Jeb Bush: Many illegal immigrants come out of an ‘act of love’

If you remember previously Jeb came out and said “Immigrants are more fertile” and is married to one who bore him three children.

Jeb knows from first hand experience about an “Act of Love” since his wife Columba is a Mexican whom he met while teaching in Mexico in 1971. He left Mexico and surprisingly she showed up in Texas and they were married in 1974. Columba was Naturalized in 1988.

Regardless, they have three children named George, Noelle and Jeb. Below are a few of the accomplishments of the kids. George is running for state office in TX. Please keep in mind Jeb considers himself somewhat of an expert regarding primary and secondary education supporting common core. Somehow I don’t think Jeb is qualified to be lecturing on how kids should be educated.

If you click on the links below they have been scrubbed from the internet. Fortunately I saved the info before it was scrubbed.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/jeb-bush-2016/64546/ http://www.nndb.com/people/780/000052624/  
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/black-sheep/jeb-bush-jr/ http://www.nndb.com/people/907/000103598/  
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/black-sheep/noelle-bush/ http://www.nndb.com/people/995/000025920/

Columba Bush

Columba Bush

Columba Bush

AKA Columba Garnica Gallo

Born: 1953
Birthplace: León, Guanajuato, Mexico

Gender: Female
Religion: Roman Catholic
Race or Ethnicity: Hispanic
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Relative
Party Affiliation: Republican

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Wife of Florida governor Jeb Bush

In June 1999 Columba Bush was thwarted at Atlanta International Airport attempting to smuggle $19,000 in French clothing and jewelry into the United States without declaring the purchases. Despite the fact that the U.S. customs officers gave her two opportunities to amend the form, Bush declined. Then they found the receipts in her purse. Bush wrote a check for $4,100 to cover the fine (three times the duty amount) and went on her way. A few days later she claimed her crime had been entirely inadvertent, calling it “an awful mistake” and declaring: “It’s an accident and I regret it with all my heart.”

Father: Jose Maria Garnica
Mother: Josefina Gallo
Brother: Francisco
Sister: Lucila
Husband: Jeb Bush (m. 23-Feb-1974)
Son: George Prescott Bush
Daughter: Noelle Bush
Son: Jebby Bush (b. 13-Dec-1983)

High School: León, Guanajuato, Mexico

Drug Free America Foundation Advisory Board
W Stands for Women 2004
Naturalized US Citizen 1987
Bush Family
Mexican Ancestry

Noelle Bush

Vices: Xanax, Crack Cocaine, privilege
Daughter of Florida Governor Jeb Bush (tough on drugs!)

Timeline

26 Jul 1977 Noelle Lucila Bush born, to Jeb and Columba Bush. She is the niece of George W Bush.
1995 A female with Noelle Bush’s name and identical birthdate arrested for shoplifting at an Arizona mall. If so, Noelle does not have a clean criminal record required for her to avoid harsh sentencing under Florida’s drug laws. Caveat: While this might not actually be her, how many Noelle Bush’s were likely born on July 26th, 1977?
1999 Admissions of drug offenders to Florida’s prison system up 19% from 1998.
2000 Noelle Bush graduates Tallahassee Community College. She resides with her parents in the Florida Governor’s mansion, which in some sense qualifies as “state subsidized housing.”
29 Jan 2002 Noelle Bush arrested at Walgreen’s on a charge of prescription fraud, attempting to obtain Xanax.
29 Jan 2002 “Columba and I are deeply saddened over an incident that occurred last night involving our daughter Noelle. This is a very serious problem. Unfortunately, substance abuse is an issue confronting many families across our nation… We ask the public and the media to respect our family’s privacy during this difficult time so that we can help our daughter. We will have no further comment on this issue. Thank you for your understanding.”
9 Sep 2002 “One of the women here was caught buying crack cocaine tonight. And a lot of the women are upset because she’s been caught about five times. And we want something done because our children are here, and they just keep letting it slip under the counter and carpet… She does this all the time and she gets out of it because she’s the governor’s daughter. But we’re sick of it here ’cause we have to do what’s right, but she gets treated like some kind of princess. And everybody’s tired of it, you know. We’re just trying to get our lives together, and this girl’s bringing drugs on property.” Transcript, Orlando Police Department, receiving an anonymous call from within the Center for Drug-Free Living, where Noelle Bush is currently in rehab.
9 Sep 2002 Employee Julia Elias discovers 0.2g crack cocaine hidden in Noelle Bush’s shoe, while Bush is a patient at the Center for Drug-Free Living. Elias prepares a written statement to this effect, but supervisor Vilma Accison orders her to stop talking to police, and to destroy the document. Lacking the document or cooperation, police were unable to make an arrest.
16 Sep 2002 “While Noelle has been given every break in the book — and then some — her father has made it harder for others in her position to get the help they need by cutting the budgets of drug treatment and drug court programs in his state. He has also actively opposed a proposed ballot initiative that would send an estimated 10,000 non-violent drug offenders into treatment instead of jail.” Arianna Huffington.
30 Sep 2002 A judge blocks police from questioning employees that found the crack cocaine in Noelle’s shoe earlier in the month, citing privacy laws. Father Jeb Bush expresses pleasure at the court’s decision.
8 Oct 2002 Noelle Bush asks that drug court records be closed on her case, citing a ludicrous theory involving “expectation of privacy.” The real reason, of course, is the extra scrutiny her celebrity status is costing her.
15 Oct 2002 A judge denies Bush’s request to seal drug court records.
17 Oct 2002 Noelle Bush sentenced to ten days in Orange County jail for contempt, because of the crack cocaine.
8 Aug 2003 Noelle Bush released from rehab to the custody of her parents, Governor Jeb Bush and wife Columba.

Gay Intolerance versus Corporate Integrity

I am going to draw on decades of having been a public relations counselor to corporations and other organizations for some thoughts about the resignation of Mozilla’s co-founder  Brendan Eich, after his donation to support a California proposition banning gay marriage eight years ago became an issue for the company less than two weeks after he became its CEO.

Despite the passage of the ban, voted upon by a majority (52%) of Californians who believe that marriage should be restricted to the union of a man and a woman, the California Supreme Court ruled against it. Same sex marriages in California resumed after the U.S. Supreme Court restored the federal district court’s ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. Heeding the will of the people is not the California way.

At the end of 2008, same-sex marriages were legal only in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Today seventeen states, including California, allow such marriages. The gay, lesbian and transgender population of America is about three percent, but they are among the most vocal special interest groups in the nation.

From a PR point of view, Eich’s decision was a very bad one. Other corporations have found themselves targeted by the gay community. Chick-fil-A, an Atlanta based company has opposed gay marriage based on its commitment to Christian values, but most corporations regard any vocal opposition with more fear than courage. It has a lot to do with being in the business of selling products and services as well as being answerable to their investors.

It also explains, for example, why most embrace environmental demands in some fashion, including Big Oil and Big Coal. It’s no accident that BP Oil has a television advertising campaign going these days emphasizing the way drilling for oil in Alaska generates thousands of jobs elsewhere in the nation. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is fading into the past as well it should. Simply said, accidents happen.

I suspect that Eich’s decision was based in part on the fact that its corporate headquarters are located in San Francisco. A Reuters news article noted that “Gay rights are widely embraced in the San Francisco area” described as “long known for its thriving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Silicon Valley’s tech culture reflects that sensitivity and its companies rely on their CEOs to set that kind of tone.”

The curious thing is that Eich’s “views about gay marriage had been known within Mozilla for nearly two years…” His appointment as CEO put him in the limelight and a call for a boycott by OkCupid opened the doors to a decision to stand by his views or leave, presumably in the interest of the company. The company chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, said of his resignation that “you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

After freedom of religion, free speech is the next one cited in the Constitution’s First Amendment. It’s not hard to stand for it if you have the courage to do so.

Largely unknown to most Americans is the growing matrix of laws at the state level that grant a special status to the GLBT community. This is particularly true in Massachusetts. At the federal level, the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” has passed the Senate and is headed for a vote in the House. Critics say it would create a federally-enforced special employment status for homosexuals and transsexuals. Such a law would create a privileged inequality, not equality in the workplace.

Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay blogger, showed the kind of courage that Eich should have. “You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christians?” asked Sullivan. “You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it.” From a PR point of view, Sullivan is right.

“If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out,” said Sullivan.

Christian views are not the stuff of “fanaticism” but rather reflect deeply held spiritual values and a definition of marriage that goes back 5,000 years or more. Those views should be defended.

Reuters noted that Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor, “said Eich’s case was another example of how religious conservatives who only support heterosexual marriage are being victimized for their views. Now that the bullies have Eich’s head as a trophy on their wall, they will put the heat on every other corporation and major employer.”

Therein is the reason why Eich’s swift departure was a mistake. He could have and should have allowed the controversy to rage for a short while and watched it disappear.

Polls about gay marriage reveal how sharply divided Americans are on this issue. It goes well beyond being “Christian” or any other religious affiliation. It goes to the issue of whether members of the same sex should be granted the legal rights associated with marriage. For as long as civilization has existed, opposition to same-sex marriage has been a central element of what is deemed moral behavior.

It isn’t, as the courts have ruled, an issue of “equality.” Heterosexual marriage goes to the core of what a society requires to maintain itself. It is the heart of a healthy society and redefining it because a minority whose sexual orientation demands it can only weaken society and the nation that bows to their demands.

Gays could have accepted civil unions, but they choose not to. Now they are out to transform America by employing an intolerance that endangers it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Massachusetts: Bill filed in State House to free Justina Pelletier

Bill to immediately free Justina Pelletier from state custody filed in Massachusetts Legislature, despite reluctance among politicians. The goal: Get Justina home by Easter! Everyone’s help is needed!

This past Friday, April 4, bill HD 1412, written by MassResistance, was filed in the Massachusetts Legislature. It will free Justine Pelletier from state custody immediately and return her to her parents’ custody. It is a simple and unambiguous solution to a situation that has become a national nightmare.

The goal is to have Justine back in Connecticut with her family for Easter — the end of next week. This could theoretically happen very quickly. But everyone’s help (even outside Massachusetts) is needed.

The battlefield will be here between now and Easter!

Passing a bill like this ought to be a “no-brainer.” But unfortunately in the Massachusetts State House it’s not. As usual, the politicians are full of fear and inertia. There is a disturbing reluctance to get involved, a stark contrast to the people across the country wringing their hands over this.

But as a famous US Senator once said, “When I feel the heat, I see the light.”We must make that happen on Beacon Hill!

National outrage over girl being taken from her parents by the state

Justina Pelletier’s shocking story has caused enormous outrage around the country and across the political spectrum. This nightmare needs to stop now.

Justine, a 16-year-old girl from West Hartford, CT, was being treated for a rare genetic disorder last year at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. At one point, a doctor from Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston examined her and decided that she instead had a mental disorder. When her parents and the Tufts doctors disagreed, Children’s Hospital and the Mass. Department of Children and Families (DCF) took her into state custody and put her in a psychiatric ward, where she has been for 14 months. It is outrageous.

Left: Before being taken by the state, Justine was very athletic. Below: After being taken by the state, she’s confined to a wheelchair.

A hostile Superior Court judge has repeatedly refused to release her. The judge even put a “gag order” on her parents. The parents are now only allowed to see Justina for an hour each week, and are not allowed to talk to her new doctor, according to her father. Since Justina has not been getting proper medical treatments, her health has deteriorating terribly, according to reports. There is fear that she may even die.

On Feb. 24, 2014, there was a hearing in Boston where the family’s lawyers were attempting to get Justina back from state custody. The judge would not budge. The emotion was so intense that Justina’s mother collapsed in the hallway outside the courtroom and had to be taken to an ambulance.
[MassResistance photos]

Attempts by well-meaning pro-family groups haven’t worked

Pro-family groups from around the country and even conservative politicians have been trying for months to help Justina. There have been petitions, rallies, prayer vigils, press conferences, appearances on national TV shows, calls for investigations into DCF, and endless venting on radio talk shows. So far none of this has worked. There is now talk about possible court appeals, lawsuits, and even funding cuts by Congress.

Justina and her family have waited too long. We must get her home by Easter. The time has come for action.

Above and right, supporters of Justina stood outside the courthouse in downtown Boston all day during February 24, 2014, hearing.
[MassResistance photos]

This approach WILL get it done.

The Legislature has the ultimate authority to act on this. It has the constitutional power to free Justina. And it could get it done very quickly – if it chooses to.

Most bills take months to work their way through the Legislature. But in fact, a bill can get passed in as little as one day. It happens more frequently than many people realize. For example, a few weeks ago the Legislature wrote, filed, and passed an anti-“upskirting” bill all in one day, after an SJC court decision came down that offended the Legislature. And there are many other examples.

But it takes the will to do it. That’s where all of us come in.

Fear and inertia in the State House

When we started this process at the State House, even we were surprised at how reluctant so many politicians — even Republicans — are to touch this issue Democrats are afraid of crossing the Governor, who apparently supports the DCF’s actions. Republicans are afraid of antagonizing their leadership, which isn’t interested in rocking the boat over this. Politicians in general are afraid of offending judges. And then there’s the fear of angering certain DCF special interests.

“It’s an unpleasant situation, but let it work its way through by itself,” seems to be the sentiment in the State House.

Rep. Lenny Mirra (R-West) agreed to file the bill.

Getting this bill filed at all wasn’t easy. Rep. Lenny Mirra (R-West Newbury) said he’d file it “by request” — which means that a constituent wants the bill filed but the rep is reluctant to file it as his own. Luckily, the constituent in this case is Lonnie Brennan, an outstanding pro-family activist and friend of MassResistance who runs the VoteCoreValues political website and was determined to see it through, or it might not have made it. Even then, it took two days to get the bill filed.

It gets down to the same old story: Citizens must make legislators MORE afraid of them than they are of the leadership and special interests. That’s how things get done!

HOW TO HELP GET JUSTINA HOME BY EASTER!

We don’t have much time, so we must get started immediately. Everyone can get involved on some level, even if you don’t live in Massachusetts.

There are 40 senators and 160 state representatives. They need to hear your anger and outrage. (see below)

We are creating a special Free Justina status page on our website. It will have all the current information on the bill and also a link to the list of all 200 reps and senators showing where they currently stand on this.

1. Can you go to the State House on Monday? (Or another day this week?) We need people to go to the State House and personally visit the offices of the reps and senators. And then get back to us exactly where they stand, so we can post it on the website. These personal visits are very important.

Handout to give reps and senators: The one-page text of the bill.

2. Call and email the reps and senators. This is very critical. And the ones who do not support Justina need to be contacted again. There cannot be too many calls and emails. And let us know what their response is.

3. Get the word out. Post this on websites and Facebook, etc. Call talk shows and get them to discuss this. Anything you can to spread the word. We will be posting and updating all the necessary information on www.MassResistance.org/justina

4. Regularly check our Free Justina Status Page. We will be updating it constantly during this week and next — until she gets home! www.MassResistance.org/justina 

5. Keep fighting. Don’t give up.

LET’S GET JUSTINA HOME BY EASTER!

This sign held outside the courthouse on Feb. 24 pretty much says it all.
[MassResistance photo]

CAIR condemns Brandeis University for awarding a brave woman’s fight against Islamist honor violence

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling on their members to condemn the faculty at Brandeis University for choosing to recognize Ayaan Hirsi Ali with an award for defending Muslim women against Islamist honor violence.   Their call to action email on this issue is posted at the bottom.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the Executive Producer of Honor Diaries and founder of the AHA Foundation. Honor Diaries is the first film to break the silence on honor violence.  In response to ongoing abuses of women’s rights, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her supporters established the AHA Foundation in 2007 to help protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Brandeis University wrote regarding their decision to award Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

“Somali-born scholar and women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali escaped an arranged marriage, receiving asylum in the Netherlands where she worked in factories and as a maid before earning her undergraduate and MA degrees in political science at Leiden University. Having received citizenship, she served as an elected member of the Dutch parliament from 2003-2006, where she focused on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society and on defending the rights of Muslim women. She campaigned to raise awareness of violence against women, including honor killings and female genital mutilation. In 2004 she gained international attention following the murder of director Theo van Gogh, who worked with Ms. Hirsi Ali on her short film “Submission,” about the oppression of women under Islam. The assassin left a death threat for her pinned to van Gogh’s chest. In 2006 she resigned from Parliament when the then Dutch minister for Immigration revoked her Dutch citizenship, a decision that was overturned by the courts and ultimately led to the fall of the government. Ms. Hirsi Ali is currently a Fellow with the Future of Diplomacy Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Harvard Kennedy School and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.”

CAIR issued the following statement that Megyn Kelly of Fox News aired on March 31, 2014:  “American Muslims join people of conscience of all faiths in condemning female genital mutilation, forced marriages, ‘honor killings,’ and any other form of domestic violence or gender inequality as violations of Islamic beliefs. If anyone mistreats women, they should not seek refuge in Islam. The real concern in this case is that the producers of the film, who have a track record of promoting anti-Muslim bigotry, are hijacking a legitimate issue to push their hate-filled agenda.”  Click here for more on this from The National Review.

How can CAIR honestly be concerned about the victims of honor abuse perpetrated by Islamism when they are vigilantly trying to muzzle those who dare speak out against it?  Ironically, CAIR’s email (below) instructs their members to “Send polite comments” to the Brandeis University faculty while in the same breath CAIR intends to degrade Ayaan Hirsi Ali by calling her an Islamophobe.

CAIR has vigorously opposed laws in America that would forbid courts from considering Islamic Sharia law.  CAIR leaders have repeatedly defended well documented terrorist supporters.  Now CAIR is opposing brave women who speak out for other women that are abused and killed during Islamic honor rituals.

Let’s not allow CAIR’s Islamist position to be the only one heard by the faculty at Brandeis University.  Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to counter CAIR’s censure message that is going to Brandeis University faculty.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email to Brandeis University faculty to counter CAIR’s condemnation of awarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 

For contact information please click here.

Silver Star holder Colonel Harry Riley, US Army (Ret.), Speaks to the Nation

harry riley

Colonel Harry Riley, US Army (Ret.)

The following are comments from Colonel Harry Riley, the man behind Operation American Spring:

The lawless in control of our American government are tightening their grip, reining in our freedom, and pushing us toward servitude. It’s just a matter of time, and that won’t be long, until we are tied to the back of the wagon and dragged along by thugs whether we like it or not. Kick and scream all you want, but it won’t help any of us, that is unless we do something about it now?

Patriot members have been pleading with America since December 2013 to join Operation American Spring, a peaceful, non-violent, unarmed gathering, as we descend on Washington, D.C. beginning May 16, 2014 to begin Constitutional restoration.  Our “movement to action” is a grassroots movement by non-partisan Americans committed to Constitutional principles, responding to an unresponsive and dismissive cabal of duly elected, but oath-breaking officials, who ignore the Constitution, in fact are purposefully destroying the US Constitution.

Our demands and grievances are quite common. Everything that’s wrong in America is basically tied to government leadership violations of the United States Constitution.  The majority of America understands those currently in leadership positions are lawless, violating their oath, ignoring legal process, presenting an appearance of tyrants, self-serving personal agendas, and leading the United States toward a socialist, Marxist, totalitarian form of slavery. It must stop.

Every member of Congress (525) will be presented by mid April 2014 with a personal copy of Operation American Spring Declaration of Revision (Demands/Grievances) as well as a researched, prepared, and provable Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama. Congress will have approximately one month to review the documents prior to millions arriving in D.C. for answers.

These documents won’t mean anything unless they are backed by millions of American patriots, in the streets of Washington, D.C.  Millions of citizens will validate, confirm the message that cannot be ignored. Those, of every political party, that ignore our demands will pay a heavy consequence.

Operation American Spring mission calls for the replacement of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and Eric Holder. This group has disgraced the United States of America, subjected our nation to ridicule, kneeled and bowed to nations that have proven to harm us, and worst of all, treated the American people with disdain, scorn, deception, betrayal, and disrespect.  We demand these lawless individuals to voluntarily resign.  Will they?

The answer to the above question is “not likely”, unless, “we the people” display an attitude of “enough is enough”.  The time to use the excuse “let someone else do it” is past. For the sake of our nation, we must  put boots on the ground by the millions in Washington, D.C. and plan to stay until we get an acceptable resolution. The Arab Spring, Ukrainian Spring, and other “mass” gatherings brought corrupt, lawless, arrogant power seekers to their knees, and American’s can do it also. 

Every American is invited to lock arms, stand shoulder-to-shoulder in unity, even at the expense of sacrifice, at this most grave time that threatens the longevity of our nation.  God is the wind behind Operation American Spring, may each of us feel it in our hearts and respond.

We believe this may be our last opportunity to turn our nation back to a Constitutional Republic, as  ordained by our Creator. We pray that every freedom, liberty loving organization in the United States will lay agendas aside for a brief period, announce support, unite as one nation under God, and storm Washington, D.C. in massive/gigantic numbers for one principle every patriot can live with – Restoration of the US Constitution as the law of the land. From there we begin again.

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret.
Operation American Spring

For more information; visit our website at www.OperationAmericanSpring.org or www.oas2014.com.

Florida: Sarasota Tiger Bay Club panel on Immigration a Sham

According to its website the mission of the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club is: 

To promote community understanding of current political and social issues, through public discourse and the free exchange of ideas.

The Sarasota Tiger Bay Club is a non-partisan political organization that was formed to foster understanding of public issues. We decided it was better to attack the issues in face-to-face confrontations with key policy makers than merely lament the drift of politics. We’re political, but non-partisan.

You would believe, given their mission statement, that any discussion on any topic would be fair and balanced. You would be wrong.

On Thursday, April 3rd, the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club held a panel on immigration. The three panel members were Luz Corcuera, program director of Healthy Start Coalition of Manatee, Kelly Kirschner, former Mayor of the City of Sarasota and Christian Ziegler, State Committeeman for the Republican Party of Sarasota County. Corcuera and Kirschner are pro-amnesty, Ziegler spoke for the other side. The panel was moderated by Mike Bennett, former FL state senator and Supervisor of Elections for Manatee County, FL.

ziegler

Christian Ziegler

When Ziegler learned of the makeup of the panel (2 for and 1 against) he requested another panel member to provide balance and insure fairness. In an email to Tiger Bay board member Susan Nolan, Ziegler stated, “I was asked by Kim [Noyes, Executive Director of the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club] to find another panelist last week, which is why I did mention to Rich [Swier] (without knowing he had refused) when I ran into him at our prep-breakfast. I was also informed by Kim after asking about having Rich added, that the panel was set because the invitation had been sent, prep had been completed, etc.” Note: I was approached by Nolan to sit on the panel but when I learned I would be the only one speaking for one side of the issue I refused. Others, such as Sarasota resident George Fuller, declined for the same reason.

Nolan would have none of it. In an email reply to Ziegler and me Nolan stated, “I appreciate your concern, but it is not warranted. Christian will do just fine. In addition, I ask (sic) Senator Bennett to be the moderator instead of me because of his background on immigration. We are pretty happy with the panel.” Attempts to balance the panel with two for amnesty and two against failed.

The net result was the panel became a sham.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune political writer Jerry Wallace wrote, “A local forum illustrated the immigration reform debate’s complexity Thursday, with participants unable to agree even on basic terminology. The use of the words ‘amnesty’ and ‘illegal immigrant’ or who could rightly claim to be ‘for immigration reform’ were as much a point of contention at the Sarasota Tiger Bay meeting as the specifics of any bill or law. The war over words started with the opening question, when moderator and former state Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, asked if the U.S. should allow amnesty for illegal immigrants in the nation now.”

Wallace saw the panel as a war of words, not on substance. Ziegler noted that members of Tiger Bay came up to him after the panel and said that he was not given equal time to respond to questions and in some cases was cut off before he could respond to comments  made by Corcuera and Kirshner.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration to be at least $113 billion a year. Nearly $29 billion of that comes from federal taxes and the rest is supplemented by state and local taxes. States continue to carry the brunt of the burden for the cost to educated, medicate and incarcerate illegals. California has the highest expenses at $21.75 billion, followed by New York at $9.47 billion, Texas $8.87 billion, Florida $5.46 billion and New Jersey $3.47 billion annually. To view a map of the costs to each state click here.

According to FAIR Florida’s cost breakdown by category are: Education $3.34 billion, Social Assistance $976.9 million, Justice $578.9 million and other expenses $567.3 million.

George Fuller writes:

Legal Immigration

Since 1970 with mass immigration the largest number are from Mexico. Of those allowed in legally, only 36% have become Naturalized but over 50% are on welfare. Of all immigrants allowed in since 1970 only 56% have become Naturalized. Think recent immigrants are coming to contribute or take?

Illegal Immigration

The first amnesty was in 1986 supposedly for under one million illegal aliens but ended up being over 3 million who were said to be yearning for citizenship. Granted amnesty over twenty eight years ago, only 40% ever became Naturalized. Not content, Congress passed an additional six amnesties or amnesty adjustments through 2000 that no one ever mentions. What is one definition of insanity?

How about the promises Congress made in 1986 and not one to this day has been kept:

  • There would be only one amnesty…ever…
  • Congress would secure the border…
  • Congress would mandate E-Verify so all workers would be legal.

Yet, we have those in Congress only too happy to say the immigration system is broken not remembering the promises made in ’86 or following the advice of the Jordan Commission in ’97 to eliminate chain migration.

We cannot control poverty until we control immigration levels.

FAIR states, “Illegal immigration poses a real threat to America today. Danger at the border and violence from drugs and gangs are only the beginning. Illegal aliens’ growing access and dependence on social services threatens our social and economic stability.”

To understand how much of a threat illegals are to Florida’s social and economic stability let’s look at the proposed state budget for 2014-1015:

allocation of funds in 2014 fl house budget

For a larger view click on the pie chart. Graphic courtesy of FL state Representative Ray Pilon.

You can see from the pie chart that the annual cost to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegals in Florida exceeds Florida’s Justice budget, would pay for Florida’s entire Government Operations and Agriculture and Natural Resources programs combined, and is a full 20% of the state’s Education budget.

It is sad that a real discussion of the actual costs of illegals to the state were not brought up in any detail. As Dr. Larry Reed, Executive Director of FEE, notes, “Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people.”

Perhaps this information would have seen the light of day if the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club panel was balanced?

To read all of our stories on immigration please click here.

RELATED VIDEO: ABC News Channel 7 report on the Tiger Bay panel:

RELATED STORY: Muslim immigration and Socialism is Sliding Sweden to Third World status

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club. Those in the photo are the 2011 Board of Directors posing with James Carville, former advisor to President Bill Clinton.

Gross Dereliction of Duty

Obama administration political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been recruiting and appointing many pro-amnesty lawyers in key management positions throughout DHS. The goal of the Obama administration in placing those pro-amnesty lawyers throughout DHS was to dismantle the deporting infrastructure it took 12 years for the US government to create. Those pro-amnesty lawyers have been preventing ICE Agents, Border Patrol Agents, and CBP Inspectors from enforcing the Federal Immigration Laws they were sworn to uphold.

Those pro-amnesty attorneys have instructed ICE Agents to “walk away” from hundreds of thousands of cases that should be prosecuted. They eventually directed ICE Agents to release 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” into the general public, thus completing the corruption of that once proud Federal Law Enforcement Agency. The “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” were not in jail because of driving infractions—-they were felons who had been tried and convicted in Federal and Superior Courts because of serious criminal infractions, or had been convicted of very serious misdemeanors. Traffic violations like driving under the influence of alcohol or even vehicular manslaughter do not count toward ICE’s description of “Criminal Illegal Immigrant.”

The 68,000 serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” released by the Obama administration will pick up where they left off, and continue with their very serious crime sprees, committing murders, rapes, burglaries, car theft, drug dealing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, armed robberies, attacking law enforcement officers, and much more that they were previously arrested and convicted for.

The pro-amnesty attorneys at DHS could have deported the 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” to Mexico, but opted instead to release those dangerous convicted criminals into the general public.

American citizens who are concerned about the safety of their sons, daughters, grandchildren, sisters, wives, mothers, grandparents, small businesses, etc. will have to be on high alert to protect them from this new and very dangerous threat foisted upon them by the Obama administration.

The “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” releases occurred without the required formal notification of local Law Enforcement Agencies (law enforcement has a need to know whenever dangerous felons are released prematurely, so they can alert police officers of the perceived spike in criminal activity in their jurisdictions), and those dangerous felons were released without notifying the victims of those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” who will be in fear of their lives because they testified against those felons in court, in order to get them convicted. The political appointees at DHS simply unlocked the jailhouse doors and let 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” walk free. Those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” will now prey on American citizens, and will seriously complicate the task of law enforcement officers in their attempt to protect law abiding American citizens.

That unlawful release of those serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and the complete corruption of DHS by Obama’s appointees into key management positions, is further proof that Obama continues to violate the US Constitution with impunity, as well as violate Federal Immigration Laws of the United States.

In an interview on WBEZ-FM in Chicago on September 6, 2001, Obama said “The US Constitution reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day” and said “the US Constitution has deep flaws, and the Founding Fathers had an enormous blind spot when they wrote it.” He also implied in that interview that the US Constitution was outdated, because he said, “it only reflects the time period of the Colonials and our Founding Fathers.”

Obama raised his right hand twice sworn on a bible to uphold the US Constitution when he was inaugurated in 2008 and 2012; he swore “I, Barack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”—–we know by his actions over the past 5 years, that his two sworn pledges were two more lies to add to:

  1. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” and “If you like your current health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” and “Your health care premiums will be lowered by $2500.” and
  2. “The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk before I sign it.” and “I knew nothing about the IRS targeting conservative groups before the 2012 election.” and
  3. “I knew nothing about the “Fast and Furious” gun running operation to Mexican drug cartels.” and
  4. “I will have the most transparent administration in history.” and
  5. “I will restore trust in government.” and
  6. ”In a speech at the UN two weeks after he knew four Americans were murdered in Benghazi by Al Qaeda terrorists, Obama told the entire world; “The attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was the outgrowth of a demonstration against a YouTube video that went bad.”

American citizens are now used to witnessing one lie after another by the occupant of the Oval Office, yet the left of center liberal media establishment continues to cover up the lies emanating from the Oval Office.

You will be able to read the details of the illegal release of the “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” in the below listed news article. We have information that although 870,000 Illegal Immigrants have been ordered to be deported from the United States, following their conviction in trials in US Federal Immigration Courts, that the pro-amnesty attorneys in key management positions at DHS have ignored those court orders, and those 870,000 Illegal Immigrants remain in the United States; ICE has been told to leave them alone, to “walk away” and “not enforce Federal Immigration Laws.”

Over 40 million unemployed Americans citizens are searching for employment in the 5th year of the worst economic recovery in 70 years, yet their search for employment continues to be undercut by nearly 20 million Illegal Immigrants being paid very low wages under the table with no taxes deducted from their cash payments by US employers. There were over 11 million Illegal Immigrants in the United State when I was recruited as an Armed Federal Law Enforcement Officer in the newly established Department of Homeland Security in 2002—DHS knows that over 800,000 Illegal Immigrants continue to enter the United States thru the wide open borders each year, and for the 12 years since 2002 approximately 9.6 million Illegal Immigrants have come across the wide open borders (you might find it interesting to learn that a DHS official testified that US authorities are not “routinely” notified when foreign sex offenders enter the United States.). So the 11 million Illegal Immigrants figure that the Obama administration and the left of center liberal media establishment has kept referring to for 12 years, is more accurately 20 million Illegal Immigrants, not the 11 million figure that were illegally in the US in 2002. It is interesting to note that US military personnel are employed to secure the borders of South Korea, Afghanistan, and the Sinai, and are not employed by the US Congress or the occupant of the Oval Office to secure US borders.

The American people are wondering, whether the Republican leadership of the House and Senate, intends to do anything about the violation of Federal Law by Obama’s civilian appointees at DHS in the unlawful release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” many of whom are violent criminals. The Speaker of the House John Boehner has control of the purse strings and funds DHS. He could have put pressure on DHS’s by threatening to only approve very low salaries for the pro-amnesty lawyers who are aggressively corrupting enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws at DHS.

The current Republican leadership could have done something to stop the release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and could insist that the DHS deport the 870,000 Illegal Immigrants who were ordered deported by US Federal Immigration Courts.

It was always the primary responsibility of every one of the previous 43 US Presidents to enforce all Federal Laws passed by Congress, to protect and defend the US Constitution, to enforce Federal Immigration Laws, and to ensure that American citizens were protected from the threats of foreign convicted felons who had been preying on them. The current occupant of the Oval Office, by his actions over the last 5 years, has been intentionally shredding the “Rule of Law” and preventing Federal Law Enforcement Officers from “ enforcing the “Federal Laws” of the Republic that the 43 previous US Presidents upheld in the execution of their office.

SSA Michael Cutler, INS (Ret) provided the below listed information from Senator Jeff Sessions, and highlights how Obama continues to “shreds the Immigration Laws” that he swore to uphold, and cites examples of how Obama “refuses to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution”:

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) recently released a critical alert about the status of immigration enforcement in the United States. In it, he writes, “DHS has blocked the enforcement of Immigration Law for the overwhelming majority of violations – and is planning to widen that amnesty even further.”

Put another way, “At least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.”

Senator Sessions’ alert continues:

“Those who do not facially meet the Administration’s select ‘priorities’ are free to illegally work in the United States and to receive taxpayer benefits, regardless of whether or not they come into contact with immigration enforcement.”

What we have is an Administration that is creating a de facto amnesty and encouraging more Illegal Immigrants to illegally enter the United States, granting employment authorization to “DREAMERS” and other illegal aliens, all the while American workers continue to struggle to find employment.

SSA Michael Cutler’s most recent commentary for California for Population Stabilization (CAPS) addresses the serious damage being done to America, and Americans by the ongoing expansion of the use of what the Obama administration claims is “prosecutorial discretion” but which, in reality amounts to “Gross Dereliction of Duty.”

RELATED STORY: REPORT: Obama Admin released tens of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals

Talking About Ideas with Friends: Lessons from Graham Greene by JAMES M. HOHMAN

A Spanish priest and a Marxist mayor walk into a bar . . . and teach you a lesson in civil discourse.

Graham Greene’s novel Monsignor Quixote is filled with lessons about how to share your worldview with people who have a different outlook. The main characters treat their opposing views as a model for addressing difficult questions directed at your own ideas and applying the same intellectual rigor on the views of others.

Graham Greene was a popular twentieth century author whose writings often dealt with the moral conflicts of his characters set among political conflicts, and Monsignor Quixote fits this mold. The story follows a Spanish priest, Quixote, and the recently ousted communist mayor of his town (appropriately nicknamed Sancho), as they travel the countryside of post-dictatorship Spain. The setting offers exploration between the priest and the mayor by morality and politics. Indeed, the heart of the novel is their exploration of each other’s ideas.

Getting a chance to honestly discuss ideas with a friend with a different viewpoint is an experience requiring rhetorical skills inappropriate for other kinds of discourse. For instance, your goal in a public debate is to persuade your audience using the strongest and most thorough argument you possess. Even in a discussion with the same person sharing the same ideas, your comments in a debate would be much different from those in a private conversation. These conversations are about explaining your views and considering your friend’s.

Dialogue like this is tough because we care about our views—they fill us with meaning and help us understand ourselves and the world around us. Likewise, our views color our understanding of opposing worldviews, giving us good impressions of some ideas and creating disgust with others.

But those discussions with friends are important. You get asked tough questions and ask tough questions, and you attempt to show the truth of your views. The goal, however, is not to embarrass or contradict. It’s about getting to know something both familiar and foreign. It’s familiar because you know the person and have some understanding of their outlook. And it’s foreign because you are exploring ideas that are not your own.

Monsignor Quixote gives a number of lessons to get the most out of those instances.

There’s a Difference Between Contradiction and Inconsistency

“Mockery is not an argument, Sancho.”

If you’ve ever seen political commentary on Facebook, you probably have recognized how much of what passes for political discourse is mockery disguised as argument. Especially popular is mocking by pointing out a contradiction.

For instance, an anti abortion bill was introduced by a generally market-friendly politician and a friend posts that it was “brought to you by the ‘Less Government’ people.” No one likes intellectual contradiction, so this is a generally effective technique to point out publicly to solidify support for your thought.

True contradiction, however, is rare. What is mostly pointed out is seeming inconsistency. Inconsistency is a contradiction that exists only in the mind of the person who observes it. There is often an easy explanation that shows that this seeming inconsistency derives from a consistent worldview. It’s only when looked at from a different point of view that it appears to be a contradiction. This is a fault of the person raising the objection rather than a fault of the person for whom the objection is raised. Thus, pointing out a problem that is easily explainable is unconvincing.

I asked my friend about his post to see if he could think of why opposition to abortion could be consistent with limited government views. Unfortunately, he was unable to do so. (He gave a good-faith effort, though, and I appreciated that.)

I’m not sure whether my friend is a rare case or not. If you’re too attached to your ideas, you may not understand the context or nuance that explains away what you thought was a contradiction. We view the world differently from our opposition and the important things to him may seem quaint, silly, stupid, or even hurtful to others.

We like to point out contradictions and inconsistencies because they’re often both fun and pointed. In the rare conversation with a friend on ideas, feel free to challenge him when you believe you’ve found theargument that shows his errors. Or even pokes fun at his ideas. But be aware that he may have a perfectly rational explanation to the point you make.

There’s no need to avoid humor in deep conversations. Just know that you’re dealing with issues that cut to the heart of how a person understands themselves and the world around them.

While these seeming inconsistencies may be funny, you should use them only with caution. As Monsignor Quixote tells Sancho, “I don’t like to offend anyone who takes a thing seriously. Laughter is not an argument. It can be a stupid abuse.”

Stay Away from Stereotyping

“Why are you always saddling me with my ancestor?”

In the novel, Sancho often attributes ideas to his friend based upon his namesake, Don Quixote, treating it as a game to try to predict how Quixote would interpret their situations. It sometimes works because both Quixotes view the world as an unfolding epic. But the priest eventually gets frustrated with the endeavor.

Just because you know something about your friend’s views doesn’t make you an expert in their opinions.

You know something about the ideas your friend holds. You’ve heard about it and even likely know why you don’t buy into those ideas. You probably have a rudimentary understanding of some of the basic precepts, viewpoints, and main arguments of the outlook. Still, your understanding will be less than that of an expert. So ask questions and share your concerns. And listen to the response.

Likewise, don’t lump your friend in with everyone who holds a similar position. If your friend considers eating fast food a moral shortcoming, it doesn’t make them a nanny-state totalitarian. He might be. But assuming he holds the views of everyone else that has similar sentiment does not do your friend justice.

It’s easy to mistake labels in politics, such as conservative or liberal or even feminist. We like labels since they can make discourse simpler and quicker to understand. Yet there remain nuances between people who adopt the same label. The environmentalists at the Property and Environment Research Center are committed to free market environmental protections that the environmentalists at the Michigan Environmental Council could not care less about. Knowing the differences is essential to a consistent outlook, and labels can lack the context of a master practitioner.

The use of labels as shortcuts also becomes challenging in private conversation because people identify with multiple labels.

You can score a cheap shot by pointing out an extreme view that seems untenable to a reasonable person. But that may not be the essential problem that you identify. As the joke (which I read in Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism) goes: “You libertarians are the types that would allow fornication in public parks!” which prompts the response: “What do you mean, public parks?”

Or as S. I. Hayakawa put it, “To a mouse, cheese is cheese. That’s why mousetraps work.” Don’t get snared by mistaking your understanding of the ideas with your opponent’s understanding of the ideas.

Exchange Literature

“In return for Father Jone I will lend you Father Lenin.”

You do not need to solve all the world’s problems in one night, nor are you likely to completely persuade your friend of the truth of your views instantly. You should lend them a book and offer to read one of their recommendations. In the novel, Sancho reads a book of Roman Catholic moral theology while Quixote reads The Communist Manifesto.

Convincing your friend that reasonable people can have different views is a big first step. It’s an even larger step to convince your friend that other views can be defended. Thankfully, there exists classic literature reflecting your own ideas that have won converts, shed fundamental insights, and changed the minds of thousands.

There’s no substitute for the basics or the insights of the masters of your worldview. Committing your time and energy to understand your friend’s point of view is also a sign of good faith. Committing yourself to understanding your friend’s point of view should build trust for him to extend the same courtesy, especially when you take time and effort to go through the literature underpinning a worldview.

But be careful: The book that you select should keep the same tone that you’ve set with your conversations. Not all the important works that share your understanding explore their findings with good-faith argumentation. Rand loved to mock. Mises was merciless. Disdain for your friend’s ideas is a quick way for him to lose respect for your ideas.

Nor do your works have to explore all of the issues. There are excellent, targeted arguments on smaller issues.

Address the Positives of the Opposite Literature and Respectfully Note Your Concerns

“It’s the work of a good man. A man as good as you are—and just as mistaken.”

When you practice goodwill, there’s a positive thing you can say about most anything. Take that approach when addressing your friend’s suggested literature. Disregarding his ideas is a quick excuse for him to reciprocate. Extending goodwill, however, does not mean that you have to accept the views of the person, just that you address the text respectfully.

The novel gives an excellent example of goodwill compliments and criticism. After reading The Communist Manifesto, Quixote connects Marx’s lament for the older, structured society with Don Quixote’s love of chivalry. But he quickly pivots to the argument that some of Marx’s predictions were incorrect. The workers of the world became better off under markets, as evidenced by the lower-class British people who were vacationing in their area. It’s a good case of leading off with respect, yet pushing back.

While finding things to agree with or admire in the literature, also find ways where your worldview offers a better explanation. It doesn’t always have to be contradictory.

Why It’s Important

When presented with a new fact, view, or observation, we ask ourselves, “Can I believe it?” Frequently you can and will believe it. When that new fact challenges you, ask, “Must I believe it?” Rarely will you have to. (This observation comes from Jonathan Haidt.) You need to fight this tendency when engaging in discourse with your friend.

Such conversations can open your respective minds to outlooks neither of you considered. They can change how you approach those ideas. You might stop rejecting the ideas immediately and think of your friend. You move a step closer to civil discourse.

Not everyone is a level-headed exemplar of the ideas they hold. People can hold kooky ideas that are neither justifiable nor defensible. Some people are just disconnected from the rest of the world.

If you hold views that are out of fashion with your friends, peers, or those engaging in broader political discourse, conversations such as those outlined above are even more important. There are many ways to get ideas to seep into the public debate. Discourse is richer when we take our opposition seriously and extend them goodwill. Given the sheer amount of talking past each other, the continuous mischaracterization of opinions, and the animosity we have toward opposing views, these private discourses can do a lot to change the national character if we take them seriously.

ABOUT JAMES M. HOHMAN

James M. Hohman is assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

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

Eight-year Old “Gold Star” Son Pays it Forward

miles eckert cbs photo

Myles Eckert, Gold Star son. Photo courtesy of CBS News.

“On the Road,” Steve Hartman meets Myles Eckert an 8-year-old boy who found $20 in a parking lot and was thinking of spending it on a new video game. That changed when he saw a man in uniform.

This video is a tribute to Myles Eckert, a “Gold Star” son, who lost his father but respects what our soldiers do. I am glad that Steve Hartman found this young man and gave him a platform to say what needs to be said.

The note, written on a green Post-It, read:

“Dear soldier — my dad was a soldier. He’s in heaven now. I found this 20 dollars in the parking lot when we got here. We like to pay it forward in my family. It’s your lucky day! Thank you for your service. Myles Eckert, a gold star kid.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/9FCxuVSkT7k[/youtube]

EDITORS NOTE: The photo of the note is courtesy of CBS News.

 

SHOCK: New paper advocates ‘exaggeration’ & ‘manipulation’ about global warming to ‘enhance global welfare’

A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, is openly advocating that global warming proponents engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.

The paper appears to openly advocate lying or “information manipulation” to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.”

lie about climate changeThe authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups “exaggerate” global warming and then the offer their paper to “provide a rationale for this tendency” to exaggerate for the good of the cause.

The paper was published on February 24, 2014.

The author’s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the “news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”

“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”

The authors of the paper are Fuhai Hong, an assistant professor in the Division of Economics, Nanyang Technological University and Xiaojian Zhao is an assistant professor in the Department of Economics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. (fhhong@ntu.edu.sg)

The complete Abstract of the paper is reproduced below:

“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective  however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.”

Reaction to the paper has been very critical. Craig Rucker of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow CFACT (Climate Depot’s parent company) noted in an April 4 blog: “What will shock you is that two professors not only candidly admit it, but published a paper in a peer reviewed journal touting the beneficial effects of lying for pushing nations into a UN climate treaty in Paris next year!”

Rucker added: “The authors not only believe that their dubious ends justify their shady means, they institutionalize ‘information manipulation’ as a tactic, host panels about it at climate conferences and publish it in journals. They’re shameless.”

CFACT Davi’s  Rothbard noted: “Global warming skeptics have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate change. Now comes a new paper from two economists in Singapore and Hong Kong that actually advocates exaggerating global warming fears to get countries on board international environmental agreements.”

According to Kevin Glass of Townhall.com, the paper claims that the urgency of climate change makes it OK to deceive the public about the projected consequences of global warming. They don’t actually use the word “lying,” but by calling for “informational manipulation and exaggeration,” they certainly think the ends justify these very questionable and over-heated means.”

This is not the first time that global warming advocates have been accused of being deceptive.

The late Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider wrote in 1989: “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” Discovery Magazine (October, 1989, p. 45-48).

Former NASA global warming scientist James Hansen conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios” to dramatize global warming “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue.

Related Links:

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares – Asserts ‘professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world’]

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’

‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’

German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’

Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middle class’

EDITORS NOTE: We received the following in an email Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao:

Unfortunately, our points in the paper have been mis-interpreted and exaggerated by a few media. In the link below, please see our reply to the blog of Jayson Lusk.
Hopefully, this link helps clarify our point. We never advocate lying on climate change. We are especially unhappy by the fact that the misunderstanding and exaggeration are disseminated by various social media. We reserve the right to take any appropriate legal action in the future.
Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao

1. Our paper consists of two parts of messages, one positive (why there is media bias), while the other normative (what is the outcome of media bias). For the first part, media bias emerges as the unique perfect Bayesian equilibrium in our model. This provides an explanation on the phenomenon we observe from reality. Our abstract thus states that “This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement model with asymmetric information.” By the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, rationale means “the reasons and principles on which a decision, plan, belief etc is based.” Our “rationale” is essentially an explanation on why the media has incentives to accentuate or even exaggerate climate damage. It belongs to the approach of positive economics and is value neutral, up to this point.

2. Then we do have a “normative” analysis on the media bias. The main difficulty of the climate problem is that it is a global public problem and we lack an international government to regulate it; the strong free riding incentives lead to a serious under-participation in an IEA. We show that the media bias may have an ex post instrumental value as the over-pessimism from media bias may alleviate the under-participation problem to some extent. (In this sense, we are close to Dessi’s (2008, AER) theory of cultural transmission and collective memory.) Meanwhile, we also address the issue of trust/credibility as people have Bayesian updating of beliefs in our perfect Bayesian equilibrium. We show that, ex ante (when there is uncertainty on the state of nature), the media bias could be beneficial or detrimental, due to the issue of credibility; as a result, the welfare implication is ambiguous.

Muslim tells Muslims: “If you feel you are uncomfortable here — then leave the country”

HPR-300x199

Qadir visits a study group hosted by Institute of Politics fellow Farah Pandith. Photo courtesy of Harvard Political Review.

Rachael Hanna, Associate World Editor for the Harvard Political Review interviewed Hanif Qadir, Founder of the Active Change Foundation (ACF). According to the ACF website, “Hanif is recognised as one of the UK’s leading specialists in positively transforming violent extremists. He is actively involved in advising and assisting senior policy makers in reforming key aspects of the Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) agenda. He works closely with a wide range of Governmental institutions, most of the UK’s Police authorities including the Metropolitan Police and research academics across the globe, with a view to applying a more sensitive and sensible approach in counter terrorism strategies.”

Given Qadir’s background, and that he is a practicing Muslim, this question and answer from the interview stands out:

HPR: In more conservative Muslims communities, how do you deal with the conflict that they might feel exists between some of their beliefs and the modernity of Britain?

HQ: I find that quite easy to handle. There is nowhere in Britain where you are not allowed to practice your faith. In every part of Britain, there are mosques and people are allowed to practice their faith as long as it doesn’t harm others. So my argument to [conservative Muslims] always will be, “If you feel uncomfortable about being a Muslim in Britain, you are not being compelled to live in Britain. You can choose to leave.” And sometimes, if they feel strongly about their views, then I will quote [Koranic] verse to them about emigrating for the sake of Allah to a land where you can feel comfortable practicing your religion. So if you feel you are uncomfortable here, then please your Lord and leave the country. [Emphasis added]

To read the full Harvard Political Review interview click here.

Qadir believes “the War on Terror absolutely can be won.”

“I believe wholeheartedly that it can be won. Communities have a role to play in this. We cannot tackle this problem without the backing of the community, and the only thing that will allow that to happen is if the government and its institutions support organizations like the ACF to go into communities and build that collateral. There has to be more participation from young people and from communities in politics, government, and education,” notes Qadir.

In the video below former extremist and Founder of The Active Change Foundation Hanif Qadir tells us his story of getting sucked into radical thinking, how young people get radicalized, what we can do to prevent it and if its possible to win over the extremists:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/8CZP1vabiV8[/youtube]

 

There are many who question current US policy in the war on terror under Presidents G.W. Bush and Barack Obama. Former federal agent and author of Muslim Mafia David Gaubatz stated in an interview:

A “radical Muslim” is a “practicing” Muslim. A “Moderate” Muslim is a “non-practicing” Muslim or otherwise known as an “Apostate of Islam.” I ask readers to read my prior article, “The Fallacy of the Moderate Muslim.” There are essentially four types of people associated with Islam.

    1. You have the “Pure Muslim” who does everything he or she can to be an example of what Islam was mandated to be by Prophet Mohammed (the founder of Islam). These folks are the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a dozen other Islamic terrorist groups. They are otherwise known as the band of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    2. The second group are Muslims who found and lead such organizations as CAIR, ISNA, MSA [Muslim Students’ Association], MANA [Muslim Alliance in North America], etc. They spend millions on public relations to make themselves appear as peaceful Muslims only wanting to help other Muslims in need. In actuality, these groups are simply fronts of the Muslim Brotherhood to help fund their illegal operations.
    3. The third group consists of what the world describes as “Moderate” Muslims. They have little to do with Islam and Sharia law. The majority of them are simply Apostates of Islam. The dangerous part is that some of these so-called moderates will side with Islamic terror groups when “the time is right.”
    4. The fourth type of group is made up of liberals worldwide who are non-Muslim but who support the Islamic ideology before they would support their own governments in America, Egypt, UK, etc. They are a grave danger, because they provide cover for terror groups.

Qadir and his colleagues at ACF appear to fit into the type 3 category of Muslims. Practicing their religion without the violence associated with it.

To read more articles by Rachael Hanna go to: http://harvardpolitics.com/author/rachael-hanna/

RELATED STORIES:

CIA Chief: I Removed ‘Islamic’ from ‘Islamic Extremists’ in Benghazi Talking Points to Appease Muslims

Female AP Journalists Shot in Afghanistan, One Dead…

Queer happenings: Mozilla CEO forced to resign because he supported traditional marriage?

2014-04-03-EichMB

Brendan Eich

Rob Bluey reports, “The chief executive of Mozilla resigned yesterday amid protests over his $1,000 donation in support of California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  Brendan Eich’s 2008 donation was first revealed two years ago while he was serving in a senior role at Mozilla. But it was after his appointment as CEO last month that half of Mozilla’s board quit and company employees publicly voiced their disapproval. Others launched a public campaign seeking his ouster.”

In the wake of yesterday’s news, Andrew Sullivan, a leading advocate for redefining marriage, said the episode “should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society.”

Heritage Foundation scholars weighed in with their reaction.

Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, warned that “bullies” were poisoning democratic discourse by attacking anyone who doesn’t share their view:

The outrageous treatment of Eich is the result of one private, personal campaign contribution to support marriage as a male-female union, a view affirmed at the time by President Barack Obama, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, and countless other prominent officials. After all, Prop 8 passed with the support of 7 million California voters.

So was President Obama a bigot back when he supported marriage as the union of a man and woman? And is characterizing political disagreement on this issue—no matter how thoughtfully expressed—as hate speech really the way to find common ground and peaceful co-existence?

Sure, the employees of Mozilla—which makes Firefox, the popular Internet browser—have the right to protest a CEO they dislike, for whatever reason. But are they treating their fellow citizens with whom they disagree civilly? Must every political disagreement be a capital case regarding the right to stand in civil society?

When Obama “evolved” on the issue just over a year ago, he insisted that the debate about marriage was legitimate. He said there are people of goodwill on both sides.

Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and senior legal fellow, said the episode was an example of how the disclosure of political contributions served as a means to intimidate and harass an individual for his personal views:

Before Eich resigned, he pointed out that he had kept his personal beliefs out of Mozilla and that they were not relevant to his job as CEO. He was exactly right, although that did not prevent him from resigning.

In a startling display of irony that was obviously lost on her, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, who approved of Eich’s resignation, said it was necessary because “preserving Mozilla’s integrity was paramount.” She seems not to recognize that forcing a founder of the company to resign because of his personal beliefs that have nothing to do with his qualifications as a corporate officer is the exact opposite of “integrity.”

Eich is certainly not alone in his predicament. As the Heritage Foundation previously pointed out, other supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, death threats, and anti-religious bigotry. All committed by individuals claiming they are simply trying to gain “acceptance” and who complain about the supposed intolerance of society over their lifestyle.

RELATED STORY: “Eich Is Out. So Is Tolerance.

If you think expanding school choice is expensive –consider the alternative! by Jeff Spaulding

President Obama has yet again omitted funding for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program in his recently proposed 2015 education budget. Although his reasoning is likely more philosophical than financial, his decision makes analyzing the fiscal effects of opposing school choice worthwhile.

Data from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) show that taxpayers are bearing additional costs for funding K-12 education as a result of the continued erosion in private school enrollment.

By the 2009-10 school year, the private school share of K-12 enrollment nationwide had dropped nearly three percentage points, down to 10 percent since its peak of 12.7 percent in the 1984-85 school year. The DOE currently projects that enrollment shift, if unabated, will continue—falling further, to 9.1 percent, in 2020.

Critically, public schools have had to fill that gap, causing a substantial net additional fiscal cost that is rarely acknowledged by public officials.

Looking only at 2009-10, if the private school share had held steady at the 1984-85 level, about 1.5 million fewer students would have been enrolled in public schools. With America’s per-student spending average of $10,652 in public schools in 2009-10, taxpayers would have saved $15.7 billion that year alone.

Taking a broader view, if the private school enrollment share had held steady at 12.7 percent from 1985 through 2010, spending on the K-12 public schools across the United States could have been as much as $222 billion less! Check out the chart below to see for yourself.

Just imagine what might have happened had a different set of policy options been pursued over the past 25 years. For example, a very limited and targeted school voucher program—phased in one cohort annually starting with kindergarten in 1986— likely would have been more than sufficient to maintain the 1985 private school enrollment share. At a theoretical voucher amount of half the public school average spending per pupil—awarded to just enough students each year to maintain a 12.7 percent private school enrollment share—taxpayers could have saved as much as $111 billion, through 2010, by “spending” on a new school voucher program.

Phasing in by cohort is merely a technical way of describing a voucher program that is expanded sequentially starting with a first group of incoming kindergarten students and then allowing all subsequent new classes of kindergarten students to be eligible. Thus, in year two of the program, both kindergarten and first grade students would be eligible. In year three, eligibility expands to students in kindergarten through second grade, and so on. Such a strategy would have served to moderate the voucher program’s growth and align its expansion more closely with the erosion rate in private school enrollment. Additionally, a phase-in by cohort could have been overlaid with other criteria, such as income limits or geographic boundaries, to control eligibility even more tightly if so desired.

In fairness, it would be rather difficult to design a nationwide school voucher program in such a restricted way that it would offset only the slow erosion in private school enrollment share (approximately 0.1 percent or 50,000 students per year). Because each new cohort is about four million students, any such program, even if restricted and phased in, likely would attract more participants than required just to offset the erosion rate. The upside is, if such a voucher program caused the private school enrollment rate to rise, the savings would be even more.

What has actually happened over this period of time? A sporadic expansion of school choice options on a state-by-state basis has served as a form of phase-in. Unfortunately, its pace has, thus far, been far too slow to fully offset the erosion in private school enrollment.

There’s no objectively “right” ratio for public school versus private school enrollment, but from a purely fiscal perspective, the larger the private school share the lower the public cost. For the ratio to return to somewhere near its 1985 level, the growth of school choice across the country will need to be accelerated by state lawmakers—because the president wants no part of it.

More Posts

March 2014 UPDATE: School Choice in the States

Alabama
The Alabama House passed HB 558 that would amend the Alabama Accountability Act. The bill heads to the Senate for consideration. The bill would make the following changes:

  • Define individual donors as shareholders or partners of S corporations or Subchapter K entities, and eliminate the $7,500 cap on all individual contributions.
  • Scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) would be able to distribute scholarships first to students in “failing” schools and then to lower-income public school students who are not in a failing school by May 15. Current law requires that the SGOs wait until September 15 to distribute scholarships to low-income public students not transferring from a failing school.
  • Change the definition of a failing school. The change would likely eliminate a few public schools from the failing school list, thus making students in those schools ineligible for future participation in the refundable-credit program.

Alaska
The current fate of SJR-9, which would place an amendment to the Blaine provision in the state’s constitution on the November ballot, is still up in the air. The resolution has been sent back to the Rules Committee where it waits until it is reintroduced on the Senate floor.

Arizona
The Arizona Supreme Court declined to review a Court of Appeals’ ruling upholding the state’s education savings accounts (ESA) program. The high court’s decision essentially deemed the ESAs constitutional. Several legislative proposals are moving in the state to expand the ESA program further.

Colorado
The Colorado Supreme Court announced it will review the constitutionality of the Douglas County Choice Scholarship Pilot Program. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in 2013 the program does not violate the state’s constitution, which led the ACLU, which is openly anti-school choice, to file an appeal to the state supreme court. There is no word on when a decision could be expected.

Florida
The House chamber passed an expansion to the Florida tax-credit scholarship that would expand the cap on contributions to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) and allowed businesses to donate against their sales tax liability. The bill would also allow lower- to middle-income families to receive partial scholarships. Proponents of the bill projected the changes would have allowed thousands more students to participate in the program. Even though close to 60,000 students are receiving scholarships through Step Up For Students, Florida’s sole SGO, there is still a waiting list for families in need of options.

The bill’s chances were cut short when the Senate sponsor pulled the bill because Senate and House leadership vehemently disagreed over adding state testing requirements. The House wanted to keep the original accountability language in the bill—requiring students take a nationally norm-referenced test—but Senate leadership demanded that private schools participating in the program should be required to take state tests.

The legislation would have been dead this session but for Rep. Erik Fresen, who added the Florida tax-credit scholarship expansion language to an education savings account bill for students with special needs. The combined legislation passed the Florida House Education Appropriations Subcommittee and will likely be up for a House floor vote in early April.

Indiana
A new voucher program was created this legislative session allowing parents of up to 1,500 children to choose a publicly or privately run pre-kindergarten school. Also, lawmakers clarified language in a portion of the state’s existing voucher program to better serve K-12 students with special needs whose parents want to choose a private school.

Iowa
ESA legislation in Iowa did not make it through the “funnel” process there. This requires that all legislation be moving toward crossover to the other chamber by a certain date. The ESA bill made it out of the Appropriations Subcommittee but was not taken up by the full committee.

Kansas
Both the ESA and the tax-credit scholarship bills are stalled in the legislative process. There is a bill in the legislature to raise the Base State Aid[KB2] in conjunction with a recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling. That legislation does not contain any school choice-related language.<

Louisiana
Legislation that would give low-income students access to more school choice funding passed the state’s House Ways and Means Committee. The bill would allow students participating in the Louisiana Scholarship Program to be automatically eligible for the state’s tax-credit scholarship program, which could potentially give their parents greater purchasing power.

Mississippi
On March 12, the Senate passed HB 765, the Equal Opportunity for Students with Special Needs Act. The conference report on the ESA bill was filed in late March and contains a three-year repealer clause, making this a pilot program. The House voted down the ESA bill April 2 by a vote of 57-63. To see the evolution of the bill to date, visit State Programs and Government Relations Director Stephanie Linn’s markup here.

New York
In 2012, the New York Senate passed tax-credit scholarship legislation, the Education Investment Tax Credit, by a vote of 55 to 4. The Assembly’s companion bill had more than 100 co-sponsors. Although the measure had prominent support, including from some unlikely sources, this year New York’s budget did not include funding for the program, eliminating the possibility that the tax-credit scholarship program will become law.

Rhode Island
A “sliding-scale” voucher bill available to families earning up to 300 percent of the income needed to qualify for free and reduced-price lunch is still pending in committee. The bill faces a deadline of June 23, when the state’s legislative session ends.

Tennessee
The House Finance Subcommittee passed a failing-school voucher bill for students attending schools with academic performance in the bottom 10 percent of the state. The bill does not include income restrictions for students, although most eligible students in this bill would be from lower-income households. The bill sponsor has been taken off notice in the House Finance Committee with the stated intention to take up the bill later this month.

The Tennessee Senate Education Committee followed suit by passing a companion bill. The bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Mark Norris (R), offered an amendment that would allow the program to give first preference to students attending schools in the bottom 5 percent academically and then open up eligibility for low-income students not in failing schools but who are in public schools within counties that contain failing schools. That amendment passed. Notably, the bill passed the committee 8-1 with bipartisan support. The Senate Finance committee will consider the bill in early April.

Vermont
An effort is underway in Vermont to dramatically cut the number of school districts statewide. The move essentially would render the state’s town tuitioning voucher program meaningless (for it to take effect a district must not house any public schools). Also, lawmakers are attempting to put a moratorium on “flipping” schools—in recent years, two public schools used the state’s voucher program to convert to private status amid concerns over state and federal over regulation.

More Posts

Milton Friedman On Taxes and Education Funding

How can we minimize the gap in income inequality for America’s Haves and Have-nots? This video features Milton Friedman with a surprisingly simple solution. Watch to find out about the keystone of school choice.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/JrqAv5Z6yRo[/youtube]

 

To learn more about the Nobel Prize-winning economist and his views on education, visit: http://www.edchoice.org.