Status of Educational Choice Programs in Florida “Unclear”

/in , , , , , /by

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice has release the 2013 edition of “The ABCs of School Choice“. The report shows the strength and weaknesses of school choice in Florida.

According to the Foundation website , “Florida has two private school choice programs (special-needs vouchers, limited tax-credit scholarships). The state also has a charter school law and enables public virtual schooling. Limited open enrollment exists, both for intradistrict and interdistrict public school choice. ”

The Foundation notes:

“The status of school choice in Florida is unclear. Unfortunately, in an unprecedented decision, the Florida Supreme Court struck down the state’s groundbreaking Opportunity Scholarships voucher program for children in chronically failing public schools. The court declared that the program violated the state Constitution’s education article, specifically the requirement to provide a “uniform” public education. Contrary to state supreme courts in Wisconsin and Ohio, the Florida court decided that the Legislature may not provide educational options beyond those in the public schools. Still, the court limited its decision to Opportunity Scholarships only, leaving untouched Florida’s other school choice programs.

Earlier in the same case, a Florida appellate court struck down Opportunity Scholarships under the state’s Blaine Amendment. That ruling ran counter to years of Florida Supreme Court rulings on the Blaine Amendment permitting “incidental” benefits to religious organizations as the by-product of programs designed to advance the general welfare. The Florida Supreme Court did not review that issue, and the validity of the appellate court’s holding is unclear under Florida law.” [My emphasis]

A constitutional amendment was on the November 2012 ballot to eliminate the Blaine Amendment but it failed to garner the votes to pass. Unions and even some TEA Party activists were against the amendment.

Florida’s two educational choice success stories are:

Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program

Enacted 2001 • Launched 2001

Florida provides a tax credit on corporate income taxes and insurance premium taxes for donations to Scholarship Funding Organizations (SFOs), nonprofits that provide private school scholarships for low-income students and foster care children and… Read More

John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program

Enacted as a Pilot Program 1999 • Expanded 2000

Florida’s John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program allows public school students with disabilities or 504 plans to receive vouchers to attend private schools or another public school. Read More

Despite the uncertainties surrounding vouchers, tax credit programs are completely consistent with the Florida constitution, even as interpreted by Holmes, because they involve private rather than public funds. –Quote from the Institute for Justice (April 2007)

A Florida Citizens Letter To Senator Marco Rubio on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

/in , , , , , /by

The following is a letter WDW recieved from a Florida resident. The letter was sent to Senator Marco Rubio:

VIA: senator@Rubio.senate.gov

RE: “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform (Read Amnesty)

Senator Rubio:

Let me say as a Florida resident I vividly remember you blocking 6 immigration bills when you were Speaker of the Florida House in 2008 stating “The House was too busy” to deal with state immigration laws.

I remember you campaigning to be senator opposing amnesty (though you supported the Florida Dream Act early in your state legislative career) as you followed in the footsteps of previous Cuban Senator Martinez who campaigned opposing amnesty and three years later in 2007 led the charge for it. It seems you couldn’t wait three years to change positions back to what you supported during your early state tenure.

That said, let me respond to what I have read regarding your proposed legislation and zero in on Comprehensive which to me means dealing with all related topics to amnesty.

It is a well known fact constantly blared by open border types Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population and that is correct having researched all the latest numbers. Their chant is you better deal with the criminal illegal aliens if you want our support. Look at the immigration numbers and they are correct. The tail is now wagging the dog and how did it happen? It happened through the Family Reunification immigration program you heartily support with no limits basically emptying peasant villages in Mexico and Central America and moving them into balkanized barrios around the country. It has also happened through the failure of the U.S. Government Executive Branch performing its duties in protecting our borders and regulating visa holders with no outcry from Congress.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE PURPOSE OF IMMIGRATION?

In 1962 then President Kennedy called for a reform of the immigration system. He did not call for an increase in immigration quotas stating we need not increase the level of immigrants allowed because “we have no lands left to settle.” Following his death the Democrat controlled Congress concocted the Family Reunification visa program introducing mass immigration favoring Hispanic countries and why is a good question? Prior to 1965 the large majority of under 250K allowed in the country annually were educated, had a skill and spoke English. Following 1965 legislation the overwhelming majority imported have been a perfect democrat candidate being unskilled, uneducated and non English speaking. When politicians and talk show hosts scratch their heads about the level of poverty in the country and how to lower it they aren’t looking at the primary cause being the importation of an endless stream of poverty. Statistics show 68% of legal MX immigrants with children are in or near poverty. The study by CIS also shows over 50% of Mexican immigrants are still on welfare 20 years after arriving in the country. Other Hispanic immigrants have similar statistics.

You have recently stated you are a BIG BELIEVER in family based immigration. Please explain why since it has shown to simply be the conduit for exporting poverty from banana republics to here?

We never had a mass amnesty in this country until President Reagan in an unwise move granted the first ever amnesty in 1986. From then until 2000 there were 6 more for a grand total of 6 million amnesties granted in 14 years. In 2012 President Obama directed an amnesty by fiat without Constitutional authority affecting more than a million criminal illegal aliens and nary a peep was heard from Congress. Representative Steve King promised on 8/17/2012 to challenge Obama’s amnesty by fiat and in my inquiry a week ago to his office he was still gathering facts. WOW!

As a result of the 7 previous amnesties we now have, based on government numbers I find highly suspect, 12 million waiting in line for amnesty. If that is the number you want to use then promise to cap it at that number.

Attempting the same thing over and over again is a form of insanity. Actually, I believe the Congress is quite content with the millions of unskilled joining the work force ranks keeping wages low for their large corporate donors like Walmart and at the same time providing them ever new customers. As far as illegal immigration goes it satisfies the needs of criminal illegal alien employers wanting cheap labor in a modern day version of slavery.

If Congressional members really cared about American workers do you think they would have allowed 125K new immigrants a month to continue to be imported to worsen the employment picture for 23 million Americans suffering through the worst recession since the great depression? I never heard a word from one Congressman or woman to at least suggest a pause of the onslaught of the endless stream of immigrants month after month. Not one word was ever even uttered and that silence is a damn loud message to American workers and all citizens.

Senator Rubio, these are tasks that need to be accomplished long before the amnesty discussion even begins for criminal illegal aliens. You said in an interview you wanted to solve their problem. Sir, who cares about solving their problem since they brought it upon themselves. The most important thing is how it will affect the citizens of this country. They are the ones who self inflicted their pain and it could end quickly by returning to their home country instead of demanding a path to citizenship.

End the nonsensical family reunification visa program that has simply uprooted tens of millions of peasants who couldn’t even spell the United States of America in English before arriving and come simply to start sucking on the government teat that is nearly dry.

Secure the borders. President Obama and Sec. Napolitano say the border has never been more secure. I suppose then the signs posted 70 miles north of the border warning travelers to beware of illegal aliens were previously 100 miles north of the border. The Border Patrol recently issued a statement they only intercept 61% of illegals attempting to enter the country and who knows how little as a percentage of the drugs entering illegally.

Senator, when you talk about securing the border I hope you mean the same way we protect the Korean border at the 39th parallel. We have been there for 60 years and rarely if ever is the border breached by anyone. If that is the case then great. However, what you promise has to be executed by the Executive Branch and President Obama has no appetite for securing the border. In fact, neither has Congress since it was promised over 25 years ago. We protect a foreign countries borders half way around but not our own and the citizens deserve to know the reason why.

Get the Visit USA program to work so visa over stayers can be located and deported. Over 40%, or perhaps more of the criminal illegal alien population has supposedly come legally and just melted into a city to live and work. With over 100 Million visitors to the United States annually the 40% number of total criminal illegal aliens appears awfully low.

Make it a felony to enter the country illegally or overstay a visa. This is a common sense measure since we currently treat the crime like jaywalking. Get permission to house the lawbreakers in Guantanamo to end their appetite for breaking our laws.

Make E-Verify mandatory for all employers and direct the SS administration to check the user is who they say they are. You achieve that by having the SS office issue a new tamper proof card with picture to all prospective employment seekers to eliminate document fraud (HR98). Regarding Mandatory E-Verify in a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research 89% of Whites, 81% of Blacks and 76% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans were in favor of it.

Pass and enforce Childbirth legislation that would remove a magnet to come here now granting citizenship to babies born in the USA to foreign parents by amending the Immigration and Naturalization Act (HR140) requiring at least one parent be a citizen ending the anchor baby link to the welfare system. Over 200K births like this are performed annually with taxpayers footing the majority of the bill. There is a cottage industry for birth tourism for wealthy foreign women making a mockery of our citizenship requirements. Coincidentally you would not have been a citizen either if the law is changed since when you were born your parents were not citizens of the United States but still of Cuba.

Repeal the antiquated Cuban Adjustment Act which is a knee jerk cold war relic reaction meant to damage Castro’s Cuba after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and grants any Cuban who arrives in the USA anywhere preferred treatment and a path to citizenship. This is especially important since Cuba is now granting travel Visas to their citizens. The last thing we need is an aerial version of the Mariel boat lift that forever changed Miami into what is now the fifth most impoverished City in the USA and where English is the second language.

End the corrupt Diversity Visa lottery Program that brings in people to the USA from supposedly countries that need greater representation under the guise of diversity. Senator Rubio, name a more diverse country than the United States of America; You can’t.

End the Temporary Protected Status program that is permanently temporary. Case in point are the over 200K EL Salvadorans brought here after an earthquake in their country and undoubtedly sucking on the welfare teat since. They are only here temporarily 10 years later wink wink.

Dramatically reduce the corrupt refugee program and remove the UN’s participation in determining who comes and make the US groups profiting from the refugee business get the approval from the locales where they want to dump the refugees before doing so. I understand every refugee entering costs the U.S. government $20K for shipping and handling.

End the work visa program which Milton Friedman correctly identified as corporate welfare. Work visas that allow maids and lawn mower operators into the country as specialty occupations illustrates the lengths companies will go to avoid paying U.S. workers and the fica. If the US is not graduating candidates to fill America’s needs whose fault is it since we are the third most populated country in the world and had, I emphasize had, a great education system when I attended and undoubtedly has been ruined since by the teacher unions and Federal interference.

Commission a study to determine the impact of the 12 million criminal illegal aliens will have on our welfare system, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environment and the impact on American workers.

Commission a independent study to determine the optimum population the United States can comfortably sustain. When talking about immigration I have never heard a politician mention what our optimum population should be regarding Natural Resources and avoiding similar terrible human conditions suffered today in India, Bangladesh and China. Publish all the findings.

Senator Rubio, do those tasks necessary to get a clear picture of what you propose to do and its impact on American Society so the facts speak for themselves as to whether it is in the national Interest of the citizens of the United States of America to support or reject amnesty for the criminal illegal aliens.

I am also sending along a speech given by Democrat Ex. Governor Richard D. Lamb several years ago titled “I Have a Plan to destroy America and many parts of it are underway.” Read it and see if you can relate it to what is happening in the country today from a speech written 10 years ago.

George Fuller

Sarasota, Florida

Governor Scott comes under fire for his $2,500 teacher pay giveaway

/in , , , , , /by

Governor Rick Scott announced that Florida will have a budget surplus in 2013-2014 of $437 million. That is good news. Republicans got to this point of a surplus after years of budget deficits by cutting the size of government programs. The Republican party stands for less government, lower taxes and less spending.

So what does Scott want to do with that money?

He wants to give teachers an across the board pay increase of $2,500, which will spend the entire surplus and more. This idea is drawing boos from teachers unions. It is also drawing fire from other public service employees such as fire fighters, EMS personnel and law enforcement officers. Why teachers and not them? Some are even saying that Scott is buying votes, much like President Obama and members of Congress who increase benefits for government employees and those who take for a living via welfare programs.

Here is something that Scott may not have considered: Why not give the money back to the taxpayers?

It is the taxpayer who carries the burden of the salaries and benefits of public employees. Any salary increase to any public employee is a further long term burden on the Florida Retirement System. The Tampa Bay Times reports, “In a major victory for the state, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 4-3 against state workers and allowed the state to retain the 3 percent levy on worker salaries to offset the state’s investment into the Florida Retirement System.”  Download Retirement ruling.

Union leaders do not like it when their members have to contribute to their own retirement programs like public sector employees do. So this move by Scott appears to be pandering to one group of union employees. Scott may be giving up hard fought ground based upon the recent Florida Supreme Court decision.

Who holds the bag for any government employee pay increase? Answer: Florida’s taxpayers.

We will see what the Florida legislature does with the budget surplus. Any bets that they will find a way to spend it? Are Republicans morphing into Progressives? What the legislature does with this surplus will be a key indicator of where they stand on taxes and spending.

West Point Study: The Founding Fathers are the “Violent Far-Right”

/in , , , /by

Dr. Arie Perliger from the Combating Terrorism Center located at West Point, NY issued a report titled, Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right. The report states, “There are three major ideological movements within the American violent far right: a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

What are the roots of the American anti-Federalist movement?

Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy. A book titled “The Anti-Federalist Papers“ is a detailed explanation of American Anti-Federalist thought.

Anti-Federalist No. 1 titled “General Introduction: A Dangerous Plan of Benefit Only to The ‘Aristocratick Combination’.” was printed in the The Boston Gazette and Country Journal on November 26, 1787 and warned, “Their [Federalist] menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description.”

Noted anti-Federalists included: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, James Monroe, Mercy Otis Warren, George Clinton, Melancton Smith, Arthur Fenner, James Winthrop and Luther Martin.

Thomas Jefferson expressed several anti-federalist thoughts throughout his life, but his involvement in the discussion was limited, since he was stationed as Ambassador to France while the debate over federalism was going on in America in the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

Perliger states:

‘”Anti-federalist and anti-government sentiments were present in American society before the 1990s in diverse movements and ideological associations promoting anti-taxation, gun rights, survivalist practices, and libertarian ideas.”

The Executive Summary notes, “It is important to note that this study concentrates on those individuals and groups who have actually perpetuated violence and is not a comprehensive analysis of the political causes with which some far-right extremists identify. While the ability to hold and appropriately articulate diverse political views is an American strength, extremists committing acts of violence in the name of those causes undermine the freedoms that they purport to espouse.”

How does Perliger portray the modern day anti-Federalists?

Perliger states, “Violence derived from the modern anti-federalist movement appeared in full force only in the early to mid-1990s and is interested in undermining the influence, legitimacy and effective sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations. The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

What evidence  of violence perpetrated by the anti-Federalist movement does Perliger document?

Perliger reports (pages 136-137):

 “Our dataset documented 87 cases of violent attacks that were initiated by militias or other anti-federal associations between 1990 and 2011. As expected, almost half of the attacks were perpetrated during the movement’s popular period, the second half of the 1990s (48.2%). Since then we have witnessed limited violent activities by the militias, except for a sharp rise during 2010 of 13 attacks. Nonetheless, in 2011 the number returns to the level observed in previous years (between 1–4 attacks per year; 2 attacks in 2011). Thus, while there may be a rise in the number of active militia groups, except for 2010 we still do not see this systematically manifested in the level of violence. As for the geographical dispersion of the attacks, California again is highly prominent (18.4%) alongside Texas (10.3%). The rest of the attacks are distributed more or less equally among 28 other states. The areas that are excluded are parts of the northeast: no attacks were reported in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, and there was only one attack each in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; the northern Midwest: there were no attacks in Illinois, Iowa, North and South Dakota; and some Southern states: Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Missouri. Thus, it is difficult to find a geographic rationale for the violence.”

How many casualties have been caused by the anti-Federalist movement?

Perliger reports, “[T]he average number of fatalities and injuries is 14.04 injured and 3.97 fatalities; when omitting the attack in Oklahoma [by Timothy McVeigh], the average goes down considerably [to] 0.77 [injured] and 0.55 [fatalities] respectively.” (page 138)

Do eighty-seven cases of violent attacks over a 21 year period constitute a violent movement or isolated criminal acts? Perliger does not address this question.

Perliger concludes, “[I]t should be noted that historically some of the anti-federalist groups have absorbed racist and Christian Identity sentiments; nonetheless, the glue binding their membership and driving their activism has been and remains hostility, fear and the need to challenge or restrict the sovereignty of the federal government.”

Do those who identify as Christians belong in the same category as skinheads and Neo-Nazis? Perliger believes so when he states, “Among these are militias, Christian Identity groups, Skinheads and neo-Nazis.”

This study is flawed when it only defines anti-Federalist groups as “violent far-right”. Are Federalist groups not violent?

Any group that seeks to impose its will on all of the people either by edict or violence is by definition “Federalism”. Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and towards the national government.

Is this what the people fear most – the expansion of federalism? Is this fear real and worthy of concern?

Watch this video of interviews done in New York City asking “Do you fear tyranny in America?” Note at the end the responses of young Americans. Are they recruits for the “violent far-right”?

Is Any E-Verify Bill Dead on Arrival in the Florida Senate?

/in , , , /by

In 2010 Republican Jeff Atwater was the President of the Florida Senate. When the committee assignments were made he appointed Senator Jeremy Ring, a progressive Democrat, to be Committee Chair of  The Government Oversight & Accounting Committee. Then as now Republicans had an overwhelming majority in both legislative houses.

George Fuller wrote in an email, “On the surface it would appear to the average citizen Atwater was extending his hand for a truly bi-partisan Florida Senate. However, Atwater may have had a more sinister reason for making the appointment. The reason was he wanted a Democrat to block any immigration bill filed so his hands would remain clean as it was blocked in committee.”

As the story unfolded in 2010 Senator Nancy Detert filed S1880 an immigration bill that would require all contractors with the state to be enrolled in the Federal E-Verify program so only legal workers would participate in taxpayer funded projects. What citizen would not want every dime of their tax money to go to legal contract workers instead of to illegal aliens who would head to Western Union every payday and ship the money out of the country especially during the high unemployment being experienced in the state in 2010?

Well, after Senator Detert filed the bill it was assigned to 5 committees to go through before it would reach the senate floor.

Fuller states, “I have researched hundreds of bills filed in the legislature and those with 5 committee assignments never get through all the committees in 8 weeks time which is how long the session is. Looking at the bill assignments those familiar with the process knew the chance of getting through all of the committees in the allotted time was slim.”

“But Senate President Atwater was not satisfied with 98% odds the bill would not get through all the committees and that is where Senate Chair Jeremy Ring of the Government Oversight and Accounting came into play. The first committee assignment for S1880 was Democrat Jeremy Ring’s committee. Needless to say the other four committees were not required to impede the bill’s progress through the system since Ring never called up the bill during the session,” notes Fuller

Now we fast forward to 2013 and the incoming Senate President is Republican Don Gaetz. Who did he name Chairman of the Government Oversight and Accounting Committee? Answer: Jeremy Ring.

But it gets worse says Fuller. Senate President Gaetz also appointed Democrat Senator Bill Montford to Chair the Agricultural Committee with Democrat Senator Dwight Bullard as Vice Chair and Democrat Senator Elanor Sobel as Chair of  the Children, Families and Elder Affairs Committee. One wonders how Republicans feel about this form of bi-partisanship?

Today Jeff Atwater is Florida’s Chief Financial Officer. It makes one wonder what higher office is in store for Senator Gaetz.

EDITORS NOTE:

The table below shows that legal immigration is simply a conduit for importing poverty into Florida. The legislature will never solve or reduce the poverty level in Florida with the same immigration policy of “Family Reunification.”

Click on the chart for a larger view.

 

Hillary’s Cohesive Strategy – From Vince Foster to Benghazi

/in , , , /by

When reading Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer by Marinka Peschmann one is struck by the similarities between what happened in the Clinton White House upon the death of Vince Foster and what happened in the Obama White House upon the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Peschmann writes, ” [The Clinton cohesive strategy] went like this: ‘Nothing here. The investigators are on a political witch hunt. So make it short and sweet and get out. They’re trying to take down the president. Don’t speculate’.”

“This strategy is also known as the Clintons’ ‘joint defense’ tactic; a tactic which became public knowledge during the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation, called the joint defense agreement strategy. Unbeknownst to most Americans, the joint defense tactic was successfully used to benefit and protect the Clintons during all the investigations. It’s where witnesses may not communicate with one another; lawyers, however, may legally share information among others lawyers ensuring that the White House was always informed on who said what,” notes Peschmann.

During the investigation of the death of Vince Foster everything was done to hinder the investigation and thereby minimize political damage to the White House. 

The Senate Whitewater Committee investigation found: “Members of the White House counsel’s office participated in the Park Police interviews of White House staffers, not to protect the legal interests of the staffers but … to report back to Mr. Nussbaum what was being said in the interviews.” Moreover, “the White House counsel’s office coached the staffers about their testimony during a meeting on ‘comportment and interrogation.’ The Park Police left with the impression that their interviews had been rehearsed.”

Fast forward to the Obama White House and Clinton Department of State and their handling of Benghazi. Just as the Park Police were hindered in their investigation of the death of Vince Foster, so too was the FBI hindered in its investigation of the death of Ambassador Stevens.

The finger prints of Hillary are on both of these deaths.

Peschmann writes, “In fact, playing the role of ‘hidden hand’ is one [Hillary] enjoys. She was extremely Machiavellian, a master of doing things that could not be traced back to her,” recalled one close colleague. “She would say, ‘Do this, but don’t leave any fingerprints.’”

Breitbart reported in its column “Greta Van Susteren: Has Justice Been Denied in Benghazi?“, “Besides these failures and frustrations regarding the Libyan government, Susteren said the public actions of the FBI in the days and months after the attack were not very reassuring either. And although she and her guest Ron Kessler granted that the Libyan government may actively be hindering the FBI, Susteren reminded viewers:

This happened on Sept 11, [20012] but reports are that the FBI didn’t get there until early October, which for any crime scene is grossly late. Then once they were there, they didn’t pick up all the documents [in the consulate]. And on October 26 journalists there found documents the FBI [hadn’t collected]. She closed her program by saying “the trail gets colder every single day.”

With Secretary Clinton scheduled to testify before Congress on Benghazi, will we see her fingerprints or have they been wiped away. Will we ever know the truth?

Is Today the Beginning or the End of the Monarchy?

/in , , /by

Today, January 14, 2013 President Obama stated at a White House press conference, “My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence. Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it.”

On this day the Bill of Rights either died and a monarchy was established or it will go down in history as the day the monarchy died.

After the press conference Mark Levin stated, “I think we have an imperial president, he sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country.”

Tom Trento, President of the Florida based organization The United West, made this exact point at a South Carolina TEA Party Coalition Convention two days ago:

Trento states, “These are times that try men’s souls. This is no time for the sunshine patriot.”

Two-hundred and thirty-eight years ago on March 20, 1775 inland at Richmond in what is now called St. John’s Church, Delegate Patrick Henry presented resolutions to raise a militia, and to put Virginia in a posture of defense. Henry’s opponents urged caution and patience until the crown replied to Congress’ latest petition for reconciliation.

On March 23rd, Henry presented a proposal to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county. By custom, Henry addressed himself to the Convention’s president, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg. Henry’s words were not transcribed, but no one who heard them forgot their eloquence, or Henry’s closing words: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”

Are We Witnessing The Global Failure of the Ethical Life?

/in , , , , , /by

C. S. Lewis once remarked, “No one knows how bad he is until he has truly tried to be good.”

According to William Lane Craig, author of Reasonable Faith, “The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard made the same point. Kierkegaard thought of life as lived on three levels:

  1. The most basic level is the aesthetic stage, in which life is lived selfishly for the pleasure it affords. Life so lived ultimately issues in boredom and ennui.
  2. The next higher plane is the ethical stage, in which one lives according to strict moral standards. But this life results ultimately in despair because one cannot live up to the standard of the moral good.
  3. Only on the highest plane, the religious stage, is authentic existence truly to be found. Kierkegaard rightly saw that it is the failure of the ethical life that propels one to the religious plane.”

Does government without God lead to despair? Are people becoming desperate?

There are signs that individuals are acting out across America and around the world. The headlines are filled with efforts by politicians trying to impose strict ethical standards on people who live their lives based upon selfish pleasures. Is government hindering, and in some cases blocking, citizens from moving beyond the aesthetic and ethical stages to the religious plane?

After debating the existence of God with Louise Anthony, Professor at the University of Massachusetts, Craig wrote, “Anthony confessed that one of the drawbacks of the atheism she had come to embrace is that under atheism there is no redemption. Think of that! One’s sin and guilt are truly indelible. Nothing can undo what has been done and restore your innocence. But the Christian message is a message of redemption.”

Are there some in our government who believe that those who cling to their religion as somehow less worthy?

Craig writes, “Today so many people think of right and wrong, not as matters of fact, but as matters of taste.”

Craig quotes American Philosopher Richard Taylor, author of Ethics, Faith, and Reason , who wrote, “The idea of . . . moral obligation is clear enough, provided that reference to some lawmaker higher . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense?“

Taylor goes on to say:

“The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well.“

Read more.

This is the basis of the great debate taking place in America, Europe, the Middle East and across the globe. Are we seeing the failure of the ethical life? What is the next stage: the aesthetic or religious? Do we evolve or devolve?

The Human-care Complex: How It All Began

/in , , , , , /by

Today, January 1, 2013 Obamacare taxes hit all Americans.

This is the second in a series by Watchdog Wire to explain how we came to implement this, the most sweeping of all legislation in the history of America. To read the first column please click here.

The question to be answered is: Who and what got us to this point?

Jeanne M. Lambrew, Tom Daschle and Scott S. Greenberger in their book “Critical” published in 2006 stated, “UNTIL THE BEGINNING of the twentieth century, medical care in the United States was inexpensive because it was largely ineffective.” The authors provide no evidence for this statement but it is this progressive ideal that becomes the foundation for the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (HR 3590) passed by the 111th Congress commonly known as Obamacare.

Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger wrote in “Critical”, “When Progressive Era [1890-1920] reformers turned their attention to workers’ health, they decided to put compulsory health insurance on the national agenda for the first time. In 1914, the American Association for Labor Legislation began drafting legislation to provide workers with free medical care, paid sick leave, and a modest death benefit. By 1917, the AALL bill had been introduced in fourteen state legislatures. The fate of the legislation foreshadowed the health insurance debates that occurred throughout the twentieth century.”

The American Association for Labor Legislation was formed to promote uniformity of labor legislation and to encourage the study of labor conditions with a view toward promoting desirable legislation. The Association was founded as a branch of the International Association for Labor Legislation. Preliminary discussions about forming the group occurred during 1905 and culminated in the first meeting of the Association held on February 15, 1906, in New York City.

“Physicians, fearing that any third-party payer, especially the government, would regulate doctors’ fees vigorously opposed it. They were allied with the insurance companies, which worried that government health insurance would undermine the private life insurance market. In a 1918 referendum, the measure was soundly defeated,” wrote Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger.

While the arguments against government health insurance remain the same the progressive movement did not let it die.

In 1918 some unions supported the bill, but others joined with employers to fight it. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), denounced the proposal as “a menace to the rights, welfare, and liberty of American workers.” According to Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger “[O]pponents of national health insurance would raise the specter of ‘socialized medicine’ to great effect.”

What happened next set the stage for the creation of the Human-care Complex.

Because people had so little money, hospital occupancy rates plummeted. In search of a steady source of revenue, hospitals began offering “prepayment” plans to certain groups, such as hospital employees, teachers, and firefighters. For a monthly fee, members were guaranteed free hospital care if they ever needed it. So began the road to human-care insurance based upon expanding access based on illness rather than health.

Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger wrote, “The hospital prepayment plans endured, evolving into the Blue Cross system and becoming the model for group health insurance as we know it today. One crucial feature of the plans was that they were employment-based—that is, they were offered to groups of workers large enough to spread out the cost of caring for the sick or injured. Still spooked by the prospect of government-sponsored health insurance, many employers accepted the Blue Cross system as a more palatable alternative.”

But just like all private sector solutions created through necessity, the government took an interest and become more directly involved in human-care via the tax codes.

“Our employment-based system solidified during World War II, when the federal government [tax] exempted ‘fringe benefits’ such as health insurance from wage and price,” noted Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger.

And so it grew. To attract workers, who were scarce because so many men were in the military during WW II, some employers offered them generous health coverage. The government’s decision to exempt health benefits from personal income taxes accelerated the trend. Unions bolstered the nascent insurance system by cutting their own deals with hospitals and later with the Blue Cross.

The next column will look into the expansion of the government/human-care industrial complex from 1945 to today.

Grassroots movement to arm teachers gains momentum

/in , , , , /by

Long before Wayne LaPierre held his press conference the internet was alive with practical solutions on how to prevent another Newtown, CT like attack on schools. Most comments coalesced around arming school based administrators and teachers. One idea is to provide concealed carry training to school based administrators and on a voluntary basis to teachers. The school district would cover the costs of the training, license and purchase of an approved weapon.

Virginia is considering legislation requiring teachers be armed.

Several photographs and photo-shopped signs were circulated graphically demonstrating the popularity of this solution. Two stand out and were the most often received by WDW. Below is a widely distributed photo allegedly depicting an Israeli teacher and her class of elementary school students:

armed teacher in israel

This photo-shopped sign with the caption “Which sign is most likely to deter a school shooting?” is widely circulating on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites:

 GunFreeZoneSign

Comments on these images may be best represented by a common sense approach to the issue. The argument goes something like this – if there is something valuable that society wants to protect and defend then society must have armed guards in place. Examples of protected areas include: government offices at every level, sensitive installations such as military bases or nuclear power plants, airports, banks, prisons and national parks.

Many are asking why we are not similarly protecting our most precious natural resources – our children?

USA Today reports, “About 70% of public schools don’t have [a] police officer and almost 60% don’t have any security staff. Those with police tend to be big and urban schools, according to a USA TODAY data analysis.” Clearly at some point schools decide to have an armed guard present. The only restriction is cost weighted against the potential threat.

Political opponents focus on taking away guns, not on protecting the children as is done for most politicians. History and statistics work against opponents to arming those most responsible for the protection of our children – school based administrators and teachers.

PLEASE TAKE OUR ONLINE SURVEY ON THE QUESTION OF ARMING SCHOOL STAFF:

RELATED COLUMNS:

New Jersey Town Plans to Place Armed Guards in Schools

White House Petition to Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for attacking 2nd Amendment goes over 25,000

School that President Obama’s daughters attend has 11 armed guards

The Two Faces of Gunslinger Charlie Crist

/in , , /by

When Charlie Crist was a Republican and later an Independent, he always identified himself as a strong supporter of the rights of gun owners, but now as a Democrat, it’s clear that his past support for the Second Amendment was based on political expediency and not principled conviction.

“We need to have some restrictions, that’s pretty obvious to most people. What do you need a 30-clip magazine for? Not to go hunting deer. I can tell you that because I hunt deer.” – Charlie Crist

There are many instances where ”Chain-Gang” Charlie was as a staunch political gunslinger as there ever was one that would never waiver from his pro-gun positions. Is there a better example of a political opportunist in the country than Charlie Crist?

Charlie Crist with shotgun

Crist is ‘Pro-Gun:’

“I’m pro-gun. I strongly support the Second Amendment. It’s fundamental. It’s our Second Amendment for a reason; the Founding Fathers thought it was that important.” (Florida Times-Union, 8/20/06)

Crist Opposed Bans on Assault Weapons:

Crist Opposed Both the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill. “Graham voted for the ban on assault weapons and for the Brady Bill, which imposed a waiting period for handgun purchases. Crist opposes both. “I believe citizens do have the right to bear arms,” said Crist, who is a hunter.” (Orlando Sentinel, 10/11/98)

Crist Says We Need to Ban Criminals, Not Guns:

Crist: “Yes, I do, [own] a shotgun. I hunt pheasant, duck. I’m a very strong defender of the Second Amendment. What we need to do is ban criminals, not guns. As a member of the Senate select committee on juvenile justice reform I took testimony at a hearing from a young man involved in a life of crime as a youth, who had turned that life around. (He) explained how foolish it was to try to limit law-abiding citizens’ rights to have a handgun . . . Prior to a criminal’s illegal act involving a handgun, they don’t ordinarily take the time to look . . . to see if they’re violating the law.” (St. Petersburg Times, 11/5/94)

Charlie Crist Received A+ Rating from NRA for Never Taking a Position Adversarial to 2nd Amendment:

Former Florida NRA Chairman Marion Hammer: ‘You Can’t Get an A+ Unless You Have a Strong History on Our Issues.’ “Hammer said Crist earned an “A” rating as a political newcomer, the highest grade bestowed to a rookie candidate by the NRA, and subsequently received an “A+” in future years based on his voting record. “You can’t get an ‘A+’ unless you have a strong history on our issues,” Hammer said.” (Politifact, 7/14/10)

Crist advocated bringing guns to the work place:

Crist Supported the ‘Bring your Gun to Work Bill’ “I understand there are competing interests. There always are in this process. “But people being protected is most important to me.” (Orlando Sentinel, 4/15/08)

Crist denied it was “too easy” to get guns in FL

“I understand … there are some numbers that are disconcerting, particularly as it relates to murder and other violent crimes,” Crist said Tuesday. Despite the rise in gun crimes, Crist said it is not too easy to get a gun in Florida but didn’t elaborate on why gun crimes are going up so much. (AP, 6/26/07)

The Keyser Soze School Of Ruthless Politics

/in , , /by

If you’ve seen the movie The Usual Suspects then you know that Keyser Soze is not a nice guy. But he’s sort of the good guy.

Somebody is going to take advantage of you and your political party. It’s not a question of if, just when. And if you’re not ready for it, everything you’ve built could come tumbling down.

To quote the movie, this is what you’re up against:

“There was a gang of Hungarians that wanted their own mob. They realized that to be in power, you didn’t need guns or money or even numbers. You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn’t.”

And this is the Keyser Soze solution:

“And then he showed these men of will what will really is.”

A Test Of Political Will And Integrity

The ruthless political tactics that some people use are void of integrity. They’re so far over the the ethical line that it should be criminal. Most of the time it’s not. Not exactly.

With experience, you learn to see it coming and you can just walk away from the political deal. But even the most savvy political people get taken from time to time. And this is where you have to make a choice.

Do you keep your integrity intact? Or do you get ruthless?

Okay, let’s switch gears here and get a little more serious. The truth is, there are some good, solid political practices that you can follow when you’re neck-deep in it with ruthless politicians.

Real Political Solutions For Bad Political Situations:

  1. Stay afloat. Don’t ignore your good constituents. It helps you moving forward and brings some light to a dark day.
  2. Keep cool and calm. Overreacting is acting without thinking. The ruthless gang of politicians you’re dealing with expect it. They’re probably even hoping for it.
  3. Strategize. You need a comprehensive plan. And maybe tightening up the political ship. You want to figure out their possible reactions to your action. And how you’re going to steer the political situation to make their reactions mute. The best political plans forge forward no matter what they say or do. Or don’t say and don’t do.
  4. Be persistent. Stick to your guns and execute your political plan. If you can’t go around them, keep banging on the door until someone answers and meets your demands to rectify the political situation. Every day, go back and bang on the door again. And twice on the Sunday talk shows.
  5. Learn. Don’t get in deeper once you realize there’s a problem. And if there are similar loose ends in other areas of your politics, tie them up so it doesn’t happen again. Exercising some basic political due diligence is important. ‘Cause you never know.

Predatory politicians will always be around. They move from place to place constantly; they’re always there for a good time, not a long time.

Hold them in one spot for long enough, and just like sharks, they can’t breathe.

Sorry Keyser. We don’t need you on this one.

This column is an adaptation of the The Keyser Soze School Of Ruthless Business posted by Shane in 2007.

RELATED COLUMNS:

The Fiscal Cliff And The Keyser Soze Option

More Members of Congress Threaten to Take Economy Over the Fiscal Cliff

Clip from the movie The Usual Suspects:

Progressives: Focusing on the Micro, Ignoring the Macro

/in , , , /by

Many wonder why so many people embrace the progressive utopia.  There are progressives in all political parties, in every community, state and nation. There have been many theories put forward on why individuals become progressives. One that is not addressed is: Progressives consistently focus on the micro and ignore the macro. From finance, to politics, to public policy, to national security, to foreign affairs, to science, the progressive, like a laser, focuses on the smallest common denominator.

Progressives proverbially cannot see the forest for the trees.

Some practical examples are in order.

Foreign Policy – Take the current crisis in the Middle East and the progressive diplomatic approach. Progressives focus upon the Israel-Palestinian conflict ignoring the larger issue of the rise of radical Islam in the fifty-six members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). OIC members consist of 1.4 billion people, of which the most powerful militarily surround Israel. Progressives see Israel as the bully or aggressor. Taking a broader view one sees that it is Israel that is the victim of aggression on multiple fronts and from multiple aggressors. It is outnumbered, out spent and out manned.

Public Policy – Progressives view public policy in terms of the smallest common denominator – the individual. Programs are created not to make society better but rather to address the needs of the individual. Crime is a consistent problem, so progressives focus on guns. Control or get rid of guns and crimes of violence will disappear is the mantra. They focus on an individual case, such the  Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida, to make the case for gun control and against self-defense, while ignoring the daily violence occurring in places like Chicago, St. Louis and Philadelphia. If guns were the cause of murders then cars cause accidents and spoons cause obesity.

Social Policy – Progressives focus on contraception to reduce the number of un-wed mothers. Progressives ignore the larger issue of a consistent decline in the number of  wed-mothers and traditional families, the building block of every prosperous society. With more traditional families more children are welcomed as a good for society. It is single parenthood and the cycle of single parents begetting more single parents that is the greater challenge for society. Progressives subsidize un-wed mothers, while punishing traditional families. Abortion on demand deprives the US of over 772,000 new citizens each year. More than enough to meet our long term workforce needs, without immigration.

Financial Policy – Progressives focus on the 1% who pay more than their fair share of taxes, rather than the 50% who pay no taxes at all. Micro-managing a financial system such as that of any nation is impossible. Such management done by government leads to errors on a grand scale. Witness various nations with central banks failing in Europe and the West. Industriousness and entrepreneurship are replaced with risk aversion. Banks not longer hold the risk, government does. Homeowners do not own their mortgages, FHA does. Businesses do not focus on customers they focus on government. Economic micro-management inextricably leads to more government micro-mangers, debt and ever more spending.

Politics – Progressives focus on sub-groups and sub-sub-groups rather than fundamental policy. Big ideas are replaced with pandering to individual voters.  Attacking the political opponents is preferred to debating ideas and finding solutions for big problems. The more the bigger picture is ignored the more likely progressives will be elected.

Science – Progressives focus micro science. Evolution is micro-science. Earth science is reduced to single meteorological events and ignoring recorded weather patterns over long periods of time. The earth historically warms and cools in cycles. Climate changes by its very nature. Man cannot make nature, or weather, change. However, progressives focus on the polar bear population rather than the human population to create policy.

Governing – Finally, progressives govern in the micro at every level of public office. This is the mantra of progressives – think little. Whether it is regulating big gulps or what health insurance you may purchase they consistently think of ways to interject themselves in every aspect of  individual lives. From providing rules of behavior like eating habits to micro-managing entire systems like medicine, progressives are always there.

The only thing that will stop progressives is Herbert Stein’s Law, which he expressed as, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

 

Third Party Candidates give Florida to President Obama

/in , /by

President Obama, late in the night, took the state of Florida, thereby ensuring his second term in office.

An analysis of the numbers shows that Obama won Florida by a margin of 46,039 votes, a steep decline from his 2008 margin of victory of 204,577. What was different then from now? According to the voting results for Florida it was the third party candidates that gave the President the state and a second term.

The ten Independent candidates drew a total of 70,949 votes.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson famously stated, “If you want to waste your vote, vote for me.” Truer words were never spoken.

Presidential Election 2012 – Florida Votes

 

CANDIDATE PARTY VOTES PCT.
Barack Obama (i) Dem 4,129,360 3.5%
Mitt Romney GOP 4,083,321 3.5%
Gary Johnson Lib 43,479 0.0%
Jill Stein Grn 8,676 0.0%
Roseanne Barr PFP 7,971 0.0%
Tom Stevens Obj 3,792 0.0%
Virgil Goode CST 2,527 0.0%
Rocky Anderson JP 1,712 0.0%
Tom Hoefling AIP 912 0.0%
Andre Barnett RP 790 0.0%
Stewart Alexander Soc 776 0.0%
Peta Lindsay PSL 314 0.0%

 

Chart courtesy of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

Finally, President Obama won the popular vote by 2,357,500 over Governor Romney. The Independent candidates took 1,781,825 popular votes. That leaves President Obama with a victory margin of 575,675 popular votes.

America is truly a divided nation. It does not get any closer than this.

RELATED COLUMNS:

The areas of Florida with the most libertarian influence for Gary Johnson

Did Third-Party Presidential Candidates Spoil Florida for Romney?

The Spoiler Effect – Wikipedia

BREAKING FROM FOX NEWS: Smoking Gun Benghazi Cable

/in , , /by

Catherine Herridge on Greta van Susteren 10/31/12 discussing classified diplomatic cable (dated 8/16/12, almost a month before Benghazi attack) obtained by Fox News.

“I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here… I can’t think of anything that would be more specific than if these groups had emailed the state department and said, ‘here’s the time, here’s the place, and here’s the method of the attack’… If you couple this with the statements that a videotape was somehow responsible, what you see is that is completely undercut… What I see is a growing body of evidence that the state department has culpability for the death of the Ambassador and those other three Americans.”

James Carafano at The Heritage Foundation asks five fundamental and serious questions about the Benghazi cable that was ignored by the Obama Administration. The cable concluded that the consulate could not withstand a “coordinated attack.” Further, the cable identified terrorist groups that were operating in the area. The existence of this document raises some serious questions:

1. Why was the cable kept secret for so long?
2. How could anyone rule out a terrorist attack?
3. Why didn’t the Administration provide any interim findings of their investigation into the Benghazi attack?
4. Why wasn’t a coordinated rapid response force ready to go?
5. How long do we have to wait to get answers to obvious questions?

RELATED COLUMN:

Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief