse or at least include the best Muslim allies for this cause, even if they are less resourced and well known.
Imagine what would have happened if Obama gave global coverage to the declaration of the Muslim Reform Movement, putting them on at least equal footing with the Islamists. Imagine the shiver down the spine of the Islamists who have defamed them essentially as “apostates,” all the while touting their own professed inclusiveness and moderation.
Imagine if Obama used the microphone of the White House to form a common thread between Muslim activists against Islamism everywhere: From Malala Yousefzai to the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam who cursed off Islamists promoting separatism in Europe; from the Muslims of the Green Movement who protested against the Iranian regime in 2009 to the Muslims who demonstrated and defeated the Islamists in Egypt and Tunisia; from the Muslims in Libya, who asked for U.S. help in their fight against Islamist militias and held pro-American rallies after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed, to the Syrian protestors who greeted the American ambassador with cheers, roses and olive branches.
Just outside the Islamic Society of Baltimore, Muslim women protested the mosque for its gender separation and inequality. Asra Nomani wrote a powerful op-ed about Obama’s choice of venue. She pointed out how photos from 2010 showed the “second-class conditions women endure in spaces akin to a ‘penalty box.'”
Imagine what a quick photo-op with the Muslim women would have caused. Think of the attention to their cause and productive dialogue that it would have spurred simply due to a choice by the Obama Administration to be inclusive of Muslim reformers and their progressive agenda.
Watch President Barack Obama’s full speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore:
Republican House Representative from Michigan’s 7th District Tim Walberg was once a leading “birther” not so long ago, when he was seeking a seat in the U.S. House in the 2010 election. The video below of Representative Walberg at a local town hall meeting during his bid for the U.S. House in 2010, in which Mr. Walberg acknowledges the known “birther” (Constitutional eligibility) questions surrounding Barack Hussein Obama, and mentions the word “impeachment” for the first time…
The 7th District GOP covers seven Michigan counties and is represented by twenty-five District GOP Committee members, twenty-four of whom were present for the vote last week. The 7th District Resolution for Impeachment passed by a 14-10 vote.
In a pre-meeting ahead of the official gathering, the committee was unanimous on the following issues…
Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of impeachable offenses
Barack Hussein Obama has been very destructive to the USA and continues to be
Impeachment is the proper constitutional solution to Obama treason, tyranny and treachery
Obama should be impeached
However, as indicated by the 14-10 vote on the Resolution to Impeach, members of the 7th District were not quite so united, given the opportunity to take an official stand on the record. In part, this may be due to the fact that Representative Walberg and two aides decided to show up and speak against the impeachment resolution, after the pre-meeting and before the actual vote was taken.
Even though Representative Walberg has been a very outspoken critic of Barack Obama’s since 2010, speaking about how “we are slaves of government” in this May 2014 VIDEO, and then just last November, Representative Walberg had this to say about the threat of Obama aiding and abetting known terrorists across the Middle East and importing them to the USA under the guise of “refugee resettlement” …
“Michigan has a long and rich tradition as a welcoming state, and we can provide humanitarian assistance while at the same time prioritizing the safety of our citizens. Given the recent terrorist attacks abroad and the very real threats we face, it is common sense to pause Syrian refugee admissions until a thorough review of our security processes is conducted. We need absolute certainty that rigorous vetting procedures are in place and enhanced safety measures are taken to protect the people of Michigan and all Americans. Ultimately, we need a plan to address the root cause of the refugee crisis—the President’s failed foreign policy in the region—and develop a strategy to destroy, not merely try to contain, ISIS,” said Walberg.
Last October, Walberg had this to say about Obama’s weakening of our own military…
“It’s reckless and wrong for President Obama to veto the critical funding our military needs at a time of escalating threats at home and abroad. In just the fifth veto of this entire presidency, the President has undercut our sacred constitutional responsibility to provide for a strong national defense. It’s a sad day when a bipartisan bill to ensure our troops are equipped to carry out their missions and keep America safe is vetoed purely for political gamesmanship to force an increase of deficit spending,” said Walberg.
However, after the 7th District vote in support of Impeachment last week, Representative Walberg was singing a very different tune, while chatting it up with constituents who had just given him GOP marching orders on Impeachment from his entire District….
7th District GOP Committee member Jimmie Minnick, Jr. talked about his motivations in an interview with TNALC Radio here and here. Just like Carroll County in Tennessee and Gratiot County in Michigan a few days before, GOP Committees at the County and District level have been working to pass a resolution supporting impeachment for months now. Why?
Yet even after the 7th District passed their Resolution, Representative Walberg told constituents that “he knows of no reason to impeach Obama…” – his memory lapse of all of his previous statements to the contrary notwithstanding…
Hillsdale County GOP Chairman Glenn Frobel was at the 7th District meeting and asked Representative Walberg if he would act on the resolution just passed by his district. In Mr. Frobel’s words…
Representative Walberg stated – “Obama has not done anything impeachable.” Mr. Frobel then asked Walberg, “what about changing the Affordable Care Act with his pen?” to which Walberg said “The Supreme Court said he (Obama) could do that.” The conversation concluded with Representative Walberg telling Mr. Frobel, “get me a list of impeachable things Obama has done…”
One of Representative Walberg’s most interesting excuses was his statement to meeting attendees that he had sought counsel with Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn, who has made Hillsdale College a Tea Party favorite through their Constitutional Course.
According to Representative Walberg’s statements at the meeting, Arnn advised Walberg against impeachment, the “constitutional solution” for the most impeachable administration in U.S. history, which left Walberg constituents wondering, why did they elect Walberg if it is the unelected Larry Arnn who is going to make Walberg’s decisions, at odds with his District, I might add? Everyone’s a constitutionalist until the time comes to take a stand for the constitution… then many self-proclaimed constitutionalists scatter for cover.
This is why GOP registration and participation is going the way of the Whig party.
Republican politicians like Walberg want to be relevant to their voters, donors and committee members, especially at election campaign time, while at the same time sending a clear signal that none of them are relevant to Walberg.
In 2010, the people entrusted the national purse strings to Republicans in the House for the sole purpose of defunding Obama’s entire agenda against America. Since then, Republicans have defunded nothing of Obama’s agenda, not even Planned Parenthood, even after film of butchered baby parts for sale hit the internet. Five years later, the nation has doubled its national debt. It took America more than seventy years to arrive at $10 trillion in debt, and it took Obama and House Republicans only six years to double that number, with another estimated $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities…
But bankrupting the nation is not an “impeachable offense?” Numerous House Republicans said, if we can get control of the Senate, then we will impeach… which happened over a year ago now. Then they said, if Obama does the Iran deal, or doesn’t stop the inflow of Middle Easterners that we cannot even vet, or doesn’t comply with court orders to stop illegal immigration on our southern border, then we will impeach…. But still, nothing…
So, what are the people to do?
Tea Party and Constitution groups across America started forming State Constitution Accountability Coalitions seven months ago, in at least 29 states, for the sole purpose of pushing Republicans to impeach Obama…
The North American Law Center has proposed three Articles of Impeachment encompassing forty-eight criminal charges. GOP District Committees across the country are working to pass resolutions like the 7th District Resolution in Michigan, just to demonstrate to their elected Representatives in the House that “We the People” expect them to keep their oaths to defend the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, including a rogue administration which has become more of a threat to the well-being of our Constitutional Republic than any outside threat.
Clearly, unless forced to do the right thing by “the people” and GOP Committee members at the county and district levels, no one in the House intends to do the right thing.
Even the U.S. Taxpayer Party of Michigan just passed a Resolution supporting Impeachment. As long as Obama is in power, he remains a threat and it is not too late to impeach. If even treason is no longer worthy of impeachment, then nothing is…
But what kind of country will exist in the wake of Obama’s two anti-American unconstitutional terms is beyond my imagination. I can only hope and pray that there are enough real patriots left in America to join the good people of Michigan, who are leading the charge for Constitutional Accountability. If not, the future for this country is indeed frightening…
Mr. Walberg, as a Christian man, a fellow Republican, a Representative of the 7th Congressional District of Michigan and all Republicans across this country… I call upon you to grow the courage to stand with the good people of your district, for the Constitution and against the evil that currently holds our White House, while you still can… If you need a list of impeachable offenses, here they are… READ THEM!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/impeach-obama-2-e1445861132538.jpg386635J.B. Williamshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJ.B. Williams2016-02-05 05:59:282016-02-05 06:02:22Michigan’s GOP 7th District Tells Rep. Walberg to Impeach [+Video]
The Zika virus is spreading by mosquitoes northward through Latin America, possibly correlated with birth defects such as microcephaly in infants. Stories and photos of their abnormally small skulls are making headlines. The World Health Organization reports that four million people could be infected by the end of 2016.
On Monday, the WHO is meeting to decide how to address the crisis. The international body should recommend that the ban on DDT should be reversed, in order to kill the mosquitoes that carry Zika and malaria, a protistan parasite that has no cure.
Zika is in the news, but it is dwarfed by malaria. About 300 million to 600 million people suffer each year from malaria, and it kills about 1 million annually, 90 percent in sub-Saharan Africa. We have the means to reduce Zika and malaria — and we are not using it.
Under the Global Malaria Eradication Program, which started in 1955, DDT was used to kill the mosquitoes that carried the parasite, and malaria was practically eliminated. Some countries such as Sri Lanka, which started using DDT in the late 1940s, saw profound improvements. Reported cases fell from nearly 3 million a year to just 17 cases in 1963. In Venezuela, cases fell from over 8 million in 1943 to 800 in 1958. India saw a dramatic drop from 75 million cases a year to 75,000 in 1961.
This changed with the publication of Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, which claimed that DDT was hazardous. After lengthy hearings between August 1971 and March 1972, Judge Edmund Sweeney, the EPA hearing examiner, decided that there was insufficient evidence to ban DDT and that its benefits outweighed any adverse effects. Yet, two months afterwards, then-EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus overruled him and banned DDT, effective December 31, 1972.
Other countries followed, and DDT was banned in 2001 for agriculture by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This was a big win for the mosquitoes, but a big loss for people who lived in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.
Carson claimed that DDT, because it is fat soluble, accumulated in the fatty tissues of animals and humans as the compound moved through the food chain, causing cancer and other genetic damage. Carson’s concerns and the EPA action halted the program in its tracks, and malaria deaths started to rise again, reaching 600,000 in 1970, 900,000 in 1990 and over 1,000,000 in 1997 — back to pre-DDT levels.
Some continue to say that DDT is harmful, but others say that DDT was banned in vain. There remains no compelling evidence that the chemical has produced any ill public health effects. According to an article in the British medical journal the Lancet by Professor A.G. Smith of Leicester University,
The early toxicological information on DDT was reassuring; it seemed that acute risks to health were small. If the huge amounts of DDT used are taken into account, the safety record for human beings is extremely good. In the 1940s many people were deliberately exposed to high concentrations of DDT thorough dusting programmes or impregnation of clothes, without any apparent ill effect… In summary, DDT can cause toxicological effects but the effects on human beings at likely exposure are very slight.
Even though nothing is as cheap and effective as DDT, it is not a cure-all for malaria. But a study by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences concluded that spraying huts in Africa with DDT reduces the number of mosquitoes by 97 percent compared with huts sprayed with an alternative pesticide. Those mosquitoes that do enter the huts are less likely to bite.
By forbidding DDT and relying on more expensive, less effective methods of prevention, we are causing immense hardship. Small environmental losses are inferior to saving thousands of human lives and potentially increasing economic growth in developing nations.
We do not yet have data on the economic effects of the Zika virus, but we know that countries with a high incidence of malaria can suffer a 1.3 percent annual loss of economic growth. According to a Harvard/WHO study, sub-Saharan Africa’s GDP could be $100 billion greater if malaria had been eliminated 35 years ago.
Rachel Carson died in 1964, but the legacy of Silent Spring and its recommended ban on DDT live with us today. Millions are suffering from malaria and countless others are contracting the Zika virus as a result of the DDT ban. They were never given the choice of living with DDT or dying without it. The World Health Organization should recognize that DDT has benefits, and encourage its use in combating today’s diseases.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, is director of Economics21 and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/zitka-virus-ddt-e1454669017573.jpg361640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2016-02-05 05:44:222016-02-05 05:44:22Zika Virus Shows It’s Time to Bring Back DDT by Diana Furchtgott-Roth
What happens when, in a country where workers are free to move, a region raises its minimum wage? Do those with the fewest skills seek out the regions with the highest wage floors?
New minimum wage research by economist Joan Monras of the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po) attempts to answer that question. Monras theoretically shows that there should be a close relationship between the employment effects of raising the minimum wage and the migration of low-skilled workers.
When the demand for local low-skilled labor is relatively unresponsive (or inelastic) to wage changes, raising the minimum wage should lead to an influx of low-skilled workers from other states in search of better-paying jobs. On the other hand, if the demand for low-skilled labor is relatively responsive (or elastic), raising the minimum wage will lead low-skilled workers to flee to states where they will more easily find employment.
To test the model empirically, Monras examined data from all the changes in effective state minimum wages over the period 1985 to 2012. Looking at time frames of three years before and after each minimum wage increase, Monras found that
As depicted in the graph below on the left, those who kept their jobs earned more under the minimum wage. No surprise there.
As depicted in the graph below on the right, workers with the fewest skills were having an easier time finding full-time employment prior to the minimum wage increase. But this trend completely reversed as soon as the minimum wage was increased.
A control group of high-skilled workers didn’t experience either of these effects. Those affected by the changing laws were the least skilled and the most vulnerable.
These results show that the timing of minimum wage increases is not random.
Instead, policy makers tend to raise minimum wages when low-skilled workers’ real wages are declining and employment is rising. Many studies, misled by the assumption that the timing of minimum wage increases is not influenced by local labor demand, have interpreted the lack of falling low-skilled employment following a minimum wage increase as evidence that minimum wage increases have no effect on employment.
When Monras applied this same false assumption to his model, he got the same result. However, to observe the true effect of minimum wage increases on employment, he assumed a counterfactual scenario where, had the minimum wages not been raised, the trend in low-skilled employment growth would have continued as it was.
By making this comparison, Monras was able to estimate that wages increased considerably following a minimum wage hike, but employment also fell considerably. In fact, employment fell more than wages rose. For every 1 percent increase in wages, the share of a state’s population of low-skilled workers in full-time employment fell by 1.2 percent. (The same empirical approach showed that minimum wage increases had no effect on the wages or employment of a control group of high-skilled workers.)
Monras’s model predicts that if labor demand is sensitive to wage changes, low-skilled workers should leave states that increase their minimum wages — and that’s exactly what his empirical evidence shows.
According to Monras,
A 1 percent reduction in the share of employed low-skilled workers [following a minimum wage increase] reduces the share of low-skilled population by between .5 and .8 percent. It is worth emphasizing that this is a surprising and remarkable result: workers for whom the [minimum wage] policy was designed leave the states where the policy is implemented.
These new and important findings reinforce the view that minimum wage increases come at a cost to the employment rates of low-skilled workers.
They also pose a difficult question for minimum wage proponents: If minimum wage increases benefit low-skilled workers, why do these workers leave the states that raise their minimum wage?
Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/mcdonald-restaurant-e1454668256551.jpg363640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2016-02-05 05:32:382016-02-05 05:32:38Low-Skilled Workers Flee the Minimum Wage: How State Lawmakers Exile the Needy by Corey Iacono
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — As in previous presidential elections, several recent debates have featured questions posed by non-journalists via YouTube. They weren’t very good.
Debates in New Hampshire on February 4th (the Democrats) and Saturday, February 6th (the Republicans). To help journalists and ordinary voters try to extract the actual immigration views of the candidates, the Center for Immigration Studies has posted a series of video questions addressing critical aspects of the immigration issue that don’t receive the attention they warrant.
This first batch of questions ranges from a former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation asking about the impact of mass legal immigration on American workers, to a retired Border Patrol agent asking about people fraudulently passing through legal entry points (as opposed to jumping the fence). Other questions for the candidates are posed by the mother of a man killed by an illegal alien, a former Foreign Service Officer, a law professor, and others.
Watch the video questions for the presidential candidates here:
As the presidential debates continue, both in the primaries and the general election, the page will be updated with more video questions from citizens. To have your own brief (30 seconds) video question for the candidates be considered for inclusion, send it to mrt@cis.org.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/immigration-question-mark.jpg350640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-02-05 04:50:232016-02-05 05:08:12VIDEO: Debate Questions on Immigration That Don’t Get Asked
NEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire/ — OnDeck® (NYSE: ONDK), the leader in online lending for small business, today released the results of a new survey that reveal the top priorities for small business owners in the 2016 Presidential Election. According to more than 1000 small business owners across the nation, economic growth, healthcare costs and tax policy are the three issues most critical to the health and success of their business.
More than half of small business owners surveyed cited the need for economic growth as an issue crucial to their future. Forty percent are concerned about healthcare costs and forty-one percent are focused on tax policy issues. And while these concerns loom large, the majority of small business owners (75 percent), regardless of political affiliation, say they have faith in the current roster of presidential candidates to do something about them.
OnDeck surveyed more than 1000 small businesses via Facebook and email to identify the issues that are of greatest concern to them in the 2016 Presidential Election.
56.6% are focused on economic growth
41.1% are closely monitoring tax policy
40.5% are concerned about healthcare costs
24.2% care about new or changing regulations at the national and state level
21.8% are concerned about the strength of the skilled/educated workforce
The OnDeck survey also found that 94.1% of the small business respondents voted in the last presidential election in 2012. That engagement level is striking when you consider that less than sixty percent of eligible voters in the United States voted at the polls during that same election.
“Small business owners help drive the economic growth engine of our country, and they are passionate and actively engaged in political dialogue surrounding today’s key issues,” said James Hobson, chief operating officer at OnDeck. “We hope small businesses will have a strong voice in the election since we know that when this country embraces its entrepreneurial spirit, the positive benefits ripple throughout our economy.”
About OnDeck
OnDeck (NYSE: ONDK) is the leader in online small business lending. Since 2007, the company has powered Main Street’s growth through advanced lending technology and a constant dedication to customer service. OnDeck’s proprietary credit scoring system – the OnDeck Score® – leverages advanced analytics, enabling OnDeck to make real-time lending decisions and deliver capital to small businesses in as little as 24 hours. OnDeck offers business owners a complete financing solution, including the online lending industry’s widest range of term loans and lines of credit.
To date, the company has deployed over $3 billion to more than 45,000 customers in 700 different industries across the United States, Canada and Australia. OnDeck has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau and operates the educational small business financing website www.businessloans.com. For more information, please visit www.ondeck.com.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/small-business-owner-e1454664524819.jpg355640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-02-05 04:32:052016-02-05 04:32:05Top priorities for small business owners in the 2016 Presidential Election
The current presidential campaign in the U.S. reminds us that politics is civilized conflict, but conflict none the less.
In 1518 The Conquistador Hernan Cortes, not a man known to seek votes, departed Cuba with six ships and 600 men. He landed at Vera Cruz, Mexico, refused orders to return to Cuba and burned his ships just prior to marching inland toward a bloody confrontation and victory over an Aztec civilization of several hundred thousand. En route to his battle with the Aztecs, Cortes defeated smaller vassal states, built a coalition, then marched on the Aztecs. This act of risk and defiance changed the course of history. The burning of his ships brought many of his men to tears. The act defined the reality that there would be no turning back. It would be victory or death.
Fast forward to the 2016 presidential campaign and political observers understand that a different type of coalition building is going on. On the right and in the center the electorate is horrified by a president that campaigned on “Hope and Change” but has wrought enmity domestically and chaos on the international stage. Despite a national news media establishment heavily vested in President Barack Obama, the internet, talk radio and other outlets have provided channels of news independent of the President’s media team. Enter billionaire builder, entrepreneur and media sensation Donald Trump into the political arena. Trump, having honed his branding skills in the market place and media skills on a lengthy and successful reality show “The Apprentice,” has demonstrated mastery in terms of communication with the masses. Trump has been a dominant factor in the Republican Presidential primary race.
A fair person must admit, the Republicans have a strong cadre of seasoned candidates. A number of the candidates have had long distinguished careers in public service. However, none of these candidates have been able to match Donald Trump’s ability to communicate and connect with the masses. I have spoken with a large number of blue-collar Democrats who have told me that they are voting for Trump! Again and again, their explanation, “he says what I am thinking.”
I am 58 years of age, served in the Air Force, the CIA, participated in campaigns, and even ran for the U.S. Senate. I have never seen anything like this. Trump is a non-traditional candidate with an uncanny ability to reach a significant portion of the population on both sides of the political spectrum.
Gary Berntsen is a retired Senior CIA Operations Officer and Chief of Station. Mr. Berntsen is the President of The Berntsen Group and bestselling Author of Jawbreaker, The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda where he recounts his leadership role in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 11 September 2001 attacks. Mr. Berntsen is the recipient of CIA’s Distinguished Intelligence Medal and Intelligence Star.
Mr. Berntsen regularly appears as a counterterrorism and national security guest commentator on Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Newsmax.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/donald-trump-profile-pic1-e1454663444420.png480640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-02-05 04:12:452016-02-05 04:14:31Trump And The Burning Of The Boats by Gary Berntsen, former CIA Operations Officer
In recent years, politicians set impossibly high mandates for the amounts of ethanol motorists must buy in 2022, while also setting impossibly high standards for the fuel economy of cars sold in 2025. To accomplish these conflicting goals, motorists are now given tax credits to drive heavily-subsidized electric cars, even as they will supposedly be required to buy more and more ethanol-laced fuel each year.
Why have such blatantly contradictory laws received so little criticism, if not outrage? Probably because ethanol mandates and electric car subsidies are lucrative sources of federal grants, loans, subsidies and tax credits for “alternative fuels” and electric cars. Those on the receiving end lobby hard to keep the gravy train rollingwhile those paying the bills lack the same motivation to become informed, or to organize and lobby.
With farmers, ethanol producers and oil companies all sharing the bounty, using subsidies and mandates to pour ever-increasing amounts of ethanol into motorists’ gas tanks has been a win-win deal for politicians and the interest groups that support them and a lose-lose deal for consumers and taxpayers.
The political advantage of advocating contradictory future mandates is that the goals usually prove ridiculous only after their promoters are out of office. This is a bipartisan affliction.
In his 2007 State of the Union Address, for example, President Bush called for mandating 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017, an incredible target equal to one-fourth of all gasoline consumed in the United States in 2006. Not to be outdone, “President Obama said during the presidential campaign that he favored a 60 billion gallon-a-year target.”
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) did not go quite as far as Bush or Obama, at least in the short run. It required 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015 (about 2 billion more than were actually sold), but 36 billion gallons of all biofuels by 2022 (which would be more than double last year’s sales). The 2007 energy law also raised corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new cars to 35 miles per gallon by 2030, which President Obama in 2012 ostensibly raised to 54.5 mpg by 2025 (a comically precise guess, since requirements are based on the size of vehicles we buy).
The 36 billion biofuel mandate for 2022 is the mandate Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (and Donald Trump) now vigorously defend against the rather gutsy opposition of Sen. Ted Cruz. But it is impossible to defend the impossible: Ethanol consumption can’t possibly double as fuel consumption falls.
From 2004 to 2013, cars and light trucks consumed 11% less fuel. The Energy Information Agency likewise predicts that fuel consumption of light vehicles will fall by another 10.1% from 2015 to 2022. So long as ethanol is no more than 10% of a gallon (much higher than Canada or Europe), ethanol use must fall as we use less gasoline rather than rise, as the mandates require. If we ever buy many electric cars or switch from corn to cellulosic sources of ethanol, as other impossible mandates pretend, then corn-based ethanol must fall even faster.
If raising ethanol’s mandated share above 10% is any politician’s secret plan, nobody dares admit it. Most pre-2007 cars can’t handle more than 10 percent ethanol without damage, and drivers of older cars often lack the income or wealth to buy a new one. Since ethanol is a third less efficient than gasoline, adding more ethanol would also make it even more impossible for car companies to comply with Obama’s wildly-ambitious fuel economy standards (which must also reduce ethanol use, if they work).
The 2007 law also mandated an astonishing 16 billion gallons of nonexistent “cellulosic” ethanol by 2022 from corn husks or whatever. We were already supposed to be using a billion gallons of this marvelous snake oil by 2013. Despite lavish taxpayer subsidies, however, production of cellulosic biofuel was only about 7.8 million barrels a month by April, 2015 (about 94 million a year). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandate in June 10, 2015 was 230 million billion in 2016, which is more fantasy.
It doesn’t help that the Spanish firm Abenoga – which received $229 million from U.S. taxpayers to produce just 1.7 million gallons of ethanol – is trying to sell its plant in Kansas to avoid the bankruptcy fate of cellulosic producer KiOR. It also doesn’t help that a $500,000 federally-funded study paid finds biofuels made with corn residue release 7% more greenhouse gases than gasoline.
The contradictory, fantastic and often scandalous history of ethanol mandates illustrates the increasing absurdity of mandates from Congress and the EPA.
The 2007 biofuel mandate was not just bad policy. It was and remains an impossible, bizarre policy.
Alan Reynolds is one of the original supply-side economists. He is Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and was formerly Director of Economic Research at the Hudson Institute.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ethanol-mandate-e1454662001764.jpg392640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2016-02-05 03:47:332016-02-05 03:47:33The Ethanol Mandate Is Literally Impossible by Alan Reynolds
The Big Government-Big Education alliance has also had positive trickle-down effects for professors, who have benefited with publishing contracts and grants for their institutions. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the biggest funder of Common Core, continues to support universities that help in implementing their education initiatives. Professors hopped on the Common Core gravy train at the get-go. There was the curious fact that Bill Ayers gave a keynote address at the 2009 convention of the Renaissance Group, “a national consortium of colleges, universities and professional organizations” dedicated to teaching and education. Now if we could only learn how much Bill Ayers was paid for that keynote speech in Washington in 2009.
James O’Keefe’s undercover videos reveal what activists have been saying for years: Common Core is a set of standards written not for the benefit of students, but to enrich crony capitalists, such as mega-curriculum companies, Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt, Pearson, and National Geographic Education.
The latest, the fourth video, records former Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt executive Gilbert Garcia describing the constant “politicking” among school board members and superintendents, and former Pearson employee Kim Koerber describing how the 2013 $1.3 billion contract for supplying I-Pads to the Los Angeles school district was “written for Pearson to win.” After an FBI investigation into bid-rigging, Pearson, in 2015, agreed to pay the district $6.4 million in a settlement.
Pearson issued a statement calling remarks in the videos “offensive,” asserting that they do not reflect the values of the company’s 40,000 employees.
But the Big Government-Big Education alliance has also had positive trickle-down effects for professors, who have benefited with publishing contracts and grants for their institutions. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the biggest funder of Common Core, continues to support universities that help in implementing their education initiatives. To name a few, in November, the Foundation announced a grant of $34.7 million for “transformation centers” to improve teacher preparation programs on the campuses of the University of Michigan, Texas Tech University, and the Relay Graduate School of Education, as well as at the National Center for Teacher Residencies, and the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. That same month, a grant of $1,799,710 was awarded to “support collaboration between Vanderbilt [University] and the Tennessee Department of Education in the area of education research and improvement,” and $764,553 was awarded to the University of Florida for “teacher leader fellows.”
Professors hopped on the Common Core gravy train at the get-go, as I described in 2012, in my report for Accuracy in Media, “Terrorist Professor Bill Ayers and Obama’s Federal School Curriculum.” There was the curious fact that Bill Ayers gave a keynote address at the 2009 convention of the Renaissance Group, “a national consortium of colleges, universities and professional organizations” dedicated to teaching and education. Of course, I made no claim that Ayers wrote the standards; I just noted that he appeared at this conference in Washington with then-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, his under secretary, and a representative from Achieve, the company that orchestrated Common Core. Ayers’s close colleague, Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond, led Obama’s education transition team and oversaw one of the two national Common Core tests.
Less well-known professors, who had bristled at the imposition of “standards,” suddenly began embracing Common Core standards. This was the case with education professor Lucy Calkins and her colleagues at Columbia Teachers College, Bill Ayers’s alma mater, long a bastion of anti-testing/anti-standards. These professors began writing teacher guidebooks, and presenting talks and workshops. Since co-authoring Pathways to the Common Core, Calkins continues to do work for the publisher, Heinemann, a part of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Her “Units of Study” curriculum is described by the publisher as a bestseller. She also writes performance assessments, including the Grade 1 “Units of Study” in “Opinion, Information, and Narrative Writing.” (Yes, students in first grade are expected to write op-eds.) In a short video, Calkins explains her teaching philosophy that involves mini-lessons and group work.
In 2012, Marc Aronson, a lecturer in communications and information at Rutgers University, was advertising himself as a “Common Core Consultant,” speaker, and author. Today, he describes himself on his personal website as an “author, professor, speaker, editor and publisher who believes that young people, especially pre-teens and teenagers, are smart, passionate, and capable of engaging with interesting ideas in interesting ways.”
Aronson apparently believes that pre-teens and teenagers are smart enough to weed out the lies in his Common Core-compliant middle school and high school textbook, Master of Deceit: J. Edgar Hoover and America in the Age of Lies. As I noted in my report, Aronson presents the KGB-fabricated lies about the FBI director’s homosexuality as probable. For the benefit of 11-year-olds, he posits that photographs of Hoover with his friend Clyde Tolson “might be seen as lovers’ portraits.” The book is filled with sexual innuendo and dwells on such irrelevant details in order to ascribe motives to Hoover for his presumably unfounded fears about the communist threat. The accompanying discussion guide is a masterpiece of disguise: as ideological questions bearing their own answers.
It is therefore not surprising that Aronson would now write an article in the School Library Journal casting a skeptical eye on O’Keefe’s undercover videos and asking readers to “consider the source,” as the subheading to the headline, “Is Common Core Just a Scam to Sell Books?” asks. He distances himself from the sales executives but never directly names the “source” that one should “consider.” (Innuendo seems to be his modus operandi.) The implication is O’Keefe. Aronson admits, “As a nonfiction fan, author, and editor, I have a stake in this.” He denies that his stake is in the rise in nonfiction sales that have come as Common Core standards have edged out literature in favor of “informational texts.” No, Aronson fell “in love with the standards” when he first read them, “years before they had any impact on royalty statements.”
Aronson also claims to have served recently on the New Jersey team that evaluated that state’s English Language Arts (ELA) and Math standards. Contrary to the executives’ statements captured in the videos, his “team” carefully examined the standards “one by one, grade by grade, and listened to extensive comments from teachers, administrators, parents, professionals, and business leaders.” He claims that he saw “commitment, not greed.”
He presents a “guiding principle” that sounds very familiar to those of us whose eyes have glazed and brains have flopped like dying fish from the Common Core sales literature: “From the first, our guiding principle was this: What will someone awarded a high school diploma be ready for? The group looked at each educational stage and benchmark to consider what students would need to know to be ready for the next step, and the next, so that after graduation they would have the skill set to begin the next phase of their lives.”
Aronson’s team included comments by Amy Rominiecki, a Certified School Library Media Specialist, on behalf of the New Jersey Association of School Librarians, in their report. (He links back to her statement when she testified in support of Common Core.) The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has also funded studies for the American Library Association (the parent organization of the American Association of School Librarians) on such things as Technology Access, training, and participation in the federal E-rate program.
Aronson attributes the continuing low performance of 12th graders in math and reading to economic inequality, stating, “If more students had more resources (social, emotional, financial, cultural, and technological), more would be ready to meet the challenges and opportunities that follow after secondary education.”
Of course, this author and educational entrepreneur has only the purest motives: “the children.” Money may be important, “yet, there is a role for standards to play.” To that end, “as educators and communities who care about our nation’s youth, it is necessary we establish a path that’s best for as many students.”
Such bromides bring big bucks in the education world. I am reminded of words by Bill Ayers at an education conference in 2013, something about being finite creatures hurtling through infinite space. Now if we could only learn how much Bill Ayers was paid for that keynote speech in Washington in 2009.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/james-okeefe-project-veritas-common-core-e1454588145107.png376640Dr. Mary Grabarhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Mary Grabar2016-02-04 07:17:042016-02-04 07:18:43Catching Up with some Common Core Profiteers: Beyond the Project Veritas Videos
.jpg)
Ryan Mauro is
About OnDeck
ABOUT GARY BERNTSEN
