BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Abortion Buffer Zone Unconstitutional — Thomas More Law Center Welcomes Decision

/in , , , , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning released its unanimous decision in McCullen v Coakley ruling that the Massachusetts law which established 35- foot “buffer zones” around abortion clinics violates First Amendment free speech rights.  Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the court held that, “The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests.” Justice Scalia joined by justices Kennedy and Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.

buffer zone lead attorney

Lead Attorney Mark Rienzi, who successfully argued the case before the US Supreme Court stands with the lead plaintiff, Eleanor McCullen. [MassResistance photo]

Today’s court decision is welcome news for the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan which has a pending case in the Maine Federal District Court challenging the City of Portland, Maine’s ordinance that sets up a 39-foot buffer zone around that City’s  sole abortion facility.  Violation of the ordinance subjects the offenders to a minimum fine of $100 dollars.

Just a week ago, Thursday, June 19, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Torresen heard oral arguments from TMLC attorney Erin Kuenzig on a motion filed by TMLC seeking a preliminary injunction of the Portland Buffer Zone ordinance.   During Thursday’s arguments, Judge Torresen suggested that the outcome of the case as well as the motion for preliminary injunction likely hinged upon the Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen.

Responding to today’s Supreme Court decision in Coakley, Kuenzig commented, “This is a clear message to other states and municipalities that they may not take the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers simply because this extreme step would be easier than enforcing other less restrictive laws that already exist. The First Amendment deserves greater protection.”

Since November 18, 2013, when the Portland City Council enacted the 39-foot no-entry “buffer zone” around the abortion facility, pro-life sidewalk counseling has been effectively curtailed because pro-life advocates, including TMLC’s plaintiffs Leslie Sneddon and Marguerite Fitzgerald and her family, are forced to stand across the street from the abortion facility, separated from anyone entering the clinic by busy traffic.

Kuenzig continued, “With today’s Supreme Court decision, I am confident that Ms. Sneddon and the Fitzgeralds will soon be able to continue their loving message with information and counseling about abortion alternatives, without fear of being fined, to women who may be contemplating abortion.”

RELATED STORY: McCullen says clinic protests are about “surrounding women with love”

Cutoff All Foreign Aid to Countries Offloading their Poverty on U.S.!

/in , , , , , /by

Stop rewarding banana republics trying to convert us into their image and cutoff all aid. Here are five beginning steps to stopping the flow of illegals into the U.S.:

  1. Stop all aid and deny visas to any country that refuses to accept released criminal illegal aliens back into their country.
  2. Time for troops on the border and to make it a felony to enter the country illegally or overstay a visa.
  3. Pass HR 140 so one parent is required to be citizen for a child to become a U.S. Citizen.
  4. Mandate E-Verify so all workers are legal.
  5. Require proof of citizenship for any welfare, including education!

RELATED ARTICLE: Study: All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants

The Veterans Administration has never been run right

/in , , , , , /by

The massively expensive Veterans Administration (VA) is a perfect example of how the government is not able to efficiently perform private sector functions. The union based operations are and should be an embarrassment for anyone associated with them.

Senator Coburn yesterday released a report showing over 1,000 veterans died over a ten year period waiting for appointments and the VA paid out nearly a billion dollars in malpractice suits. Coburn also stated doctors at the VA hospitals only handle 1/6th the number of patients a private hospital does showing the union mentality is spread throughout the corrupt organization.

images-8There should be calls to disband the terrible government waste, fraud and abuse prevalent at the hospitals but Socialist Bernie Sanders says we need to increase the number of hospitals (another example of insanity by doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result) as if throwing more taxpayer money at a failed system will fix it.

The scary part is this is the service Obama and the other “progressives” (communists if you will) want eventually to force on all of us when Obamacare fails as is inevitable.

RELATED ARTICLE: Honolulu VA Still Worst in Nation–Wait Time 130 days

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Senator Coburn is courtesy of the Associated Press.

How Covering up Minority Crime Leads to Gun Control

/in , , , , , , /by

Commenting recently on the Elliot Rodger killings, arch-leftist Michael Moore wrote that while “other countries have more violent pasts…more guns per capita in their homes… and the kids in most other countries watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games that our kids play, no one even comes close to killing as many of its own citizens on a daily basis as we do….” From a man who used to take the simple-minded gun-control position “fewer guns=less homicide,” it was surprising evidence of growth. After making his point, however, Moore made a mistake in following up with, “and yet we don’t seem to want to ask ourselves this simple question: “Why us? What is it about US?” It’s not, however, that we don’t want to ask the question.

It’s that we don’t want to hear the answer.

We can begin seeking it by asking another question: Why is it that Vermont, with approximately the same rate of gun ownership as Louisiana, has less than one-eighth the murder rate? Even more strikingly, why does New Hampshire have both a far higher gun ownership rate and a lower murder rate than England, Piers Morgan’s favorite poster-boy nation for gun control?

Professor Thomas Sowell provided more of these seeming contradictions in 2012, writing:

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks.

… [There are also] countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

So what’s the answer we don’t want to hear? The critical difference among these regions and nations is explained right in Sowell’s title: it’s “not guns.”

“It’s people.”

What “people” differences are relevant? Let’s start with race and ethnicity. In the cases of homicide in 2012 in which the races of the perpetrators were known, 55 percent were committed by blacks, 62 percent of whom were under 30 years of age. Black youths are 16 percent of the youth population, but constitute 52 percent of those arrested for juvenile violent crime.

The statistics for Hispanics are more difficult to ferret out because, unbeknownst to many, law enforcement agencies tend to lump them in with whites in crime statistics (the FBI has announced that it will finally categorize Hispanic crime — in its report on 2013). However, there is some information available. Examiner’s Ken LaRive tells us that “Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites,” but that the disparity could be even greater because of their often being classified as white.

The National Youth Gang Survey Analysis reports that gang members are approximately 49 percent Hispanic, 35 percent black and 10 percent white. And while whites are 35 percent of NYC’s population, blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crime in the Big Apple and 98 percent of all gun crime.

Another good indicator is international crime statistics. Hispanic countries dominate the homicide-rate rankings, with Honduras topping the list with a rate eight times as high as that of our worst state,Louisiana. Also note that there are no European/European descent nations in the top 20 and not one Western-tradition nation in the top 30 (Russia and Moldova are 24 and 28, respectively).

And what can we say about these “people” differences? It’s much as with the question of why men are more likely to be drunkards than women. You could explore whether the differences were attributable to nature, nurture or both. But it would be silly to wonder if the answer lay in men having greater access to bars, alcohol or shot glasses.

This brings us to why covering up minority criminality encourages gun control:

Americans won’t understand that the critical factor is people differences if they aren’t told about the people differences.

They will then — especially since most citizens aren’t even aware that there are nations with more firearms but less murder — be much more likely to blame guns. Of course, this is precisely what you want if you’re a left-wing media propagandist.

There is a question that could now be posed by the other side: if the main difference in criminality is demographics, why not outlaw guns? After all, it won’t make a difference one way or the other, right? I’ll offer a couple of answers to this question.

First, for a people to maintain just liberties, a freedom must always be considered innocent until proven guilty; the burden of proof is not on those who would retain it, but on those who would take it away.

Second, while private gun ownership and just law enforcement can’t turn barbarians into civilized people any more than excellent schools can transform dunces into geniuses, they can act as mitigating factors that minimize criminality as much as possible given the “raw material” with which the particular society has to work. It’s much as how you can maximize your personal safety: you may be safer in a great neighborhood with no martial arts training than in a terrible one with that training. Nonetheless, it allows you to be safer than you would be otherwise whatever neighborhood you choose.

And what do the stats show in our fair to middling USA neighborhood? Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck reported that guns are used by good citizens 2.2 to 2.5 million times per year to deter crime. That likely saves many more innocent lives than are lost in massacres every year, but these unseen non-victims don’t make headlines the way Sandy Hook tragedies do. That’s why I like to say, using a twist on a Frédéric Bastiat line, a bad social analyst observes only what can be seen. A good social analyst observes what can be seen — and what must be foreseen.

Lastly, one more truth becomes evident upon recognizing that demographics are the main factor in criminality: even if you do believe in gun control, imposing it federally and applying a one-size fits all standard is ridiculous. In terms of people and crime, there’s a world of difference between towns in New Hampshire or Vermont, with their England-level murder rates, and cities such as East St. Louis, IL, or Detroit, which rival El Salvador in citizen lethality. You can make gun control the same everywhere, but you can’t change the fact that people will be very, very different.

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

Dr. Duke Pesta on the Shocking K-12 Common Core Sexual Education Standards

/in , , , , , , /by
dr duke pesta

Dr. Duke Pesta

If you have young children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, are an educator, are a therapist, are a religious leader, are an elected official of any party, or care about very young children getting an excellent education in grades K-12, you should take time to listen to the below videos by Dr. Duke Pesta.  Dr. Pesta’s discussion is about the indoctrination of students in the Common Core curriculum.  Common Core does not encourage students to read the greatest novels in history, it’s not about teaching students to think outside of the box, nor is it about teaching students to excel beyond the capability of their fellow students in their grade, and it is not about mentoring gifted students.

Common Core teaches students it is not fair for some students to highly achieve beyond the ability of their fellow students—it is about teaching students that everyone should achieve equally and collectively together, resulting in that students’ progress in learning at the lowest possible common denominator so no one is left behind.  Common Core is the plan by the federal government to take over the control of local school board’s education programs and what is taught in the local schools, it pushes an agenda controlled and tested by the Department of Health Education and Welfare and results in recording specific details on “each student’s” thinking, religious beliefs, patriotic beliefs, and family beliefs, in violation of privacy laws.

Common Core is much more than the new math. For quite some time, I seriously tried to understand the new math without success (my math skills are excellent, I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering, a Master’s Degree in Operation Research, and an MBA in Finance).  All my grades in math were always straight “A” as I excelled in math in grammar school, in high school, in college, and in graduate school.  Common Core math is the worst thing that has ever happened to the math curriculum in grammar schools in the nation; that terrible debilitating math curriculum has now been in the public schools for 2 years, and parents do not know how to help their children with the new math.

David Zimba who was responsible for developing the new math curriculum in Common Core, said Common Core math “will not” prepare students for college.  Common Core math is not about the right answer, it is about making the student comfortable with this new math—the teachers do not teach math any longer; the new math is programed and tested by Washington bureaucrats.  Students “do not” know how to add and subtract in the 4th grade.  The students are taught that they “must” agree collectively on an answer with the students in their new teaching group (they must be in learning groups and even must sit together—no longer are there individual desks), even if it is the answer is wrong it must be agreed to.   For instance, because the analytical mathematical thinking in students is not developed in students in early grades with this debilitating new math, algebra has been pushed into 9th grade, while the student is China, India, Europe, etc. begin algebra in the 5th grade—the Common Core curriculum is forcing students in the United States to be left in the dust bin of history, far behind students in countries with much higher math and science achievement records.  Please watch this short video with Dr. Pesta:

This opposition to Common Core is not political, it is not Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Conservative opposition; all members of the previous groups have been expressing very of serious opposition to Common Core, it is an American problem where we are all concerned about our young school children.  The most liberal teachers union in the nation, the NY States Teachers Union, and the most conservative organizations in Texas, Virginia, and in the nation oppose Common Core. None of the educators in any state, nor any of the famous educational organization, or varied groups of well-known educators who are experts in certain subjects being taught by Common Core, were involved in scientifically developing the curriculum, nor was the curriculum tested by trial and error to determine the best educational curriculums to be taught for grades K thru 12—only 5 people wrote the entire Common Core curriculum.

Common Core was developed by David Coleman, and four of his associates; the development was funded by Bill Gates who spent $2.5 billion to sell it.

Each state was provided with millions of dollars for their state education department, long before the curriculum was written, they received with the funds under the condition that they must incorporate Common Core into their educational system.  This Common Core curriculum has come about and has been driven by the Obama administration, and the Department of Health Education and Welfare who also is now controlling Common Core testing for each state.  The education of students should be controlled at the state and local levels, not by Washington bureaucrats.  Four states have opted out of Common core with 12 states developing initiatives to get out of Common Core, including New York.  Please click on the below listed link to view and listed to a child psychologist who explains how students are reacting to Common Core and have been hurt mentally by the curriculum; they are also self-hurting their bodies:

Common Core has eliminated the US history students once were taught in grammar and high schools.  Students once learned about the Pilgrims and how they came to the new world to seek religious freedom.  Students were once taught how the Founding Fathers religious beliefs provided the foundation on which the Republic was founded on.  Students were once taught the value of US Constitution, the Bill of Rights & the value of each Amendment, and the value of the rights of individual, and the importance of religious freedom.   They are no longer taught why the Revolutionary War was fought, the reasons for the Civil War, how the US saved the world by mobilizing to fight in WWI & WWII, how the US saved the South Korean democracy from Communism, and how the United States preserved the freedom of the people in Kuwait from the dictator, Hussein Saddam.  The students were once taught to study the background of each of the US Presidents and their achievements.  They are not taught about the dangers of Communism and its demise, or how Socialism has never worked in any country it was ever tried in for the last 150 years, etc.  All those teachings were eliminated by the 5 peoples who developed the Common Core curriculum to the detriment of our Republic.  Those teachings must be reinstated without exception.

Common Core is not only the development of national standards for math, English, biology, and science it also includes teaching shocking sexual education courses for students in grades, kindergarten thru 12.  What is taught includes teaching inappropriate sexuality skills, that shouldn’t even be taught in college. According to child psychologists, the children are not mentally equipped to understand the detailed sexual indoctrination starting in kindergarten, they are indoctrinated in sexual practices that they should never be exposed to.  Students are tested on their understanding of sex issues every year for the 12 years they are school, and the views for each student on sex issues are being tested, recorded, and retained by Washington bureaucrats.

There is a heavy socio political content of sex throughout Common Core curriculum being taught in every grade and in every subject, the student is taught that there is a sameness of gender, there is no longer simply boys and girls according to Common Core.  The sexual content of Common Core crosses into every curriculum taught, from teaching sexuality skills in sex education courses by specially skilled and trained sex education teachers.  Sexual activities and content in included in every subject taught.  Sex is taught in the English curriculum, is included in the language curriculum, sex is woven into the science curriculum, in the math curriculum, in the social studies curriculum, and of course in biology.

Since sex practices are included in every subject taught, parents will no longer be able to opt out of sex education being taught to their children in city schools, and by opting out assuming that only they would be able to teach their children sex education at home, and  in accordance with their personal and religious beliefs.  Children are taught holding hands, hugging, kissing, is the same as every other deviate sex acts—they are taught there is a sameness to “all” sex—there is no such thing as normal sex in Common Core, wide open sex of every weird type is taught to be acceptable in Common Core.  Pornography is no longer looked down upon in the Common Core curriculum. Very young students can’t even comprehend those teachings and understand that if someone does something to their little bodies, that they were told about in the Common Core sex curriculum, that it is wrong and shouldn’t be done to them.

The Core Curriculum states the students must be taught cooperative and active sex, working together in lab sessions with each other. Students can’t opt out on their own, because sex crosses into all the Common Core courses and all the testing—if they opt out they would fail the testing.  They are being taught by specially sex skilled teachers, and the students are tested on sexual skills and concepts being taught.  Every imaginable inappropriate sexual skill is being taught to students in kindergarten thru grade 12.  These inappropriate sexual skills are being driven into the Common Core curriculum and are being tested by the Department of Health Education and Welfare.

Teachers and parents will lose the ability to mentor the thousands of gifted children, that the nation used to develops each year, because Common Core dumbs down all students to the lowest leaning denominator.  Common Core is not good for the nation, for families, for children, for religious teachings, for colleges, for graduates schools, for research, for science, for States Rights, for teachers unions, and for the foundation upon which the Founding Fathers established the Republic.   The single biggest enemies of the Common Core curriculum are the Judeo Christian teachings student are taught at home, in their houses of worship, and in religious books (the Old Testament, the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc.).  Please watch to the below listed video with Dr. Pesta, although it is long it is an extremely important tape that is designed to save countless generations of students and the Republic, and should be listened to if you care about the education of future generations of young people.  Please pass this E-mail on to all Americans who care about the future education of our youth.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Common Core Pornography

People in Bradford arrested in historic child sex abuse investigation

RELATED VIDEOS: The sick pedophile agenda at the heart of ‘sex education.’ Discretion advised. Deeply disturbing.

Brilliant anti-Common Core Speech by Dr. Duke Pesta

The EPA: A Pattern of Waste, Fraud and Abuse

/in , , , , , , /by

epa-abuse-thmb1bA new website EPAAbuse.com has launched dedicated to exposing the “dictatorial” mandates of the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has morphed from a small government agency established by President Richard M. Nixon on December 4, 1970 designed to reduce air, water and solid waste pollution into a powerful tool used by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama to impose draconian political agendas in a the “quixotic” mission to control the earth’s climate.

The preferred tools are EPA rules and regulations. The EPA now can control entire industries including agriculture, energy, automotive, manufacturing and even public education in its efforts to control mankind in the name of saving the planet. It’s attempts have become so pervasive so as to impact every level of government, every business and the life of every American.

Every level of the federal government has been negatively impacted by the EPA’s effort to “go green”. From the US Navy’s requirement to purchase bio-diesel at a cost of $26 a gallon versus $3 for regular diesel fuel, to the US Army’s 15-year and $100 million dollar effort to take the lead out of bullets, making the bullets less accurate and lethal, to the Veterans Administration putting greater emphasis on “going green” than taking care of America’s wounded warriors and veterans.

The pattern is clear: “going green” has a higher priority than protecting this nation’s economy, individual property rights and American workers.

According to Paul Driessen from CFACT, “Last year [2013], Congress enacted 72 new laws; and federal agencies promulgated 3,659 new rules, imposing $1.86 trillion in annual regulatory compliance costs on American businesses and families. It’s hardly surprising that America’s economy shrank by 1% the first quarter of 2014, our labor participation rate is a miserable 63%, and real unemployment stands at 12-23% (and even worse for blacks and Hispanics).”

“Even worse, in the case of climate change, this process is buttressed by secrecy, highly questionable research, contrived peer reviews, outright dishonesty, and an absence of accountability… Mr. Obama and EPA chief Gina McCarthy are nevertheless determined to slash reliance on coal, even in 20 states that rely on this fuel for half to 95% of their electricity, potentially crippling their economies… The EPA also channels vast sums to its ‘independent’ Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which likewise rubberstamps the agency’s pollution claims and regulations: $180.8 million  to 15 CASAC members since 2000. Imagine the outrage and credibility gap if Big Oil gave that kind of money to scientists who question the ‘dangerous manmade climate change’ mantra,” notes Driessen.

Today EPA regulations directly impact every family, primarily in their pocket books. From filling up the family car’s gas tanks (ethanol), to their electric bill (war on coal) to purchasing commodities (restrictive land and water usage), every American family is increasingly feeling the pinch.

This short video of one family feeling the EPA pain, with little gain, is provided by EPAAbuse.com:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/aFUoHUKtJkc[/youtube]

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

  1. Supreme Court limits greenhouse gas regulations
  2. New EPA Regs Issued Under Obama Are 38 Times as Long as Bible
  3. Sky-high Electric Bills Courtesy of Obama EPA’s War on Coal
  4. EPA regulations will raise your electric bills, threaten the grid
  5. The War on Affordable Energy Claims More Victims
  6. EPA’s war on consumers, affordable electricity, and jobs
  7. Sen. Jon Tester’s War on Affordable Energy
  8. The scandal of fiddled global warming data: The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

RELATED VIDEO: Remember when the president said that under his plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket?” Well, that could soon become a reality.  Not only do we need to stop his scheme, we also need to maximize America’s energy abundance to help deliver more jobs, lower costs, and long-term stability.

The Obama Administration’s Growing Assault on Religious Liberty: Wake up Catholic Church!

/in , , , , , , /by

Hope all is well as we are two days away from the official start of summer…and, friends, it is getting hot as hell out here. And, if you think it’s hot now, wait until you see what the liberal Obama administration is fixing to do this up-coming week. As if the attack on our beloved Catholic Church on January 20th, 2012 with Sebelius and the H.H.S. Mandate wasn’t bad enough, wait till you see what “Mr. Executive Order” is setting up to do. And, mind you, the Holy Catholic Church did not do a damn thing back then to fight that unethical & immoral mandate that knocks the First Amendment out of the U.S. Constitution books, while crippling our religious freedoms to a complete standstill. Shame on Cardinal Dolan. Shame on the Catholic Church. Shame on the 51% of Catholics who voted for this egomaniac whose ego is almost as big as his ears.

I have written about this religious freedom fiasco way too many times and way too many times, nothing has been done. Running two “Fortnight for Freedoms” was like the captain of the Titanic asking his first mate to use a half gallon bucket to take some water out of their sinking ship. The state of our Catholic Church today does not look like the Catholic Church that I signed up for 56 years ago. The one that I did my Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation and Holy Matrimony at. The one that I love with my entire being and call “my home away from home”. This does not look like the Holy Church that is headquartered out of the Vatican in Rome. The one that Jesus built upon the rock of Peter. It almost feels like it is the Catholic Church that is being run up on the Hill at the liberal White House in Washington D.C. They have had a lot more input these past 5 & a half years than what is coming out of the Holy See in the Vatican…or the USCCB, which is just a few blocks away from the Obama mansion.

Come on now, let’s get serious for a minute here. As of today, only a measly “80” law suits have been filed against the Obama administration & the H.H.S. Mandate. “80” – not “8,000”!!! Like I have said from January 21st, 2012 up until yesterday – “The day that the the Vatican and the USCCB get enough guts and courage to stand up to this wanna-be dictator in our White House and order every single Catholic institution in our country to file a law suit against this administration & the H.H.S. that is making a complete mockery of the Holy Catholic Church – is the day that the Catholic Church will be the Church Triumphant”…Right now and for many decades to come, we will remain the Church Suffering…so, we better get used to it.

If the small but powerful Ave Maria University in tiny Immokalee, Florida can file a law suit – the rest of our Catholic institutions can. If the ever-Catholic Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio can do it – the rest of us can. It is beyond my comprehension that then-President of the USCCB, Cardinal Dolan, did not do anything to combat these intrinsic evils and at least, order every Catholic institution in the U.S. to file a law suit against the H.H.S. It is even more painful to see incoming President of the USCCB, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, clumsily take the baton from Cardinal Dolan…and let it hit the ground without even trying to pick it up. He fumbled it badly and now every Catholic in this country is paying a dear price for it. More than 30 pieces of silver. Beyond me, folks…Gutless. And, this is supposed to be the “Year of Boldness”.

In these first 6 months of our proclaimed “Year of Boldness”, I can count on one hand – actually, on one finger – how many times the leaders of our beloved Catholic Church have been bold. It’s more like “being told”instead of “being bold” – as in being told what to do by Sebelius, Pelosi, Obama, Biden, Reid and the rest of the cast of clowns. The Catholic Church is being told what to do every day of the year and not one of our church leaders has the guts to stand up to this unfair assault. A “live” Puppet show at the USCCB. The White House controls the strings. Beyond excruciating. And, now with this new Executive Order coming from King Kenya, the Catholic Church better brace itself and get ready to take it again on the backside one more time.

Executive Order Number what…Who can keep track? This nifty one coming from our avid golfer in the White House “bars federal contractors from discriminating against anyone on gender identity and/or sexual orientation”. Obama is moving on the issue a week after talking about the important role that administrative action can play in advancing LGBT rights. (I am not certain, but I think LGBT stands for Lesbian/Gay/ Bi-sexual & Trans-sexual) I cannot believe I even had to elaborate on this appalling type of lifestyle. I know it sounds a bit “queer”, but that is what this liberal socialist is pushing in “our” country and what the Holy Catholic Church is going to get hit once again with – like a ton of condoms.

 Yes, Obama’s team is gearing up to place unfair pressure on Catholic charitable social services to conform to its progressive & leftist agenda. Church services – like adoption agencies – will have to face a choice. Either conform to that agenda or shut their doors for the lack of federal financial support. The choices are bleak. The fault is our own. The Catholic Church should have never allowed herself to be put into this compromising position. Had we stood up “Two-Gether” as One Body in Christ back on January 20th, 2012, we would not be even talking about this issue and I would not be writing my fingers off this late at night.

We have two choices: Bow down to King Kenya and to all of his immoral and unconstitutional atrocities he has forced upon us, or stand up as One Body in Christ and fight it with all we have. Let’s see, on last count, there were about 68 million Catholics in this country. If an army this big – supposedly “Soldiers of Christ” – cannot defend our Catholic Church, our Catholic institutions and our religious freedoms – and we are not willing to take a bullet for our beloved Faith like in the movie “For Greater Glory” – then, we are not worthy to call ourselves Catholics, Christians or followers of Christ. It’s a slap in His face and a mockery to the One who died for us.

Thank GOD that Jesus is not coming down any time soon to see this debacle…then, again, He just may be coming before we even know it…and, he will be knocking over every damn tax collectors’ tables not only at the Temples but, also at the White House, Planned Parenthood, Bill & Melinda Gates’ offices and at every single place that attacks what He set out to do 2,000 years ago. He did not die in vain.

The H.H.S. Mandate, the countless Scandals, the skyrocketing Federal debt, the “Curse of Common Core”, the Promotion of  “same-sex marriage” and now yet, another powerful gutting of the First Amendment’s “Guarantee” of Religious Freedom being prepared for implementation by the fiat of Executive Order – the government is steadily crushing liberty.

action institute logo

Religious Liberty? Obama’s Not Done Yet

Elise Hiltonby ELISE HILTON on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2014

If you thought the Obama Administration had taken its final swipe at religious liberty with the HHS mandate, think again. At Catholic Vote, John flag broken cross jewish star gavelShimek tells us that there is a new attack on American’s religious liberty, and it won’t affect just Catholics.

According to Shimek, the social media website Buzzfeed announced that the White House is drafting an executive order that will bar federal contractors from discriminating against anyone based on gender identity and/or sexual orientation.

President Obama is moving on the issue a week after talking about the important role that administrative action can play in advancing LGBT rights.

At a question-and-answer session at the White House last week, Obama spoke about how transgender students can now “assert their rights” following recent Education Department action laying out an expanded view of sex discrimination protections under Title IX.

Shimek asks, “So what? What does this have to do with religious liberty?” As it turns out, quite a bit.

Fr. Thomas Reese claims that “Depending on what exemptions [the executive order provides], the new requirement may affect Catholic Relief Services, Catholic hospitals, Catholic education, and other Catholic charities that received Federal funds.”

Bottom line: The HHS Mandate hit health care workers and institutions. This new assault? Basically, it hits all the rest of the Church’s charitable social services. In other words, the Obama White House is casting the net of its progressive agenda much further and wider this time.

What practical impact could this executive order have? Picture this. A Catholic archdiocesan or diocesan adoption service, that needs federal monies in order to function, announces plans to place children in traditional families comprised of one father and one mother. Such a plan would violate the new executive order being drafted. What happens next? A phone call from the Feds? Burdensome fines? At this juncture, we don’t know. But, perhaps history is prologue.

Of course, Catholic social service agencies have closed their doors in several states, rather than violating Church teaching and being forced to place children with homosexual couples. Shimek says.

Obama’s team is gearing up to place pressure on Catholic charitable social services to conform to its progressive agenda. Church services – like adoption agencies – will have to face a choice: Either conform to that agenda or shut their doors for lack of federal financial support. The choices are bleak.

This is another case where the Obama Administration may “win,” but children and other vulnerable groups will lose – lose much-needed services, hope, and compassionate care from organizations with (in some cases) a century or more experience in delivery of care. Yet, Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work says that this move by the White House “is a tremendous step forward in the campaign to give LGBT Americans a fair shot to build a successful career being judged on their talent and hard work – nothing more and nothing less.” However, it’s clear that the administration is not interested in giving religious liberty any type of fair shot.

Read HHS Mandate was just the first step. Here comes a new attack on religious liberty at CatholicVote.org.

BREAKING NEWS: Louisiana Governor Jindal Drops Common Core

/in , , , , , /by

Jindal just finished a press conference.

His words, summarized:

PARCC selection did not comply with La state law requiring a bidding process– this voids PARCC agreement. Jindal has asked for a financial audit of PARCC spending and an open, competitive bidding process for assessment.

He said that suspending PARCC is what he was able to do immediately via executive order.

He also contacted NGA and CCSSO and terminated La’s memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Common COre (CCSS). He said when he signed on, he did not realize the federal control that CCSS would bring into the state.

He charged the La State Board of Ed (BESE) to produce state standards and state assessments. He wants BESE to work with legislature on this.

More to come.

UPDATE:

Details on La. Gov. Jindal’s Common Core and PARCC Exit

June 18, 2014

In a press release on June 18, 2014, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal made a number of statements regarding Louisiana’s participation in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the associated Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)– one of two assessment consortia (groups of states) connected to the CCSS.

Some have questioned whether Jindal is serious or just showcasing for the cameras.

He is serious.

Jindal Suspends PARCC

First, allow me to offer the text of the executive order that Jindal issued to the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) regarding the suspension of PARCC for the 2014-15 school year:

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. BJ 2014 – 6

BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION –

SUSPENSION OF STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

RULE REVISIONS

 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article IV, Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, as amended, and La. R.S. 49:970, the Governor may issue an executive order which suspends any rule or regulation adopted by a state department, agency, board or commission within thirty days of adoption; and

 WHEREAS, on February 20, 2014, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education published a notice of intent in the Louisiana Register of proposed revisions to Bulletin 118—Statewide Assessment Standards and Practices (LAC 28:CXI.113); and

 WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014,  the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education published a final notice in the Louisiana Register to adopt revisions to Bulletin 118—Statewide Assessment Standards and Practices (LAC 28:CXI.113); and

 WHEREAS, the revisions to Bulletin 118—Statewide Assessment Standards and Practices (LAC 28:CXI.113), broadly construed, inappropriately instructs the Louisiana Department of Education to purchase assessments in a method that may not be compliant with Louisiana law, while also appropriately allowing the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to authorize  paper assessments in the 2014 – 2015 school year.

 NOW THEREFORE, I, BOBBY JINDAL, Governor of the State of Louisiana, by virtue of the authority vested by the Constitution and laws of the State of Louisiana, do hereby order and direct as follows:

 SECTION 1:  The revisions to Bulletin 118—Statewide Assessment Standards and Practices (LAC 28:CXI.113), published as a final notice on May 20, 2014, are hereby suspended.

 SECTION 2:   The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is authorized and directed to implement a process to authorize paper assessments in the 2014-2015 school year.

 SECTION 3:   The Louisiana Department of Education, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and any other departments, commissions, boards, offices, entities, agencies, and officers of the State of Louisiana, or any political subdivision thereof, are authorized and directed to comply with the suspension of the revisions to LAC 28:CXI.113 of this Order.

 SECTION 4:   This Order is effective upon signature and shall remain in effect unless amended, modified, terminated, or rescinded.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand officially and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of Louisiana, at the Capitol, in the city of Baton Rouge, on this 18th day of June, 2014.

 /s/ Bobby Jindal______________

GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA

ATTEST BY

THE GOVERNOR

 /s/ Tom Schedler__________

SECRETARY OF STATE

[Emphasis added.]

Almost immediately, Louisiana State Superintendent John White issued his own press release stating that Louisiana would continue with CCSS and PARCC as planned. However, he hasn’t the legal backing to support this assertion.

Jindal’s suspension of PARCC occurred within thirty days of May 20, 2014– with one day to spare.

So, that takes care of one issue– suspension of PARCC.

Jindal pulled the funding for PARCC (first payment due August 31,2014). Apparently, White used the same contract for PARCC as was used for the iLEAP test in 2003. Suspicious.

Note also that on April 8, 2014, White told the Louisiana House Appropriations Committee that the PARCC MOU (memorandum of understanding) committed Louisiana to the design and development phase of PARCC– not to purchasing PARCC. (See partial transcript of the April 8 meeting here.)

White has produced no contract for Louisiana to purchase PARCC– which means that the BESE decision to adopt PARCC on May 20, 2014, is the only formal action taken to tie Louisiana to using PARCC.

And Jindal suspended that action, effective June 18, 2014.

Jindal is approving the paper assessments that BESE planned– which means districts are relieved of the stress (financial and otherwise) of offering computerized assessments in 2014-15.

Jindal Orders Competitive Bidding on Louisiana Assessments and Audit on PARCC Spending

A second executive order issued by Jindal orders BESE to conduct a bidding process for Louisiana assessments in accordance with Louisiana state law:

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. BJ 2014 – 7

STATE PROCUREMENT OF ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS

 WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 expresses the prohibition that “the funds, credit, property, or things of value of the state or of any political subdivision shall not be loaned, pledged, or donated to or for any person, association, or corporation, public or private.”;

 WHEREAS, elements of this constitutional prohibition reveal themselves in statutory mandates that public bodies conduct competitive procurement processes designed to promote public confidence in the cost and quality of goods, ensure transparency by requiring public notice, and safeguard the important public policy that public funds – always derived from taxpayers – be spent wisely;

WHEREAS, the Department of Education and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education are each subject to the Louisiana Procurement Code (La. R.S. 39:1551, et seq.), the laws on Professional, Personal, Consulting, and Social Services Contracts (La. R.S. 39:1481, et seq.), and other laws applicable to procurement by public bodies;

WHEREAS, the Department of Education and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education joined the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (“PARCC”) and committed to purchase PARCC’s assessment product before the product was even developed and to utilize its Common Core aligned assessment product and adopt them into its accountability and teacher evaluation systems, without giving due consideration to the development of other comparable assessment products and thereby failing to undertake a transparent, competitive process;

WHEREAS, pursuant to La. R.S. 39:1708, the Department of Education and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education are prohibited from entering into a cooperative purchasing agreement for the purpose of circumventing the laws governing procurement;

 WHEREAS, participation in PARCC does not exempt the Department of Education or the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education from following other Louisiana laws, promulgated rules, or Executive Orders applicable to the procurement of goods and services by purchase, contract, or by cooperative endeavor;

 WHEREAS, the chief procurement officer of the state has authority, pursuant to La. R.S. 39:1597, to determine that only one source is available to provide a required item. However, the determination that PARCC is the sole source of assessment products appears to be precluded in this case, as there are a number of potential competitors with assessment products available for review and comparison, making the use of a transparent, competitive process possible;

 WHEREAS, Louisiana Revised Statute 39:1497 requires that the director of the office of contractual review determine that all professional, personal, consulting, or social services have complied with the procedures set forth in La. R.S. 39:1481, et seq.;

WHEREAS, in accordance with La. R.S. 39:1596, Executive Order BJ 2010-16 establishes procedures for the procurement of small purchases not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) as exempt from the competitive sealed bidding requirements of the Louisiana Procurement Code, with purchases exceeding that amount requiring competitive sealed bidding and adequate prior notice;

 WHEREAS, the Legislature, during the 2014 Regular Session, has appropriated approximately $20,000,000 for the Department of Education to purchase these assessments for the 2014-2015 fiscal year commencing on July 1, 2014, and the expenditure of such a large amount of taxpayer-funded public funds clearly carries with it the responsibility that a transparent and competitive process be utilized.

 NOW THEREFORE, I, BOBBY JINDAL, Governor of the State of Louisiana, by virtue of the authority vested by the Constitution and laws of the State of Louisiana, do hereby order and direct as follows:

 SECTION 1:  The Department of Education and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education are directed to undertake a transparent, competitive procurement process in accordance with Louisiana law to obtain academic assessments for Louisiana’s schoolchildren.

 SECTION 2:  The Division of Administration is directed to conduct a comprehensive accounting of all Louisiana expenditures and resources related to PARCC, what services and products have been received in return for such expenditures, and copies of all contracts or other agreements in place or in negotiation for the purchase of an assessment.  The Division of Administration is further directed to ensure the Department of Education and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education’s compliance with Louisiana law in the procurement of academic assessments for the 2014-2015 school year and subsequent years.

 SECTION 3:  All departments, commissions, boards, agencies, and officers of the state of Louisiana, or any political subdivision thereof, are authorized and directed to cooperate in implementing the provisions of this Order.

 SECTION 4:  This Order is effective upon signature and shall continue in effect until amended, modified, terminated, or rescinded by the governor, or terminated by operation of law.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand officially and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of Louisiana, at the Capitol, in the city of Baton Rouge, on this 18th day of June, 2014.

 /s/ Bobby Jindal______________

GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA

 ATTEST BY

THE GOVERNOR

 /s/ Tom Schedler_________

SECRETARY OF STATE

[Emphasis added.]

The second executive order above poses two issues for White: First, he must produce that PARCC MOU for PARCC purchase that he told the House Appropriations Committee doesn’t exist. (Either he secretly signed an agreement that he is not willing to publicize– which was the case with with inBloom– or he has no contract to tie Louisiana to purchasing PARCC.

Another issue is that White’s PARCC spending will be audited. On April 8, 2014, White told the House Appropriations Committee that the state education budget was $55 million short. It is time for White to produce a detailed accounting of his LDOE spending. Starting with PARCC is just fine.

Jindal Tells PARCC Consortium Louisiana is Out of PARCC and CCSS

The third and final document I will reproduce here is Jindal’s letter to the PARCC consortium. In it, he notes that he has contacted CCSS “owners,” the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CSSO) that he has withdrawn Louisiana from CCSS:

June 18, 2014

Dear Commissioner Chester,

 This letter is to request that the Partnership of Assessments for College and Career Readiness (PARCC) immediately withdraw from the State of Louisiana.The State of Louisiana is no longer committed to implementing the PARCC assessment in the 2014-15 school year, rendering it unable to comply with the terms of the June 2010 Memorandum of Understanding between the State and PARCC. In addition, several changes have occurredsince the MOU was signed that make Louisiana’s membership in conflict with Louisiana law.

 First, PARCC’s Cooperative Agreement with the United States Department of Education (USDOE) includes terms that would remove Louisiana’s control over its assessments, and thereby its curriculum and pedagogy. While PARCC has assured states that curriculum is a local matter, the reality is what is assessed is what is taught and PARCC has a funding agreement with USDOE for $186 million. Laws enacted during the 2014 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature specifically authorize local education agencies to develop curriculum, content and methodology in lieu of any curriculum developed by the state board and prohibit the sharing of identifiable student information.

Second, there are several other vendors who have entered the market and who are now offering comparable assessment products at potentially lower cost and with greater input from, and accountability to, the individual states who hired them. Louisiana law requires the state to choose the lowest cost responsive bidder and to maintain control of the contract through which state taxpayer dollars will be expended. Neither of these criteria is met under the contracting arrangement of PARCC through a Fiscal Agent and/or Lead Procurement State.

 Third, several of the RFPs (requests for proposal) issued on behalf of PARCC were done so by other states, without the opportunity for Louisiana to ensure that these processes were handled in a method that complies with Louisiana’s competitive bid law. Louisiana’s MOU with PARCC and PARCC’s Cooperation Agreement with USDOE require PARCC to utilize competitive bid processes that comply with the laws of each member state and federal law.

Fourth, strict compliance with the MOU will prevent Louisiana from observing its competitive bid law for the procurement of the assessment itself. Louisiana law prohibits public procurement units from entering into cooperative purchasing agreements “for the purpose of circumventing” the Procurement Code (La. R.S. 39:1708). The MOU states specifically that each Governing State must agree to use the PARCC tests and to adopt them into its accountability and teacher evaluation systems, which is against Louisiana law if done without a competitive process. Louisiana cannot be a member of a cooperative purchasing agreement that requires, as a condition of membership, it buy the agreement’s product, especially before the product was even developed, and at an unknown cost at the time of execution.

Therefore, I have taken the following actions to ensure that Louisiana maintains control of its assessments and complies with its own laws:

 1. I have issued an executive order that instructs the Louisiana Department of Education to conduct a competitive process to purchase a new assessment and which prohibits the expenditure of funds on cooperative group purchasing organizations and interstate agreements.

 2. I have suspended the rules adopted by the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education from May 2014 to ensure that the Louisiana Department of Education is able to comply with Louisiana competitive bid law;

 3. I have instructed the Louisiana Division of Administration to conduct a comprehensive accounting of all Louisiana expenditures and resources on PARCC, what services or products have been received in return for such expenditures, and copies of all contracts in place or in negotiation for the purchase of an assessment.

4. I have issued a Request for Information to PARCC requesting information about the procurement processes utilized by the consortium, by the Fiscal Agent state, and by the Lead Procurement State to ensure that these processes complied with Louisiana law.

 5. I have notified the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governor’s Association (NGA) of Louisiana’s termination of participation in the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

I will pursue cancellation of this MOU through all means necessary.

Sincerely,

Bobby Jindal

Governor

[Emphasis added.]

The curiosity here is that Jindal refers to a PARCC MOU signed in 2010 and that obligates Louisiana to purchase PARCC. Within his first month as state superintendent, White signed the PARCC MOU in place of outgoing superintendent Pastorek. However, we’re back to the issue of whether or not the PARCC MOU was an agreement to pilot or to purchase PARCC. However, Jindal has stated that he removed Louisiana from CCSS, and PARCC is tied to CCSS. Also, Jindal notes that in the competitive bidding process for assessments’ he is restricting the search to assessment companies not associated with consortia.

Closing Thoughts

So, what we have is Jindal serious about removing Louisiana from both CCSS and PARCC and White stating that Louisiana will remain in both CCSS and PARCC.

Which is it?

It appears that Jindal has solid legal footing for nixing PARCC assessments in Louisiana. I also think White is in a corner with both having to produce a PARCC MOU requiring purchase of PARCC (which he told the House Appropriations is not the case) and, especially, White’s being audited over PARCC spending.

As for canceling CCSS, Jindal is the only remaining signator on the CCSS MOU signed with NGA and CCSSO (Pastorek was the other signator). So, it seems that Jindal can remove us from CCSS. BESE did vote to approve CCSS in 2010. And that leads to another interesting situation:

BESE is in the middle of this “Jindal vs. White” altercation.

BESE President Chas Roemer supports White, and the majority of the eleven BESE members have supported CCSS. However, that majority is as shaky as it has been since the last BESE election over two years ago. Jindal has three appointees on the BESE board; two have supported CCSS, and Jindal could ask them to resign (he can’t require it). Given recent developments, we’ll see which way those two Jindal appointees supporting CCSS will go. One of his appointees, Jane Smith, is opposed to CCSS. Also on the BESE board are Lottie Beebe and Carolyn Hill, both against CCSS. And there is Walter Lee, indicted in January 2014 on felony theft and other charges and who is known to be unpredictable in his BESE positions.

In short, it is possible that a BESE majority could vote out CCSS– or even White.

In a twist, former state superintendent Paul Pastorek has decided to return to Louisiana ostensibly to start an education company. However, the timing is suspicious. Pastorek is a CCSS supporter (he and Jindal signed Louisiana on for CCSS in May 2009) and a Jeb Bush Chief for Change.

It is possible that Pastorek has returned to be the backup plan for White’s departure for those wishing to keep CCSS.

Keep in mind that business and industry are pushing for CCSS. So are scores of organizations that have received CCSS funding from the Gates Foundation. So, the pressure will continue to be on Jindal–and of course, it will also come from US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

The entire nation is watching Louisiana.

It promises to be an interesting summer– especially for curriculum and assessment directors statewide.

RELATED ARTICLE: Governors of Louisiana and Mississippi Reject Common Core

Finance for the People: Peer-to-peer finance is democratizing access to capital by Iain Murray

/in , , , , /by

Financial innovation: People like to talk a lot about it these days. But what is it? If you read the business press, it’s all about “high frequency trading” and “dark pools,” shadowy new entities few understand and even fewer know how to manipulate.

But never mind the scaremongering. The world—especially the United States—stands on the brink of a new era of democratization of finance, as technology expands access to capital to ever more of us. We could all be capitalists—if the regulators allow it.

Here’s an example. When I was between jobs a little over 10 years ago, I and a couple of like-minded souls had an idea for a new non-profit enterprise. The trouble is that the idea was so esoteric that it was exceedingly difficult to find seed funders (except for one who would match us a modest amount for funds we raised independently). A bank loan would have been difficult given our situations and our lack of track record.

Thankfully, we knew an excellent Web designer who agreed to provide us with a good-looking online portal to showcase our ideas and help us raise funds. The problem was that we needed to accept credit cards. It took us months to find a financial institution that would provide us with merchant account services. By that time, most of us had moved on and had no time to devote to the site. Things fell apart quickly, our little enterprise doomed by its inability to raise funds.

What a long way we’ve come. Today, you can get access to merchant services easily through services like Charge.com and payment capability through companies like Authorize.net. There are many payment processors like First Data that can handle the credit card processing.

Crowdfunding platforms allow people to run a creative idea up the flagpole and see who salutes. as it were, and they provide a great way of raising the funds to get a project off the ground. Many people are familiar with Kickstarter and Indiegogo, and there are platforms specializing in non-profit fundraising, like SimplyRaise.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) lending services like Lending Club match up people who need money with people who are prepared to lend it to them. No more meetings with a stern bank manager.

The best thing about these services is that you don’t need vast amounts of capital or a long track record to use them. The P2P platform CommonBond even enables students to pay off their student loans more easily than the official way of doing so (and thus provided a model that President Obama ignored in his recent action on student loans).

The trouble is that these innovations are now attracting the attention of regulators. The Department of Justice is targeting payment processors in a regulatory crackdown known as Operation Choke Point, on the supposed justification that they have been used by unscrupulous merchants to channel funds defrauded from victims. As a result, banks are dropping relationships with payment processors in order to avoid the extra expense that increased regulatory supervision brings. This will make payment processing more expensive, harder to obtain, or both.

Congress allowed the creation of equity crowd funding platforms that allow investing in a new venture when it passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in 2012. However, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has adopted a narrow interpretation of the act. Under the SEC’s interpretation, “accredited investors” can buy a piece of a company through crowd funding, but for the rest of us it’s going to be difficult. Worse, companies will find using this financing route difficult, given the likely reporting requirements.

This regulation seems strange considering that one can buy an entire company on eBay, but not a part of one through a portal.

So the biggest obstacle to the democratization of finance at the moment is the regulatory agencies trying to protect people from using their own money to help start a business.

Thankfully, innovators have a very good track record at staying a step ahead of the regulators. And while the regulators are playing catch-up, yet more financial innovation will come into play to change the world.

And how it’s changed! Perhaps I should get the band back together and fund that enterprise through one of these new innovative services.

Remember, Google was founded on maxed out credit cards.

ABOUT IAIN MURRAY

Iain Murray is vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Virtual Worlds, Real Economics by Matthew McCaffrey

/in , , , , /by

Video games rot your brain and teach you econ.

Video games are playing an increasingly large role in pop culture. Whether you play or believe they are art, gaming will no doubt continue to be a major player in the entertainment industry. More importantly, libertarian ideas seem to be popping up everywhere in gaming. Criticism of government is on the rise, for example, and there is new emphasis on the importance of free thought and action.

To cite just two examples, Bioshock Infinite criticizes militarism and jingoism, while Assassin’s Creed 4: Black Flag is largely a celebration of pirate anarchy. Astute gamers may even notice that an animator forGears of War 3 put Mises’s motto, Tu ne cede malis (“Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it”) in the game’s credits sequence.

This is all good news not only for libertarian ideas generally, but also for economic education. Gaming culture is a vibrant new arena of action where sound economic ideas have a real chance to take hold. There is already discussion about how in-game economies emerge and evolve—particularly how they deal with money and inflation. But games incorporate economics at even more basic levels. Indeed, gamers are already using the economic way of thinking without even knowing it. Games are all about basic economic concepts: scarcity, choice, trade-offs, opportunity cost, trade, and entrepreneurship. If we think of games like this, we see how their virtual realities imitate real-world economic decisions.

For instance, essentially all resources in the gaming world are scarce—that’s where the challenge comes from. If resources or experience points or time were unlimited, there wouldn’t be much of a game to play. But because gamers routinely face these kinds of scarcity, they are already familiar with the limitations they impose and have taken a first step toward economic understanding.

Scarcity means we have to make choices, and in this area games are pushing boundaries. Improved production values in the gaming industry have increased the immersive qualities of gameplay, to be sure. But it’s the economic simulations that make the experiences so real. Consider games like The Walking Dead, which takes scarcity to an extreme by using the zombie apocalypse as a backdrop. Instead of combat, The Walking Dead game centers on difficult economic decisions, like how to ration dwindling food supplies among survivors. Players become emotionally involved in the story by confronting scarcity and tough choices every step of the way.

Players’ decisions in turn imply trade-offs and opportunity costs. Anyone who has ever played a role-playing game (RPG) knows this territory well; choosing to allocate money or experience to a certain skillset means forgoing other skills. And it’s a short step from there to realizing that the true cost of skills is not the resources you spend to obtain them, but the alternative abilities you could have acquired.

Because players have different opportunity costs, not everyone is equally suited to all tasks: Enter the importance of specialization and social cooperation. Cooperation on a grand scale features in many massively multiplayer online RPGs such as World of Warcraft and EVE Online, where the most important quests can only be completed if a large number of diverse character types work together. Each member of the party specializes in enhancing the strengths or offsetting the weaknesses of the others, producing intricate networks of interdependence.

Trade is another vital form of social cooperation, and through the interactions of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of players, MMORPGs rapidly develop complex systems of barter and monetary exchange. The teaching moment comes when players get to experience the benefits of the division of labor; even better, the benefits of specialization and trade are more obvious than in some ordinary market exchanges, where economic logic might seem too abstract.

Lastly, gaming showcases some of the best of the entrepreneurial spirit. Being a gamer is about crafting and controlling virtual worlds while at the same time learning to think creatively to overcome obstacles. Entrepreneurs do the same thing when they control productive resources in the constant drive to satisfy consumers. It’s not a surprise then that the gaming industry is growing and innovating in ways similar to Silicon Valley and other focal points of entrepreneurial energy; the two go hand in hand.

The idea that gaming conventions are reflections of economic principles is just one example of the many opportunities for economic teaching presented by the mass appeal of gaming. We’re bound to see more as the industry continues to thrive, so let’s be ready to show gamers that the experience they crave is not just good fun, but good economics.

ABOUT MATTHEW MCCAFFREY

Matthew McCaffrey teaches economics as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Liberal Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield, and is editor of Libertarian Papers.

The new anti-home school attack is use of “Badman Rules”

/in , , , , /by

The Badman Rules are intended to give government agents control over homeschooling families. Will Americans fight for the well being of our children?

The goal of the progressive left is to dominate the training of every youngster in America.  Home School families are being targeted once again and I say we should all stand up for home school freedom.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/umhESpSVlxk[/youtube]

EPA Pumps Up Benefits of Proposed Carbon Regulation

/in , , , , , , /by

EPA argues that its proposed carbon regulations on existing power plants will offer $30 billion in climate benefits by 2030 with only $7.3 billion in costs. Sounds like a great deal, right? Not so fast.

A Brookings Institution white paper finds that EPA pumped up that number by including global climate benefits. If the agency took the standard approach and only examined the costs and benefits to those in the United States—who will feel its full brunt —then the climate benefits from the proposed rule would fall to as little as 7% of what EPA estimates, much less than the proposed regulation’s costs.

Authors Ted Gayer, Vice President and Director, Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and Kip Viscusi, law professor at Vanderbilt University, explain that a basic component to cost-benefit analysis is looking at the appropriate population:

The pertinent populations that are attributed standing in a benefit-cost analysis should correspond to the political jurisdiction that is bearing the cost.

For example, when analyzing a new Wisconsin milk regulation, one should include the regulation’s effects on Wisconsin farmers and milk drinkers and not on those living in Florida.

Likewise, the cost-benefit analysis of EPA’s proposed carbon should be limited to the United States, but that’s not what EPA is doing. Gayer and Viscusi write [emphasis mine]:

The recent governmental analyses of the benefits associated with reduction of [greenhouse gas] emissions represent a rare instance in which U.S. regulatory impact analyses have used a worldwide benefits reference point rather than a U.S. reference point.

The only other time the authors could find an instance of this was in 1980 involving a uranium regulation.

Why is EPA doing this? Because it’ll make the proposed rule more politically palatable, write Gayer and Viscusi:

[I]mposing a global perspective on benefits will increase the apparent desirability of the policy but will overstate the actual benefits to the American people.

However, EPA’s use of global benefits as the justification for the proposed carbon rule crosses Presidential Executive Orders that state that cost-benefit analyses should be limited to the effects on the American public. For instance, President Clinton’s Executive Order 12866 reads: [emphasis mine]

The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society…

President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 is along those same lines: [emphasis mine]:

Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.

In addition, guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) advises regulators that

Your analysis should focus on benefits and costs that accrue to citizens and residents of the United States. Where you choose to evaluate a regulation that is likely to have effects beyond the borders of the United States, these effects should be reported separately.

The U.S. Chamber and several other trade associations have been arguing this exact point. “Consistent with OMB guidance, the costs of a rule for entities in the United States should be presented in comparison with the benefits occurring in the United States,” states a comment to OMB on the administration’s social cost of carbon estimates.

Gayer and Viscusi go on to write, “If one were to focus on the domestic benefits rather than the worldwide benefits, the [greenhouse gas] benefit component would sometimes be extremely small.”

How small? The Obama Administration estimates that most of the climate benefits of reducing carbon emissions would be outside the United States. “Only 7 to 23 percent of these benefits would be domestic benefits,” write Gayer and Viscusi. This means that “the domestic benefits amount [of the proposed carbon rule] is only $2.1 billion-$6.9 billion, which is less than the estimated compliance costs for the rule of $7.3 billion.”

EPA should be honest with the American people. Based on its own estimates, the costs of the proposed carbon rule–job losses, higher electricity costs, and a less-reliable electrical grid–outweigh its domestic climate benefits. The proposed rule is bad enough, but the misleading way EPA is justifying it is just as bad.

UPDATE: Michael Bastasch at the Daily Caller News Foundation pulled out a few more interesting quotes from the paper:

“If global consequences are permitted to govern the terms of the benefit-cost analysis, then the selection of policy initiatives likewise should be governed by global considerations, subject to compliance with U.S. law,” argue Gayer and Viscusi.

“Whether it makes sense to routinely expand the scope of the assessed policy impacts beyond the citizenry of the nation bearing the costs is highly problematic,” the authors write. “What is clear at this juncture is that the recent expansion of [greenhouse gas] benefit assessments to include global impacts merits much more scrutiny and justification than it has received to date.”

Follow Sean Hackbarth on Twitter at @seanhackbarth and the U.S. Chamber at @uschamber.

RELATED ARTICLE: Begich Earmarked Millions for Bankrupt Green Energy Company

RELATED VIDEO: 

[youtube]http://youtu.be/CpJhJW0rvbg[/youtube]

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is courtesy of photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.

Dear Members of Congress: Why do you only mention the 1986 Amnesty?

/in , , , , , /by

The amnesty of 1986 was supposed to be a “one time only” amnesty. Yet since 1986 through 2000, Congress passed a total of seven (7) amnesties or adjustments for illegal aliens:

1. The Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty of 1986 – the “one-time only” blanket amnesty for some 2.8 million illegal aliens.
2. Section 245(i) The Amnesty of 1994 – a temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
3. Section 245(i) The Extension Amnesty of 1997 – an extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994.
4. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty of 1997 – an amnesty for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.
5. The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA) of 1998 – an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
6. The Late Amnesty of 2000 – an amnesty for approximately 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty.
7. The LIFE Act Amnesty of 2000 – a reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty to an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens.

An amnesty is a reward to those breaking the law. Issuing an amnesty to illegal aliens only encourages more illegal immigration into the United States.

An amnesty benefits neither our society nor those being amnestied.

An Immigration and Naturalization Service study found that after living in the United States for 10 years, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and earned less than $9,000 a year.

By enacting an amnesty, Congress places a staggering financial burden on American taxpayers to support those amnestied.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Opens Borders to Mexican Gang Members
AZ threatens legal action on Fed’s immigrant dumping…
Teenage Latin Horde…
Obama Admin Forbids Lawmakers From Taking Photos Of Facility…

Review of Glenn Beck and Kyle Olson’s “Conform: Exposing the Truth about Common Core and Public Education”

/in , , , , /by

HOW TO BREAK THE STRANGLEHOLD

  • Conform: Exposing the Truth about Common Core and Public Education By Glenn Beck with Kyle Olson
  • Simon & Schuster, New York, 2014
  • PB, 258 pages, US$14.99
  • 978-1-1-4767-7388-9
  • Reviewed by Mary Grabar | May 29, 2014

How many ways are there to beat the teachers unions? Not teachers, but the ideological union leaders who drive the agenda for self-profit and power. That is the central question in Conform by Glenn Beck and Kyle Olson.

As public sector unions and teachers unions began expanding rapidly in the 1960s (today the largest union in the country is the National Education Association), they abandoned their concerns for students, parents, and their local communities. Since then, our education schools have become training centers for social activists who call themselves teachers but are versed better in race, class, gender, and social justice than they are in the subjects they should be teaching. We have a top-heavy public school system that is more expensive than ever. Teachers who are incompetent or abusive are almost impossible to fire. Pay and job security are based not on performance but seniority. Education schools fail to attract the best candidates. Beck and Olson cite studies by McKinsey and the Department of Education that show that teacher candidates come from the bottom two-thirds of academic classes and have mean SAT scores significantly lower than for all college freshmen. Those who are at the low end of this spectrum then teach in high-poverty schools.

As a result, our schools are producing drop-outs or graduates with poor math and writing skills, and lacking knowledge in literature, history, and science.

Beck and Olson provide a quick guide through the history of the rise of the modern bureaucratic, progressive education behemoth that brought us to this nearly hopeless place.

In Part One of the book, Beck and Olson systematically and concisely debunk 27 myths about public education, such as “Teachers’ Unions Put Kids First,” “Common Core Is ‘State-Led,’” and “Home-schoolers Are Academically Inferior to Public School Students.” They put the misnamed “Common Core State Standards” in the context of a progressive transformation of education, going back to John Dewey, who then influenced such radical educators as Weatherman/domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. Presidents Johnson and Carter empowered the subversive educators. Under Obama’s presidency Common Core has become a means by which the federal government imposes these progressive pedagogies on states, collects personal student data, and replaces local governance with federal diktats. We have “de facto nationalization,” with the U.S. Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, an “advocate of the school taking over as de facto parents” as he promotes year-round, all day schools.

This domination is enabled by the alliance of the teachers unions with the Democratic Party. As students have fallen farther behind, unions have negotiated for themselves in some districts such things as plastic surgery as part of their health plans. The unions are among the biggest contributors to Democratic politicians who in turn work to keep them in power. “Teachers’ union officials are the ultimate political animals,” Beck and Olson write: “The NEA and AFT doled out a combined $19.4 million to the Democratic Party, its candidates, and allies, in 2012. In addition, they regularly deliver thousands of volunteers and votes to their anointed candidates at every level of government, and they can always be counted on to lob verbal bombs at Republicans.”

How to break the stranglehold? Provide alternatives. Beck and Olson offer them in the form of charter schools and home schools. They show why and how teachers unions resist such efforts, but also show how to debunk their talking points. For example, in Chapter 25, “School Choice Takes Money Away from Government Schools,” they use the analogy of a cable company that offers better service, more channels, and better reception. It would seem that educators would rise to the challenge such competition offers. Instead, they claim that charter schools, private school vouchers, and home schools draw away the students with motivated parents, leaving them with poorly performing, disadvantaged children.

Yet, Beck and Olson provide evidence that poor, inner-city children benefit from charter schools. Perhaps the most famous case is the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, so popular it was not able to meet demand. It was closed down by the Obama administration despite loud public outcry. The authors refute claims by Department of Education evaluations and present parts of the Department’s same, and other studies, that show that voucher school students were graduating and going to college at a higher rate than their counterparts. Parental satisfaction was extremely high. Another study quoted in a Huffington Post story showed that minority students especially benefited from charter schools.

The demand for better schools and more choices crosses party lines. But it’s the “controllists” who, against evidence, put the dampers on having options available.

Yet, Beck and Olson are careful to distinguish the “system” from those who are forced to work within it: the teachers who truly care and who resent being forced to pay union dues for such politicians and causes. “The problem is not the teachers; it’s the system they’ve been put into,” they write. (The title of Chapter 2 is the myth, “Critics of the System Are Just ‘Teacher Bashers.’”)

The huge education bureaucracy may make the challenge of taking back our schools seem impossible. The bureaucracy is so huge that we need to be creative.

Part Two of the book offers suggestions, such as education savings accounts (with examples from some states), restoring power to school boards (as they did in Douglas County, Colorado), using the political process (the reforms of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker), using technology (virtual charter schools), and home schools. They also suggest requiring that future teachers major in something other than education. (Education majors usually have a less rigorous course of study in the subjects they teach than do regular majors.) They encourage parents to become involved and aware of political strategies such as relabeling Common Core, run for school board, support candidates, and volunteer for their district’s curriculum committee.

The most important message is that citizens need to retake control. (This heightened awareness has been one of the few positive benefits of Common Core.) Part of that awareness, I would add, should also be about potential dangers, such as bad charter schools (some are run by radicals or foreign entities, like Gulen). Large corporations and any other entity running schools require scrutiny as well.

Conform provides a great overview and starting place for anyone who wonders how our public school system came to this point and where to begin to retake control.

RELATED VIDEO:

Glenn Beck announced a “call to action” that will take place on July 22, which he said will arm Americans with the knowledge to speak out against Common Core education standards.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/_0DD3NXsrU4[/youtube]

BREAKING: Homeland Security Police Caught Harassing Sick Veterans

/in , , , , , , /by

The below listed BREAKING news press release was drafted in response to my column and related email titled, “OIG & FOIA REQUEST: Homeland Security Police Harassing and Intimidating Veterans at Mission Valley VA Clinic.

It is our position that the unannounced exercises conducted by the Federal Protective Services (FPS) at the VA Medical Facilities in Mission Valley, CA while Veteran patients were seeking medical support from doctors, was “oppressive” and was being conducted in violation of standard law enforcement practices and procedures (armed individuals wearing black, carrying weapons, wearing bullet proof vests, with leased guard dogs, helmets, dark glasses, while refusing to identify themselves,  threatened Veterans with arrest when they tried to take photos & asked the FPS Officers to identify themselves; there actions patrolling up and own corridors in the VA Medical Center frightened elderly patients & their wives).

The major concern is for the health of sick and elderly Veterans.  Heart patients could have suffered severe stress or could have had a heart attack from freight, PTSD patients may have been spurred to react in a self-destructive manner later on, very elderly & infirmed patients of WWII or Korean eras may with serious medical conditions were frightened by strange armed men in black walking in the corridors, some of the patients may have been affected mentally by so many armed men in black with dogs, and a certain number of patients arriving at the VA Medical facility in Mission Valley elected to avoid going to their medical appointments because of the overwhelming show of force and their vehicles blocking the parking lot.

Unannounced exercises should “never” be held at any facility by any law enforcement agency, management at the facility should have been alerted in advance so they could alert Veterans seeking medical care.  The media should have been alerted in advance to prevent confusion, and a Public Relations Officer from the FPS should have arrived with the team to respond to questions.   Badge numbers and IDs should have been provided to “any” US Citizens upon request, but it was reported that FPS Officers threatened and intimidates Veterans when they asked for IDs or tried to take photos.  Black cammies worn by FPS Officers may have been an attempt to emulate FBI SWAT Teams and their leaders may be watching too many macho Hollywood movies  (OD Greens would be more effective in all seasons and times of day).  Since it was an exercise and there was no threat of gunfire, there was no need for body armor, facial cover, helmets, and rifles.  There shouldn’t have been any interference with Veterans trying to enter & park to make their medical appointments  (FPS Officers did block the parking lot, interfering with Veterans trying to make their appointments on time).

Unannounced and announced exercises held at VA Medical facilities should “cease immediately”; Congress should prevent them from being conducted at any VA Medical facility anywhere in the nation. There are hundreds of thousands of government buildings throughout the nation where these type of exercises can be easily conducted without threatening the health and well-being of Veterans.  Congress should determine why the Obama administration has been targeting the relatively few VA Medical facilities in San Diego County, when there are thousands of other government building where those exercises can be conducted.  The management at DHS giving FPS Officers orders to conduct those exercises should be replaced, like the leadership at the VA is being replaced.  Veterans should not be bothered  while they are seeking medical treatment for injuries they may have sustained in the defense of the Republic.

Please review the below listed BREAKING news release that has more detailed information and was distributed to 15,000 recipients last night.

hls at vaBREAKING: Homeland Security Police Caught Harassing Sick Veterans

By Investigative Journalist, Benjamin Krause of DisabledVeterans.org

SAN DIEGO – Veterans were horrified while seeking VA health care on Wednesday when approached by Homeland Security police in an Operation Shield exercise. The exercise was for the purpose of “presence deterrence” at a VA health care facility in San Diego. Many veterans’ legal advocates are concerned about what this “presence deterrence” actually means and what is seeks to accomplish for veterans needing care.

According to reports, 20 officers from the DHS Federal Protective Service (FPS) dressed in full black combat gear crowded at the entrance of VA Mission Valley Health Care Clinic on Wednesday. These officers were not wearing any nametags and refused to identify themselves. Four bomb-sniffing dogs accompanied the secretive police group that arrived at the facility in 8 white SUVs, which then blocked all access to parking for disabled veterans. Veterans arriving for care were alarmed and some frightened away…

VA Mission Valley Health Care Clinic houses numerous service centers including a general practice clinic, psychiatric clinic, PTSD treatment clinic, and the disability compensation evaluation clinic. The impact of this event on veterans is disturbing.

The advocacy group, Honoring Our Troops (HRT), promptly wrote a formal complaint to VA OIG in Washington, DC after fielding numerous communications from veterans who were shocked by these recent federal secret police actions. OIG has yet to formally acknowledge receipt of their complaint since it was filed several days ago.

According to HRT’s OIG complaint, veterans on site were harassed and threatened when they took pictures and asked questions about this bizarre behavior. One veteran was threatened with a fine of $10,000 and arrest if he did not delete a photo he had taken. Another elderly veteran refused to enter the clinic with his wife. When the veteran’s wife asked a VA doctor about the action, she was told it was a “familiarization exercise.” Is this the new normal at VA facilities that veterans must become familiarized with and used to? And why? What justifies this kind of action by the Feds?

Captain Joseph John, USN (Ret), Chairman of Combat Veterans For Congress PAC, was not surprised when the report crossed his desk. After a cursory investigation, Capt. John concluded, “Due to [confidentiality] concerns, we can only get personnel in the office of Honoring Our Troops to tell us that the parties who witnessed the exercise [saw, which included] a retired Navy Chief, employees of the VA Medical Center, patients inside the building, etc., who witnessed armed FPS officers in SWAT gear with dogs on leash walking up and down the corridors inside the VA Medical Clinic in Mission Valley.”

Capt. John opposes unannounced police actions at VA Medical facilities that resemble “para-military exercises.” His deepest concerns are for elderly veterans with “heart conditions, suffering from PTSD, or elderly Veterans from the WWII or Korean era could be frightened and negatively affected by these [secret police] exercises in the middle of [their medical treatments].” For these reasons, Capt. John believes DHS and its FPS division “should be prevented from holding these para-military exercises at any VA Medical Center,” especially during patient treatment and service times during the day.

Since the OIG complaint, HRT received numerous threatening calls to their organization’s volunteers by individuals whom they believed were VA or DHS employees. Callers blasted the organization saying, “VA does not need this type of exposure right now; bringing this up will not help veterans.” Other harassing calls threatened the staff with stalking and investigations into their own personal conduct. According to HRT, the calls were all blocked to hide the caller’s phone number.

A spokesman for the San Diego VA Regional Office, Alejandro Mendio la Flores, verified this FPS police action and stated it was part of Operation Shield for “presence deterrence.” VA claims the official count of FPS officers was only 8, and that the FPS does not owe VA any explanation for its actions or training exercises — even if it affects a VA medical facility or its patients. Nor does DHS-FPS have to give VA any advance notice that these exercises will occur or get VA’s permission to conduct them. Just what is going on here?

VA already has in place a “patient security flag” procedure under VHA Directive 2010-053. Even though this procedure is completely illegal and occurs in secret VAMC staff councils behind closed doors, it is nevertheless the main device VA has created to deal with security issues with any veterans who give them reason to be concerned for potential violent incidents. The VA-OIG made a rather shocking report about this illegal procedure just last year — and any lawyer or judge who reads it would be horrified at the blatant “due process” violations, since veterans cannot know who made the complaints about them or in any way have a chance to refute or defend against false allegations by VA staff. See OIG Report No. 11-02585-129, March 7, 2013.

The questions that beg to be answered are: Why does DHS-FPS and VA think these preemptive “presence deterrence” exercises are needed to enhance or maintain security at VA medical and other facilities? What evidence does DHS-FPS and VA have to think this para-military behavior is even necessary and put the health of veterans at risk when arriving for a wide range of treatments? None of this makes any sense or seems to be well thought out. So what is the meaning of all of this?

Does DHS and VA have such callous disregard that they never considered the harmful impact such presence would have on veterans with serious physical and mental health disabilities for which they are coming to VA to get treatment?

VA constantly asserts they are striving to give veterans the best in health care. If that is true, why did they leave these questions out of their thinking? Is this the new veteran-centric care Secretary Sloan Gibson recently promised to the American public and veterans?

Mr. Mendio la Flores refused to answer additional questions on the concerns relating to whether or not any veterans were in fact harmed by these recent incidents. The House Committee on Veterans Affairs was asked for comment but was not able to reply to this writer prior to publication.