Waste, Fraud and Abuse Archives - Page 615 of 632

Black and Blue: How the State Brings Order

December 14, 2014/in Commentary, Culture War, Government Transparency, News, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

We need rule of law, not law and order by Sandy Ikeda:

Today, the difference between law and order and rule of law is literally a matter of life and death. Rarely has that difference been illustrated so starkly as on the streets and inside the courtrooms of St. Louis County, Missouri, and Staten Island, New York. The tragedy is that too few can articulate it; the terror is that too many can’t even see it. At least, not yet.

Rule of law

The rule of law is often contrasted with the rule of man. According to the rule of law, law should lie as far as possible beyond the arbitrary, unpredictable choices of public authorities.

But the rule of law also contains the idea that the law should neither deliberately privilege nor harm any individual or group. Legislation that aims at a certain outcome for a specific person is contrary to the rule of law. An edict that intentionally takes property from persons in group A in order to benefit persons in group B also violates the rule of law. The law should apply equally to everyone regardless of their status. But as F.A. Hayek pointed out, when the state attempts to impose any large-scale plan on its citizens, its commands must necessarily discriminate against some and favor others.

At the same time, those who believe government (that is, a monopoly over force) is necessary for a free society — to provide national defense, for example — but who also believe in the rule of law tend to support aggression under certain circumstances. One is tax collection, so long as it doesn’t target particular individuals or groups, and so long as the persons or groups benefiting from the tax revenue can’t be identified beforehand. The rule of law is supposed to constrain political power.

The rule of law implies stability and predictability. It weighs against expediency and opportunism in legislation, shifting this way and that as circumstances change. And it weighs in favor of governing according to abstract principles that apply universally. Laws that avoid privilege and favoritism (“rent seeking” in modern terminology) tend to do just this.

When government is small and nonintrusive, the rule of law may, in fact, promote a peaceful kind of law and order. But today, when governments around the world are anything but small and nonintrusive, the difference between law and order and rule of law has never been so stark.

Law and order

No one disputes that a certain kind of social order is a good thing. In general, rioting and pillaging are wrong. But when oppression becomes intolerable and peaceful forms of protest have been ineffective, disorderly conduct and even the destruction of property can be positive forces for political and social change. Think of the Boston Tea Party.

I think it’s safe to say that behind that level of oppression is the authority’s fear that it is losing control, a fear sparked by significant acts of individual defiance against authority. That defiance is usually against the authority of police, the blue tip of the spear wielded by the State and aimed at the heart of the most vulnerable citizens.

Ironically, the very chaos governments fear is itself the consequence of too much “law and order,” and their response is then usually to try to impose even more oppressive and unequal “law and order.” Think of the American Revolution. Think of Tiananmen Square. Governments equate order with control. They view society not as what happens when people freely follow their own plans, but as a machine that they must consciously direct, maintain, and occasionally overhaul, lest the cogs freeze up and the wheels stop turning. For them, society cannot order itself, but must be deliberately ordered by law — the law and order of a police state.

In a police state, no one knows how many people the police kill every year. In a police state, the police are not accountable for the harm they do to the same degree that ordinary citizens are. In a police state, the police have extraordinary privileges under the law that the rest of us do not.

The “law and order” of a police state is the result of surveillance, discrimination, and aggression. The law and order that emerges from a minimal government under the rule of law derives from privacy, equality, and peaceful cooperation.

ABOUT SANDY IKEDA

Sandy Ikeda is a professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism.

The System Protects the System

December 14, 2014/in Culture War, Must Read, News, Policy, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The problem is not just benighted cops, but over criminalization by Michael Munger:

An interesting split has been developing in the reactions to the Ferguson and the Staten Island grand jury decisions. When you look closely, this is exactly the division that has for so long defined the American left and right and has kept libertarians on the sidelines.

The left is outraged that the state is not doing exactly what the left expects from an idealized, unicorn state. When they said they wanted a system where everything was controlled by the state, for the common good, they genuinely believed that all that is necessary for good results is good intentions. Any failure must be a problem with implementation.

But the real state is made up of human beings. People are deeply flawed. The left wants to rely on abstract systems, then be perpetually astonished when things go really wrong. It’s not bad people that are the problem. “The thing, the thing itself” is the abuse, folks.

The right? Well, the right is just denying that there is a problem. The system is working. The grand jury has spoken. The only problem is the protesters, who are law-breakers.

The problem with that view is that grand juries almost always indict — unless the case is being brought against a police officer. Then, they almost never indict. That’s not really a “system” at all. That’s a problem. Judge Scalia got this right, in a different context.

The libertarian middle (look, when the political system is a muddle, we’re the middle!) accepts parts of both arguments. The system is, in fact, working exactly as designed, so the right is correct in that sense. But this is a really bad outcome, and it hurts poor people the most — so the left is correct, too.

You can’t have all those laws, a strong presumption in favor of the state’s truthfulness, and expect to protect the poor.

As always, Bastiat said it best, and most succinctly, in The Law:

When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.

The system is not designed to help the poor. Of course police officers are going to use excessive force. Of course police officers are going to have and act on racial and class-based preferences. And then the system — in the courts, the prosecutor’s office, and the grand jury — is going to protect itself. That’s the system, unless you believe in unicorns. The system is designed to protect the system. And it does that very well, so it is well designed. If the left were really serious about helping the poor, they would recognize that the only answer is much less of the system.

We have criminalized so many behaviors (in the Staten Island case, selling packs of cigarettes!) that we have given the police enormous pressure to perform — and gigantic latitude to act on prejudice, bigotry, and simple anger. The police, in their defense, have an impossible job. They have come to see almost everyone around them, every day, as a lawbreaker and a danger to society. Harvey Silverglate has famously estimated that most of us commit at least three felonies per day. The only thing that prevents us from being jailed is the discretion and public spiritedness of the prosecutor.

Of course, I myself don’t really need to worry. I have creamy white skin and quite a bit of money in my bank account. White people are largely unaffected. The almost-but-not-funny hashtag #crimingwhilewhite shows the truth: rich white people can break the law, and they won’t get charged nearly as often.

Still, even I don’t want to have to rely on the discretion and public spiritedness of the prosecutor. I’d rather rely on the fact — and it is a fact — that I haven’t actually done anything wrong, and therefore the laws that could be used to charge me with felonies shouldn’t exist in the first place. More and more, our government’s motto when it comes to citizens is “trust but terrify.”

As long as overreaching laws effectively criminalize being black or poor, it’s not surprising that the police will continue to treat black people and poor people as criminals.

This kind of race-based law enforcement is given the stink eye by our friends on the left, but they can’t seem to draw the obvious inference: the answer is not better police or more enlightened officials. The answer is fewer laws. That’s the long division in our society, the most important difference that arises from class and social status.

Decriminalize normal nonviolent daily activity, and the police will have fewer excuses to harass people they don’t like — people who often can’t fight back.

ABOUT MICHAEL MUNGER

Michael Munger is the director of the philosophy, politics, and economics program at Duke University. He is a past president of the Public Choice Society.

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL 16) Busts the Budget — Votes for Amnesty and Obamacare

December 13, 2014/in Budget and Finance, Featured, News, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

The Republican co-Chair of the Florida delegation is Congressman Vern Buchanan representing District 16. Buchanan’s campaign website states, “Washington’s irresponsible pattern of borrowing and spending has put our country on a road to bankruptcy. Unbelievably, America borrows $188 million every hour. This is simply unacceptable.”

In a December 6th email to constituents Buchanan wrote, “The national debt this week surpassed $18 trillion for the first time in our nation’s history. Since President Obama took office six years ago, the debt has ballooned by nearly $7.5 trillion. Washington’s addiction to spending is putting our nation on the path to bankruptcy.”

In a December 7th InstaPoll Buchanan asked constituents: What action do you think Congress should take to reduce the federal debt, which surpassed $18 trillion this week? Sixty-nine percent of those responding answered “reduce spending.“

Buchanan wants a balanced budget amendment to reign in Congress, but in October 2013 Buchanan voted to raise the debt ceiling and now has given President Obama a victory. The victory is passing a bill that busts the budget, continues to fund pork projects, Obamnesty, Obamacare and will increase the national debt.

The Conservative Review reports:

“This 1700+ page, $1.1 trillion Omnibus spending bill granted President Obama full funding for 11 of 12 federal departments for the remainder of the fiscal year – without any congressional restrictions on his unilateral action on amnesty, Obamacare, and environmental regulations. Worse, this bill actually provided Obama with an additional $2.5 billion in funds to facilitate his executive amnesty. Most egregiously, this 1700-page bill was crafted as a backroom deal by lame duck senators who were rejected by the American public in the November election. Speaker Boehner placed the bill on the floor with only 48 hours to read all 1700 pages.” [Emphasis added]

The Conservative Review gives Buchanan an “F” rating on fiscal responsibility with a score of 53%.”

Did Congressman Buchanan read the bill or did he vote for it first to see what was in it?

Buchanan sits on the House Ways and Means Committee. Does he not understand what he did by voting for this omnibus spending bill? Is Buchanan exhibiting the very “irresponsible pattern of borrowing and spending” that he campaigned against?

Buchanan’s campaign website states, “As a businessman for 30 years, and past Chairman of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, I know what it means to balance a budget, meet a payroll, and exercise the fiscal discipline necessary to keep a business moving forward.” But Buchanan is no longer a businessman. He is a member of Congress. The only payroll he is now meeting is that of the federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., at the taxpayers expense.

Buchanan has not exercised “fiscal discipline”. The only thing he is moving forward is President Obama’s agenda. Is that why those in his district re-elected him? Is Buchanan “grubering” those who elected him?

Buchanan’s campaign website rightly states, “Government does not create jobs, small businesses like the thousands located in Southwest Florida create the jobs.” Buchanan has a jobs plan, but it does not help small businesses. Rather it is to provide jobs to even more Washington bureaucrats and Congressional staffers while his constituents pay higher taxes. Small businesses are harmed by Obamacare’s healthcare mandate, which kicks in in 2015. Florida continues to suffer because of omnibus spending bills like the one Buchanan and many of his fellow Republicans helped passed.

Perhaps it is time to hold the Vern Buchanan’s responsible for their irresponsibility! Buchanan ends emails to constituents with “tell me what you think.” Perhaps those who voted for him should?

Here’s a Couple Of Charts That Might Explain Why Congressmen Voted For The ‘CRomnibus’ Spending Bill from IJReview’s Kevin Boyd:

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

What the $1.1 trillion spending bill contains

FL Rep. Buchanan votes to fund government by defunding America

FL Senator Rubio and Rep. Buchanan get Special Obamacare Subsidy

Why is Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL 16) worried about the West African black rhino?

Illegal aliens get Social Security Benefits thanks to Boehner and his RINOs

With Cromnibus passed, Boehner surrenders all leverage through 2015

December 12, 2014/in Budget and Finance, Featured, Healthcare, News, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Allen West

Well, the “cromnibus” monster spending bill passed last night, and President Obama and Vice President Biden worked hard to get Democrat support — which they did not receive.

The funding measure passed and in doing so, the new incoming GOP majority will have little to no say in funding measures through the entire year — basically half of the new GOP majority Congress. A better approach would have been to execute a continuing resolution (CR) that went into February and then do appropriations by agency, funding what is essential by priority. Instead Obamacare is funded through October next year and funding to President Obama’s illegal immigration executive action — $2.5 billion. However, Speaker Boehner has declared that next February Congress will take up the illegal immigration fight, since the DHS is only funded through February. Whoopee.

In effect Speaker Boehner essentially surrendered the majority which the American people gave the House GOP and with it, the greatest leverage — the power of the purse. Some 1,800 pages, no doubt including pork, has passed which most did not read.

And what if the gambit Speaker Boehner has doesn’t work out next February? That’s the question The Hill asks, writing, “Even if Republicans shut down the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) next year, President Obama could still carry out his executive actions giving legal status to up to 5 million undocumented immigrants. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders have punted the funding fight over Obama’s immigration action to February, arguing their new majority will have more leverage to stop the plan dead in its tracks.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Texas Citizens Cleanse anti-American Bias from Public School Textbooks

December 7, 2014/in Culture War, Education, Featured, News, Policy, Politics, Science, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Roy White

On Friday, November 21st something monumental happened in Austin, Texas at the State Board of Education. The Truth in Texas Textbooks (TTT) Coalition changed the perception that average citizens could have a major impact on the content of textbooks for their children. TTT is a grass roots organization composed of average concerned citizens formed in October 2013 with a simple mission: to insure the proposed social studies textbooks are as error free as possible.

What did these 100 unpaid volunteers do? They corrected inaccurate or misleading textbooks for 5 million Texas children and found over 1500 errors in 32 textbooks.

These are just a small sample of the errors found:

Publishers attempted to push the softer definition of “jihad” as the “struggle to become a better person”. TTT pointed out the facts: the Quran, Hadith’s (Islamic scholar approved collections of Muhammad’s life) and Mohammad’s biography defines jihad as “violence against infidels in the name of Allah”. Attempts to re-define is “spin” and not based upon original Islamic sources.
Conditions in Cuba are painted as highly beneficial for young people from a healthcare and education standpoint. Misleading information and half-truths is how TTT characterized this description of life in Cuba with details of other reports and sources providing facts justifying TTT’s position.
“It’s easy to get depressed about Climate Change.”Telling a child what emotions to have on a topic is “agenda building”. Only one side of the issue was told. TTT urged both sides but publishers chose to pull the book as the solution.
Many publishers routinely referred to the U.S. form of government as a “democracy”. The word “democracy” is not found in the constitution nor in any of the 50 state constitutions. Our form of government is a constitutional republic. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag is to the Republic for which it stands, not to the democracy for which it stands.
Publishers claimed in several instances that Muslims were the original inhabitants of the area we know of as Israel. TTT pointed out Jews inhabited this area hundreds of years before Islam existed.
Multiple publishers left out the terms “Islamic jihadist”, “Muslim terrorists” even when the attackers used these terms in describing themselves; no mention that the Barbary pirates were Muslims, no mention the 911 hijackers were Islamic jihadists, the absence of the word “Islamic” when describing the terroristsin the 1983 Lebanon Marine Barrack attacks. If the terrorists know who they are, why won’t publishers use those same terms?
Gorbachev had more to do with the Berlin Wall falling than Ronald Reagan according to one publisher; Communism deficiencies downplayed while Western democracies marginalized; TTT was able to get re-writes on these and many other distorted areas.

Publishers attempted to claim many TTT entries were not “errors” but request for “additional content”. A half-truth or omission of fact does requires additional content for the student to know the “full truth”, not a partial truth. Fortunately the publishers at the direction of the SBOE began to make changes.

November 21, the SBOE approved the final selection of textbooks. One publisher’s entire collection of textbooks was removed from the approval process primarily due to their failure to respond to TTT’s inputs.

Our efforts won’t stop until we analyze all of the publisher’s replies and post them on our website at www.truthintexasttextbooks.com. The public can see the final grade we put on each textbook based upon the Texas Essential Knowledge Skills (TEKS) compliance rate and how many of the 1500 errors are corrected.

The books will be rated as “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Poor” or “Worse”. This simple report card rating will be easy to understand and assist parents, teachers and school board members as they analyze the books to determine the best textbooks for their children.

Our final report will be out for local school districts (1200+ school districts) as they begin reviewing the 95 social studies textbooks for purchase beginning in early January 2015. Visiting TTT’s website in the coming weeks will provide interested citizens information on the best textbooks for their children. Each of the 32 reviews can be found here.

The secret to our success was average citizens who took the time to get trained, dedicate time to the project, accept criticism of their work and work together as a team following TTT procedures. I can never thank them enough or pass along all the accolades passed to me for their work.

The process has been so effective eight other states have asked for TTT’s protocols to duplicate in their states. Changing textbooks requires entering the review cycle at the right time with the right team. A public conference call for any interested individuals or groups who want more information is scheduled for late January 2015. More details on precise time and call-in information will be on our website beginning in early January 2015.

Publishers want to sell books but making changes before they go to print is the key versus waiting for them to get on the shelves. Please get involved in your children’s future and education, these textbooks are the pathway to their minds and our future.

You can see the testimony of several of our volunteers and the leadership of TTT by going to these YouTube links:

Lt Col (ret) Roy White, TTT Chairman counters CAIR’s argument Islam was spread equally by missionary work, trade and military conquest; answers SBOEs questions and discusses TTT
Dr Amy Jo Baker, TTT’s Director of Curriculum, highlights the false narrative publishers use to describe “jihad”
Karin Gililliand discusses “constitutional republic” versus democracy errors
Barbara Wilson discusses biases found in Great Depression discussions
Barbara Lamontague; false narrative about Gen Douglas MacArthur, praise for Communism
Emily McBurney exposes adult “e-mentor” program in online 6^th grade textbook + more

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Fox News.

Florida Mayor takes bold stand against Terrorism!

November 20, 2014/in Culture War, Elections, Featured, Government Transparency, Hot Topics, National Security, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Randy McDaniels

Mayor Kent Guinn, Ocala, Florida.

Mayor Kent Guinn took a bold stand against terrorism on Tuesday, when he and the City Council rejected attempts by terrorist sympathizer Manal Fakhoury (pictured above) to marry the city of Ocala, Florida to Ramallah, Palestine via Sister Cities International, a United Nations driven initiative.

A request to formally align the City of Ocala, which is affectionately known as horse country and the city of Ramallah which is better known for anti-Semitism and terrorism was submitted by Manal Fakhoury, a Palestinian herself, as well as Karin Dean, Cindy Grimes, and Lola Gonzales in the official capacity of Fakhoury Leadership International.

Ramallah, is the Capitol city of the Palestinian Authority. The P.A. was birthed out of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a federally designated Terrorist Organization which by all appearances changed its name in an effort to distance itself from its violent nature.

The application which was meet with strong opposition and dated 10/16/2014 was heard by the City Council, on Tuesday 11/18/2014. Some in support of the initiative to twining the cities of Ocala and Ramallah, showed up wearing Fakhoury Leadership International T-Shirts. Those who spoke in favor of a formal agreement via Sister Cities International, framed the initiative as an attempt to to promote peace and mutual understanding.

Suggesting Ramallah as a stalwart city in any effort to promote peace and mutual understanding in light its long history of terrorism is a stretch to say the least. Recent Jihadist attacks on Jewish citizens, attacks the Israeli Prime Minister attributes directly to PLO leader Mamoud Abbas who is headquartered in Ramallah add additional skepticism to Fakhourys’ stated mission. Comments by Israeli leadership regarding recent attacks give a glimpse at the kind of influence Ocala could expect from such an alliance:

Prime Minister Netanyahu said incitement by Hamas and Abbas motivated attacks on Jews. “This is a direct result of the incitement lead by Hamas and Abu Mazen (Abbas), incitement that the international community irresponsibly ignores. We will respond with a firm hand to this brutal murder of Jews who went to pray and were scathed by despicable murder.”

Economy Minister Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi) said that “Abbas, one of the biggest terrorists to have arisen from the Palestinian people, bears direct responsibility for the Jewish blood spilt on tallit and tefillin while we were busy with delusions about the [peace] process.” (Haaretz.com, 18 November 2014)

Manal Fakhoury posing with life size picture of Yasser Arafat, PLO terrorist.

Manal Fakhoury, is a tireless activist whose long history ties her to individuals and groups whose stated mission is to impose Sharia Law around the world, to include the United States.

In addition to membership in several Ocala organizations, Fakhoury is board member of United Voices for America (UVA) a spin-off of CAIR, as well as the Capitol Leadership Academy (CLA). Co-founder Ahmed Bedier launched UVA after jumping ship just prior to Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) being designated a Co-conspirator in the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism finance trial in U.S. history. Members of CAIR have been convicted of terrorism, material support for terrorism, and it’s leadership has openly expressed their desire to replace the U.S. Constitution with sharia law. This is not a freedom of speech or 1st Amendment issue, but is in fact a direct challenge to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and its supremacy.

Ironically, CAIR was designated a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) just this past week along with the Muslim American Society (MAS), both Muslim Brotherhood entities, while at the same time both organizations enjoy unprecedented influence in local, state, and federal politics.

Capitol Leadership and similar Academies have sprung up in over 25 states, following the model set by Manal Fakhoury and Ahmed Bedier. These Academies were designed to train 12-18 year old “minorities” almost exclusively Muslim to learn the ins and out of legislation, lobbying, and running for political office.

According to “student(s)” we placed inside two of these week long classes. Ahmed Bedier said “I want clean Muslims in office in the next two years”. In light of this information, it might be worth considering the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood used similar operations to gain legitimacy, influence, and eventually the Presidency in Egypt during the so called “Arab Spring”.

The Gainville Sun, reported that Mayor Guinn displayed an article detailing these connections titled “Manal Fakhoury: Possibly the Most Dangerous and Influential Woman in Florida Politics“, as well as other pictures of her beaming in front of pictures of Mamoud Abbas and Yasser Arafat. Mayor Guinn stated:

“These are things I am concerned about, are the ties of Ramallah, Manal, and this group of people like pictured there,” Guinn said.

He added, “I am not going to pursue having a sister cities, twinning relationship, whatever you want to call it, for a lot of reasons, this being one of them.”

Sister Cities International, is a U.N. entity which facilitates the twinning of cities worldwide, providing guidance, formal agreements, and liaison between twinning cites and federal and international bodies.

One of the stated goals; is for the twinning to be mutually beneficial partnerships between peer communities to include exchanges in the fields of culture, arts, education, trade, municipal management, health agriculture and industry to name a few. In addition, Cities may provide Sister City Organizations with financial support.

Historically, the Palestinian people have been a “refugee” people who have had little to offer in the way of agriculture and industry on a global basis. Almost certainly any support would be directed towards Ramallah and not the City of Ocala or its residents. Other than art and culture not much is left in the way of a mutually beneficial partnership.

Even CULTURE is suspect when you consider the following point(s):

Islam is a complete way of life for Muslims; meaning it is all encompassing and there is virtually no separation between the culture, religion, or the personal life of a Muslim.

Shabbir Mansori, founder of the Council on Islamic Education which is responsible for virtually all Islamic content in America’s public school textbooks succinctly illustrates the Islamic inseparability between culture and goals of Islam in regard to his statement regarding his work America’s Public School system.

“I am waging a “bloodless” revolution, promoting world cultures and faiths in America’s classrooms”.

Gainesville Sister Cities Director Steve Kalishman said 20 percent of Palestinians are Christian and there is no fighting going on in Ramallah. He said Gainesville has a “great Sister City.” as reported in Gainsville Sun.

This is a standard Muslim Brotherhood talking point which flies in the face of the fact that thousands of Christians have had to flee areas under P.A. control with a steady rise in attacks since the Oslo Peace Accords. Christian population has dropped from 15% down to only 2% since just the 1960’s.

In her arrogance, Fakhoury said “I don’t think he knows what he is talking about,” Fakhoury said of the mayor. “If he really had any concern, why wouldn’t he speak to me?” in regard to Mayor Guinn.

She said the Sister Cities program is a positive one and that if any city needed a sister city, Ocala did. she went onto say “I really thought our city was better than this. I think people know me”.

She said she has worked hard for the city of Ocala, a clear reference to her relentless outreach and involvement in dozens of groups. Statements which on the surface suggest that the backward, redneck City of Ocala obligated to oblige her based on she had done for the community.

She went on to affirm her commitment to terrorism, saying “There’s a ton of support in the city of Ocala. I just didn’t bother doing it that way. But we will continue our work (with Ramallah) without a relationship,” she said.

Fakhoury called commissioners’ lack of interest “disheartening” and “sad.” She said there is a blog online by ACT Jacksonville that is smearing her reputation.

By now it should be clear to those seriously considering the information provided in this article and links, that Manal Fakhoury is a passionate and driven woman. Whose drive and support comes with certain expectations which may be diametrically opposed to the health and well being of our local, state, and ultimately national body politic.

Riayd and Manal Fakhoury’s, impact on Florida Politics has been significant on both sides of the isle. They regularly fund and host fundraiser in their home for various Governors, Senators, House Members and Attorney Generals with Hamas Operative Ahmed Bedier frequently in tow.

It is very refreshing to see elected officials who have the discernment to recognize a clear and present danger, as well as the courage to act in the best interest of the community despite the risk of being labeled a racist?, hatemonger, bigot, or Islamaphobe.

Hat Tip to the City of Ocala, Mayor Kent Guinn, Council President John McLeod, James P. Hilty Sr., Brent Malver, Jay Musley, and Councilwoman Mary S. Rich.

Jonathan Gruber’s Big, Benevolent Fraud by D.W. MacKenzie

November 17, 2014/in Culture War, Economy, Healthcare, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Obamacare, the noble lie, and cognitive dissonance at MIT.

It seems that critics of the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA ) have a new ally in our efforts to expose the deficiencies of the legislation: Jonathan Gruber.

This development comes as a surprise, because Gruber was the ACA’s primary architect. He has made public remarks that expose problems with the ACA’s adoption and future operation. However, Gruber still supports the ACA and labors under the idea that it can be fixed.

Gruber admits that the ACA is a kind of fraud — that is, it was deliberately written in a misleading way. The ACA was presented as a way to increase the affordability and accessibility of health care. In reality, the ACA is a transfer scheme.

If the ACA benefits Americans, why did it need to be misrepresented? According to Gruber, transparent spending and transparent taxing are impossible: “You just can’t do it.… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.… Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter.”

The ACA was written to hide the fact that it is designed as a transfer from healthier, younger people to less healthy, typically older people.

Why is a lack of transparency severely problematic? Because bureaucrats and politicians are supposed to serve the public in modern social-democratic welfare states. But why would we expect bureaucrats and politicians to actually serve the public?

Some scholars have suggested that competition in democratic elections can push politicians to serve the public, and elected politicians will therefore keep a watchful eye on bureaucrats. This is called the “median voter theorem.”

The problem is that political competition fails to discipline people in the public sector when governance is opaque. A well-informed electorate is a necessary condition for effective political competition.

Gruber is probably correct in saying that passing the ACA required misinforming the electorate. However, the opaque governance that Gruber lauds opens the door for large-scale waste and abuse by special interests. Opaque governance and a misinformed, or uniformed, electorate make it virtually certain that the ACA will be administered inefficiently, whatever one thinks of its merits.

Indeed, a lack of information causes adverse selection problems whereby the most corrupt people make the greatest efforts to rise in politics and within bureaucracies. Opaque governance thus guarantees abuse of the ACA by public officials and special interests.

What makes Gruber’s remarks particularly worthy of criticism is that he is employed as an economist — and at a top university. Worse still, he teaches public finance and policy at MIT: he really should understand the importance of transparency. And he does. Gruber is the author of Public Finance and Public Policy, chapter nine of which covers the median voter theorem. So, Gruber does understand the necessity of political openness and an informed electorate for efficiency in the public sector. Efficiency requires more than an informed electorate, but it is a necessary condition.

Anyone who understands even the basics of the median voter theorem knows full well that transparency is strictly required for efficiency. Anyone who simultaneously believes that transparency and opaqueness are both necessary for good public policy has cognitive dissonance. Jonathan Gruber has unwittingly helped reveal the incoherence of the case for the ACA.

Gruber is an economist who fancied himself able to reengineer dynamic markets through social policy. His conceit as a social engineer is matched by his disrespect for the American electorate. He thought that an opaque political process and obscure legal language could keep people in the dark. On top of that, Gruber fathered lies because he knew voters would reject the ACA if they were aware of the wrenching changes the legislation would bring. As his lies became obvious, he blamed poor legal phrasing for the federal government’s inability to hide the costly consequences of his transfer scheme behind the subsidies in the federal exchange.

It’s the conceit of the “nudger” — the classic case of an elite policymaker who thinks he is smart enough to design what’s best for you, even if you’re too stupid to understand why and too ignorant to check up on him.

Didn’t Gruber realize such monumental legislation would be under tremendous scrutiny? Didn’t he realize the painful economic effects would be felt by real voters with common sense? And didn’t he realize that it would only take pulling back one of the curtains to expose the totality of this Wizard-of-Oz-like scheme?

Fortunately, it has gotten much easier for people to become informed about the real facts concerning the ACA, as well as other social programs. Citizens will never be well-informed about all of the backroom politics and the internal operations of bureaucracies. But we can at least learn about their true nature in the abstract — and with regard to the ACA in particular.

Perhaps most importantly, we can be on the lookout for those claiming to be wizards in Washington.

ABOUT D.W. MACKENZIE

D. W. MacKenzie is an assistant professor of economics at Carroll College in Helena, Montana.

5 Economic Myths That Just Won’t Die by Corey Iacono

November 11, 2014/in Economy, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

A persistent set of economic narratives still plagues us.

Most people get their economic information through Internet memes and hit pieces filled with nonsense. A common theme is that the forceful hand of government is all that is needed to make things right.

For example, everyone “knows” that government laws ended child labor, and that the New Deal ended the Great Depression, but are these actually valid claims?

Here are five such myths that too many people just accept as true.

Myth 1. The idea that economic growth helps the poor is trickle-down economics … it doesn’t actually help them.

In a 2001 paper titled “Growth Is Good for the Poor,” economists Art Kraay and David Dollar of the World Bank found that when average incomes rise, the average incomes of the poorest fifth of society rise proportionately. This result held across regions, periods, income levels, and growth rates. In 2013, more than a decade after their original paper, Kraay and Dollar explored the relationship between economic growth and poverty again, using data from 118 countries over four decades. They came to the same conclusion. According to the economists,

This evidence confirms the central importance of economic growth for poverty reduction … institutions and policies that promote economic growth in general will on average raise incomes of the poor equiproportionally, thereby promoting “shared prosperity” … there are almost no cases in which growth is significantly pro-poor or pro-rich.

This means that policies that enhance economic growth through methods such as limiting the size of government and lowering barriers to international trade are key to alleviating poverty. Economic growth, not transfer programs, is in fact the primary driver of poverty reduction, and this empirical truth has been proved for a long time.

Myth 2. Free trade doesn’t lead to better economic outcomes in the real world.

Paul Krugman once quipped, “If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations ‘I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage’ and ‘I advocate Free Trade.'” However, critics of free trade, such as development economist Ha Joon Chang, have made very odd statements such as this one:

There is a respectable historical case for tariff protection for industries that are not yet profitable. … By contrast, free trade works well only in the fantasy theoretical world of perfect competition.

Comments like these are puzzling because proponents of free trade don’t assume there is perfect competition. They simply recognize that if one country can produce a product at a lower opportunity cost than another, trade between the countries (or individuals) is mutually beneficial. (This is known as the theory of comparative advantage.)

Economists have examined countless times whether or not freer trade leads to greater economic growth. In regard to trade liberalization — reform that lowers barriers to international trade — the evidence consistently shows that such reforms improve economic performance over time.

According to one study that examined 141 trade liberalizations and compared economic performance before and after liberalization (after controlling for confounding factors), “Per capita growth of countries [after]liberalization was some 1.5 percentage points higher than before liberalization, and investment rates were 1.5–2.0 percentage points higher.”

Subsequent research from Antoni Estevadeordal and Alan M. Taylor took the analysis further by comparing growth rates before and after 1990, when a wave of trade liberalizations occurred. The economists divided countries into an experimental group (the countries that liberalized trade regimes) and a control group (those that did not). According to a summary of their research, the authors “find strong evidence that liberalizing tariffs on imported capital and intermediate goods raised growth rates by about one percentage point annually in the liberalizing countries.” Research has also shown that trade liberalization has caused greater economic performance in sub-Saharan Africa, a region desperately in need of growth.

Reforms that result in freer trade generally lead to superior economic outcomes. This is a well-documented observation. Although there may be situations in which freer trade is undesirable, these situations are not the norm, and free trade policies are still the “reasonable rule of thumb,” as Paul Krugman has put it.

Myth 3. The government ended child labor. In a free market, child labor would still exist.

The assertion that government laws and regulations ended child labor is endlessly repeated and often used as “proof” that without such laws, child labor would be pervasive in the market economy. The Economic History Association (EHA) has shown this is not the case:

Most economic historians conclude that [child labor] legislation was not the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, “While bans against child labor are a common policy tool, there is very little empirical evidence validating their effectiveness.”

Not only is there little evidence supporting the effectiveness of these laws; there is evidence that such laws actually make the families they are intended to help worse off. Research on child labor bans in India found that “along various margins of household expenditure, consumption, calorie intake and asset holdings, households are worse off after the [child labor] ban.”

Myth 4. Countries like Sweden and Denmark prove that high taxes don’t harm economic growth.

Saying that high taxation doesn’t harm economic growth because its effects aren’t superficially visible in one country, or a few, is like saying that cigarettes don’t harm an individual’s health because many young and healthy people smoke them and there are no immediately clear detrimental effects. Many factors affect economic growth. In order to see how high taxes affect growth, researchers control for confounding variables and use large national and international data sets.

According to research published by the European Central Bank that used annual data from 1965 to 2007 for 26 economies, “the effect of an increase in taxes on real GDP per capita is negative and persistent: an increase in the total tax rate (measured as the total tax ratio to GDP) by 1% of GDP has a long-run effect on real GDP per capita of –0.5% to –1%.”

Numerous other studies on government size and economic growth have come to the same conclusion. Furthermore, a study of the macroeconomic effects of Danish taxation found that

Danish taxation generates an overall efficiency loss corresponding to a 12 percent reduction in total income. It is possible to reap 4/5 of this potential efficiency gain by going from a high-tax Scandinavian system to a level of taxation in line with low-tax OECD countries such as the United States.

However, even relatively low-taxed countries like the United States are not immune to the detrimental effects of taxation. A seminal paper by Keynesian economists Christina and David Romer found that taxes are often raised during times of economic expansion and cut during times of economic downturn. This tendency makes it harder to observe the effect of taxes on economic growth. However, the Romers found that they could accurately estimate the effects of tax changes by examining those that were undertaken for reasons unrelated to economic growth. According to the Romers’ estimates, “tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.” Specifically, they find that increasing taxation by 1 percent of GDP shrinks GDP by 3 percent!

Overall, it seems clear that higher levels of taxation stifle economic growth and that countries with a higher total tax burden have slower-growing economies than countries with smaller tax burdens, holding other things equal.

Myth 5. Capitalism isn’t economically superior to socialism.

A considerable amount of research has examined how a transition from socialism (or a repressed-market economy) to a market economy (or a freer market economy) — a process known as economic liberalization — affects economic growth.

For example, using data from 140 countries over the time period 1960–2000, economists from Bocconi University compared countries that underwent economic liberalization to those that didn’t. After controlling for other relevant variables, they found that

economic liberalization is good along all dimensions: it is accompanied by better structural policies and better macroeconomic policies, and it is followed by improved economic performance. This timing suggests a causal interpretation, at least with regard to economic outcomes.

Subsequent research published in the Journal of Economic Surveys has found that “there are strong indications that liberalization … stimulates economic growth.” For a specific example, look no further than China.

Research from Oxford University’s economics department has found that China’s economic growth, which has been driving its massive poverty reduction, was fueled by trade liberalization, rapid privatization, and sectorial changes. As a result of these reforms, China’s GDP per capita grew 4.1 percentage points faster than it otherwise would have, lifting millions out of poverty.

A review of over 40 studies on the relationship between economic freedom and economic growth (with economic freedom measured using the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index) found that research consistently demonstrates that freer markets are robustly associated with greater economic performance. Studies have shown that economic freedom causes economic growth; the relationship is not a mere correlation.

Empirical research also finds that “countries can increase the utility of their national resources by approximately 45% simply by converting to market-based economies” and also consistently finds that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.

Conclusion

It is often assumed that government is a tool for creating better economic and social outcomes, but what if government is actually an obstacle to these ends? The evidence cited here suggests that governments cannot simply legislate problems out of existence. In fact, intervention often exacerbates the problems it was meant to solve.

Furthermore, the assertions that traditional economic theories don’t apply to reality are false. Research shows that taxes do distort the economy, growth is good for the poor, and freer trade does lead to greater economic performance.

ABOUT COREY IACONO

Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics.

Ferguson, Missouri: Cops or Thugs?

November 9, 2014/in Courts & Law, News, Politics, Video, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Bill Finlay

To stand or not to stand with America’s law enforcement officers, that is the question. Racist thugs are attacking American law enforcement officers in Ferguson, Missouri. Which side are you on? The cops or the thugs?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ferguson protesters put a $5000 bounty on Darren Wilson; donated by an investor

Black teacher goes off on ‘crackers, kill yourselves’ rant; ‘Ask why she’s still employed’

Unprofessional conduct complaints filed against Florida Attorney John Morgan

November 7, 2014/in Courts & Law, Featured, News, Policy, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

A Florida lawyer and two Florida citizens filed complaints against trial attorney John Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan, for unprofessional conduct (view the complaints here and here). The complaints referred to a video of Morgan at a pro-Amendment 2 rally where he appeared with supporters. Morgan makes comments that are profane, while holding a drink in his hand.

In the video Morgan states, “I’m just scared sh*tless of [Polk County Sheriff] Grady Judd” to which the crowd chants “F*ck Grady Judd.” On Amendment 2 Morgan states, “I’m not just here to do it, I’m here to F*cking do it” and “If you Mother-F*uckers don’t get up and vote, F*ck it all we can’t win I’m telling you.” On November 4th Amendment 2 failed to garner the 60% of votes needed for a Florida constitutional amendment.

Morgan appears to refer to Sheriff Grady Judd and to those working against Amendment 2 as “professional whores” and mother-f*uckers.” At the end of his diatribe Morgan states, “I do, I do have, I do have some money. And let me tell you what [to the chanting crowd]. Everyone of you mother-f*uckers can get sex on the beach. I’m… I’m going to buy it for you.”

The full public comments of John Morgan (with captions) are captured in the video below:

In June 2013 the Florida Supreme Court established a Code for Resolving Professional Complaints based upon recommendations of a commission on professionalism for those in the legal profession. The Code recognizes, “[T]hat professionalism involves principles, character, critical and reflective judgment… unacceptable professional conduct and behavior is often a matter of choice or decision-making. Therefore, we accept the proposal of the Professionalism Commission to create a structure for affirmatively addressing unacceptable professional conduct.” Subsequently Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. of the Ninth Circuit Court of Florida established by administrative order the Ninth Circuit Court Local Professionalism Panel. Judge Perry, Jr.’s administrative order states:

2. PURPOSE OF LOCAL PROFESSIONALISM PANEL

The purpose of the Local Professionalism Panel is to receive, screen, evaluate and act upon such reasonable complaints of unprofessional conduct as may be referred to the Panel asserting improper behavior of attorneys who may have conducted themselves in contravention or disregard of the standards of professionalism as set forth in the Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar, The Florida Bar Creed of professionalism, The Florida Bar Ideals and Goals of Professionalism, the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, the decisions and administrative directives of the Florida Supreme Court, professional standards of the Osceola County Bar Association and the Orange County Bar Association’s Professionalism Guidelines – all of which are hereinafter referred to collectively as “Ideals and Standards,” and resolve those complaints informally, if possible, or refer the complaints to The Florida Bar, if appropriate or necessary. The conduct of the attorneys who are the subject of such complaints shall be reviewed and addressed in a prompt, informal, respectful, non-punitive, educational and constructive manner, as may be appropriate.

John Morgan practices law in Florida’s Ninth Circuit Court. Fourteen months before Morgan’s diatribe the Code and Procedures were established.

Understanding the Code and Ninth Circuit Court Procedures the complaints were filed using the proper forms. However, none of the complaints were referred to the Ninth Circuit Court Local Professionalism Panel for review and action. Rather the Florida Bar reviewed the video above. A letter from the Florida Bar’s Shanell M. Schuyler, Director of Intake, ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707, states:

The Florida Bar has carefully reviewed the videos of Mr. Morgan which were posted on YouTube following his recent debate with Sheriff Grady Judd over the use of medical marijuana. While The Florida Bar does not condone Mr. Morgan’s conduct, there is insufficient evidence of a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Consequently, this file is closed and the computer record will be disposed of one year from the date of closure pursuant to the Bar’s record retention policy.

Chapter 4 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar states:

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers, and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.

After the defeat of Amendment 2 Morgan appeared at a press conference on November 5th. The presser was captured in the video below. Again Morgan uses profanity. He begins the presser by saying he was stopped by the local police on the way to his office and thought to himself that the police would plant marijuana on him. Watch the full presser:

Perhaps the Florida Bar needs to follow the Code established by the Florida Supreme Court and refer the case to the Ninth Circuit Court Professionalism Panel? Just thinking out loud.

EDITORS NOTE: One of the 51 members of the Board of Governors Florida Bar is Paul Louis SanGiovanni (09-02) from Morgan & Morgan, P.A.

The Lies Phony Climate Experts Tell

November 5, 2014/in Commentary, Environment, News, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Alan Caruba

For decades now both the U.S. and Europe have suffered the arrogance and the lies of so-called “climate experts.” Mind you, there are some real ones and, when it comes to global warming and climate change, the interchangeable names for the lies, they are the ones labeled “deniers” and worse for telling the truth.

The fundamental lie is that humans, through their use of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, are creating huge amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) which in turn is warming the Earth. You will hear the lies again when the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases its latest report.

“The report should galvanize the world to take urgent and collective action to curb climate change,” says Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We’re almost out of time to avoid the worst…”

We have been told this since the 1980s. It is pure fear mongering.

The problem for the phony “climate experts” is that the Earth has not warmed in the last 19 years and CO2 plays a minimal role in the alleged warming. What you never hear the “climate experts” tell you is that CO2 is vital to all life on Earth because it is the “food” that all vegetation depends upon for growth. More CO2 is a very good thing and, in the past, its levels in the atmosphere have been much higher.

On October 24 my eye was caught by a news article that reported that “European Union leaders agreed on a set of long-term targets on energy and climate change, Friday, giving financial sweeteners and weakening some objectives along the way to secure a deal…European leaders committed to cutting carbon emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, which will be legally binding on every member state.”

One of the real meteorologists, Anthony Watts, took notice of the EU. “…Anyone who is expecting a rational re-appraisal of European environment policy—don’t underestimate the blind determination of Europe’s green elite to fulfill their dream of an emission free Europe. They will, in my opinion, happily bomb the European economy back into the stone age to achieve their ridiculous goal.”

In November of last year, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, took note of Germany’s “love affair with renewables (solar and wind energy) brings high prices, potential blackouts, and worries about ‘deindustrialization.’”

“Like Mao urging peasants to melt down their pots, pans and farm tools to turn China into a steel-producing superpower overnight, Germany dished out subsidies to encourage homeowners and farms to install solar panels and windmills and sell energy back to the power company at inflated prices. Success—Germany now gets 25% of its power from renewables—has turned out to be a disaster.”

Jenkins noted that not only had Germany’s output of carbon dioxide increased, but “money-strapped utilities have switched to burning cheap American coal to provide the necessary standby power when wind and sun fail.” The cost of electricity rates in Germany is triple those in the U.S.

Yes, solar and wind power everywhere require fossil fuel plants as a backup whenever the sun is obscured by clouds or the wind doesn’t blow. In the U.S., Obama’s “war on coal” has decreased the number of utilities that utilize it and, in turn, reduced the amount of electricity available. The prospect of blackouts here has increased. If we encounter a harsh winter, that would put people’s lives in danger.

One has to understand that the lies about global warming and/or climate change are in fact an environmental agenda designed to reduce industrialization and the use of energy everywhere.

Harold Schwager, a senior member of BASF’s executive board said in an interview, “Many European companies which are energy-intensive are finding out that the benefits of shifting investment to the U.S. are significant.” Germany and the EU are driving out industry and the jobs it represents because of their idiotic carbon dioxide emissions policies.

This is why we all need to understand the real “environmental” agenda. Writing in the Financial Times on October 27, Nick Butler said “Last week’s European summit on climate change failed to address the hard reality that current policies are not working.”

As in the U.S. the construction of wind turbine farms such as the one offshore of Borkum, Germany in the North Sea only exist by virtue of extensive subsidies that are wreaking havoc on European energy markets. That’s the reality!

Here in the U.S. in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama gave a speech in Golden, Colorado, saying that his planned investments in “green energy” would create “five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever been outsourced.”

How did that work out? Six years later we know those “green” jobs were not created and that his energy policies have actually reduced the production of vital electricity. Will new jobs in industries dependent on fossil-fuels be created? Yes and they will come from European industrial investment and increased oil and natural gas production here despite Obama’s agenda.

That is why the European Union’s idiotic commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) is putting the entire continent in danger and that is why America has to stop providing subsidies and tax breaks to “renewable”, “green” energy here and mandating its use.

Whenever you hear some “climate expert” or politician refer to global warming or climate change, they are lying to you. We have more CO2 in the atmosphere and the Earth is still in a cooling cycle.

Exposing the Green Money Machine

November 4, 2014/in Commentary, Environment, News, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Alan Caruba

It is doubtful that most Americans and others around the world know how vast the organizational structure of the environmental movement is and how much wealth it generates for those engaged in an agenda that would drag humanity back to the Stone Age.

If that sounds extreme, consider a world without access to and use of energy or any of the technological and scientific advances that have extended and enhanced our lives, from pesticides that kill insect and rodent disease vectors to genetically modified seeds that yield greater crop volumes.

Two of my colleagues in the effort to get the truth out are Paul Driessen and Ron Arnold, both of whom are affiliated with a free market think tank, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) they have done the research necessary to expose the wealth and the power structure of the environmental movement. They have joined together to write “Cracking Big Green: To Save the World from the Save-the-Earth Money Machine.” ($4.99, available from Amazon.com)

The Greens are forever claiming that anyone who disputes their lies is receiving money from big energy companies, but my experience is that it is think tanks like CFACT, small by any comparison with any major environmental organization, that support the search for the truth and its dissemination.

“Big Green” was formerly known as the Iron Triangle, “a mutually supportive relationship between power elites” so-named by Mark Tapscott, the Washington Examiner’s executive editor. It consisted of “government agencies, special interest lobbying organizations, and legislators with jurisdiction over their interests.” Today, it includes major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. To these add wealthy foundations and corporations that fund them.

It will no doubt astound many readers to learn that there are more than 26,500 American environmental groups. They collected total revenues of more than $81 billion from 2000 to 2012, according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.

“Cracking Big Green” examined the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of non-profit organizations. Driessen and Arnold discovered that, among the 2012 incomes of better-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club took in $97,757,678 and its Foundation took in $47,163,599. The Environmental Defense Fund listed $111,915,138 in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,701,707 and the National Audubon Society took in $96,206,883. These four groups accounted for more than $353 million in one year.

That pays for a lot of lobbying at the state and federal level. It pays for a lot of propaganda that the Earth needs saving because of global warming or climate change. Now add in Greenpeace USA at $32,791,149, the Greenpeace Fund at $12,878,777; the National Wildlife Federation at $84,725,518; the National Parks Conservation Association at $25,782,975; and The Wilderness Society at $24,862,909. Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection took in $19,150,215. That’s a lot of money to protect something that cannot be “protected”, but small in comparison to other Green organizations.

“If that sounds too intimidating to confront,” say Driessen and Arnold, “it gets worse. Our research found a truly shocking blind spot; many major environmental groups get nearly half their revenue from private foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Wal-Mart’s Walton Family Foundation. Just the top 50 foundation donors (out of 81,777) gave green groups $812,639,999 (2010 figures), according to the Foundation Center’s vast database.”

If you wonder why you have been hearing and reading endless doomsday scenarios about the warming of the Earth, the rise of the seas, and the disappearance of species and forests, for decades, the reason is that a huge propaganda machine is financed at levels that are mind boggling.

Allied with politicians in high places, Big Green can count on them to maintain the lies. When the Earth ceased to warming nineteen years ago, it changed its doomsday campaign to “climate change” but the objective is the same, keep people so scared they will accept all manner of restrictions on their lives at the same time the availability of the energy on which they depend is reduced by a “war on coal” and other measures to keep oil and natural gas in the ground where it cannot be used.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” said President Obama on January 21, 2013, in his second inaugural address. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

This may appeal to those who do not or cannot examine these claims, but the reality is that the climate is always in a state of change, is largely determined by the Sun and other factors such as the oceans and volcanic activity. Humans play virtually no role whatever and Big Green’s Big Lie, that carbon dioxide (C02) emissions influence the weather and/or the climate has long been disproved and debunked. The problem is that that the news and other media continue to tell the Big Lie.

For Big Green, science is not about irrefutable truth. It is an instrument of propaganda to be distorted to advance their lies.

The impact on their lives and on our economy can be seen in “higher energy bills, disappearing jobs, diminished family incomes, and fewer opportunities for better living standards for their children”, all factors that played into the outcome of the recent midterm elections.

For a short, powerful insight to Big Green power and agenda, I heartily recommend you read “Cracking Big Green.”

More than 1,000 Florida Felons Voted in the 2012 General Election

November 3, 2014/in Elections, News, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Gregg Prentice

According to the Florida Division of Elections’ own records a minimum of 1,000 felons cast a vote in our 2012 General Election.

If the Division wasn’t aware of this, they should have been. Because it was discovered via a simple public records request for voters removed from Florida’s voter roll, their date of removal, and the removal reason.

The data from the that single public records request shows that in the 60 days following our 2012 General Election, more than 3,800 registrations were removed from the voter roll because they were felons.

And more than 1,000 of those 3,800+ removed voter registrations cast a ballot in our 2012 General Election.

Given our government’s self-mandated requirements, the possibility that these individuals were convicted of a felony following the general election and removed from the voter roll in less than 60 days is highly unlikely.

A number, and more likely many, were identified long before the election. And somehow our government has found its way to not doing its job. Again.

Because according to this article from 2010, the Florida Division of Elections has had too much difficulty keeping felons off the voter roll since at least 2008.

And now, a couple years after more than 1,000 felons voted in 2012, how many convictions have you heard of?

So, to those who claim there’s “not even a smidgin” of voter fraud, the most polite response might be:

“Here’s your sign”.

Predicted Voter Fraud Underway on a Massive Scale — With Examples

November 3, 2014/in Elections, News, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Joseph R. John

In the 2008 Presidential election, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) had 1200 neighborhood chapters with 500,000 members in 100 major cities across the nation; ACORN was funded by Congress to register voters. ACORN employed massive Voter Fraud to get Obama elected. In 2009, in the wake of the production of video tapes portraying members of ACORN engaged in the registration of illegal aliens, a nationwide controversy erupted. ACORNwas found to be falsifying then filing voter registration forms in Missouri, Ohio, Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Florida, California, Wisconsin, Washington, New York, and Illinois, resulting in felony convictions in Federal Court in those states for Voter Fraud. As a result, millions of illegal votes were cast by illegal voters, and the previous funding for ACORN to register voters was terminated by Congress. ACORN was disbanded following multiple convictions for felony Voter Fraud in Federal courts in multiple states. The Obama administration morphed the 1200 ACORN chapters into many newly named organizations in 50 states, and those newly named organization employed the same ACORN operatives who are being well funded by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as they continued perpetrating massive Voter Fraud in the 2012 Presidential election.

It was reported in the below listed article, that in the 2012 Presidential election, that 6.4% of the 124,026,000 votes cast by voters, or 7,937,664 vote cast, were cast by illegal aliens. For 6 years Holder, following Obama’s instructions, has been aggressively filing law suits against any state that passes a voter photo ID law to preventthem from opposing the massive Voter Fraud again in 2012, like they did in 2008 and the number of illegal aliens voters grew in to over 7 million voters in 2012. States have been passing voter ID laws requiring that voters present a photo voter ID, in order to vote at the polls for comparison to the list of registered voters.

Even when states offered to pay for the issuance of those voter photo IDs, Holder still filed suits against the states to oppose the requirement for a photo voter ID, by saying those ;laws were designed to suppress minorities from voting. The long term goal of Obama and his leftists and Marxist supporters appointees in the bloated bureaucracy is to CHANGE the Republic into a one party Socialist State. Obama’s leftist supporters are continuing the employment of Voter Fraud to register more illegal aliens than the 7.937,644 illegal aliens that voted in 2012.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL-Senate) addressed the US Senate in a 30-minute floor speech and alerted the nation to the fact that after the November 4^th election, Obama is preparing, once again, to unilaterally circumvent Federal Immigration Laws by issuing an Executive Order in order to violate Federal Immigration Law and the US Constitution, without the consent of Congress. Obama had previously violated Federal Immigration Laws, without the consent of Congress, by issuing an Executive Oder to prevent ICE from deporting nearly 1 million illegal aliens, termed Dreamers, who are now protected from deportation by the Obama administration’s ill-conceived Deferred Action-Childhood Arrival Program (DACA).

Obama gave temporary lawful status to those illegal aliens in the DACA program, up to age 31, and provided them with identity documents, expediting their rapid pathway to citizenship, without so much as a face-to-face interview with ICE or Immigration officials. The Obama administration has made it very easy for another 1 million Illegal aliens to obtain drivers licenses and register to vote, when those 1 million Dreamers are added to the 7,937,6644 illegal aliens who violated Federal Lawby voting in 2012, there will be nearly 9 million Illegal aliens violating Federal Law and voting on November 4^th. The Obama administration knows the thatImmigration Service does not have the resources to conduct field investigations of the 1 million DACA Illegal aliens, in order to check their applications, so the Immigration Service could uncover fraud, determine if they have criminal records, or determine if they might be listed in the CIA terrorist data base. Although Congressional leaders have the power of the purse, they have done absolutely nothing to cancel the funding required to expedite the pathway to citizenship for the DACA program.

After the November election, according to Senator Sessions, Obama is planning to issue another Executive Order, that will provide legal status and work authorization cards to an additional 5 to 6 million illegal aliens in the United States. Obama plans to issue those work permits to 6 million illegal aliens at a time when 44 million American citizens are unemployed & on food stamps, all American citizens would be required to compete for jobs with the 6 million Illegal aliens Obama plans to issue work permits to. When those 6 million illegal aliens, are added to the 1 million DACA illegal aliens previously provided with legal status, and the 7,937,664 illegal aliens who illegally voted in 2012. Obama will have been behind and responsible for helping nearly 15 million illegal aliens to register to vote for President in 2016.

Current examples of the massive Voter Fraud:

Maryland–Massive voter fraud in Maryland has been uncovered where illegal aliens who say they are not citizens on jury duty survey forms are found to have registered to vote by the thousands. Early voting just started in Maryland, but there are already accusations that some voting machines are changing Republican votes to Democrat Now Republicans are calling for an investigation by the State Board of Elections.
Illinois—Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start last Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats. Republican state Representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote at the Schaumburg Public Library. “I tried to vote for myself and instead it cast a vote for my opponent.” Moynihan said Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director, Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog, the machine was taken out of service to be tested
North Carolina—The North Carolina Board of Elections has found 1,425 registered voters who likely are illegal aliens. The audit sample 10,000 registered voters in with data provided by the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles and the US Department of Homeland Security.
New York—A single Bronx voter listed in official records as being 164 years old led to the Board of Elections officials to review their files—–where they turned up another 849 New Yorkers who were supposedly alive when Abraham Lincoln was President.

Examples of Voter Fraud in Connecticut, Kentucky, Georgia, Virginia, Minnesota, Alabama, Texas, Massachusetts, Tennessee, California, Idaho, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida, South Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Michigan, Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, etc. can be reviewed by clicking on the link: https://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp

To prevent the massive scale Voter Fraud underway being perpetrated by the Obama administration, every state should pass laws to require voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a vote at the polls. The Republicans in Congress must use the power of the purse to shut down the issuance of legal documents to provide legal status for DACA illegal aliens and the 6 million Illegal aliens that Obama plans to provide legal state to. The Governors of every state should close down the issuance of drivers licenses for illegal aliens, so they cannot use their drivers licenses as proof of residence, so they can register to vote.

We encourage voters to volunteer to be poll observers or poll workers to assure Federal voting laws are observed on November 4th.

RELATED VIDEO: Multiple NC Campaign Workers Willing to Aid Non-Citizen With Felony Kay Hagan Votes

IRS: ‘The Odor Of Extortion’

November 1, 2014/in Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Cynthia Canevaro

“People say the government makes no money, but that’s not true. They make money like any bandit or robber does.” – Jarod Kintz

You know him or her. They are honest people who work hard and pay their bills. He or she is a small business owner who accepts a mix of cash and credit cards for payment. Each day, they faithfully deposit that day’s cash into their bank account. This is the money that will be used to pay their employees and their bills.

Imagine the shock when they log on to their bank account and find that their bank balance has been wiped out – zero – nada – nothing. Thinking there must be some mistake, because they know generally what their balance should be, they immediately call their bank.

What they hear brings them to near collapse. They’re not the victims of hacking, at least not in the traditional sense; they’re the victim of what Forbes contributor Rick Ungar has aptly labeled “grand larceny.” And the perpetrator: the U.S. Government, specifically, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

This week The New York Times and the Institute for Justice (the Institute) blew the lid off how the IRS uses civil forfeiture laws to steal cash from innocent Americans’ bank accounts: no criminal charges, no investigation – just an ex parte warrant and the IRS’ “suspicion” that you might be up to something nefarious like tax evasion or drug laundering.

According to the NY Times, the Institute analyzed “structuring data from the IRS, which made 639 seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005. Only one in five was prosecuted as a criminal structuring case.”

And once they steal your cash, get ready to shell out upwards of $20,000 or more in legal fees and even then you may get less than 20 percent of your money back.

That’s why Ungar, a left-leaning senior political commentator and host of Sirius XM’s Steele & Ungar, lamented in Forbes that the IRS’s actions were “nothing short of grand larceny,” adding, “how does that not have the odor of extortion?”

Ungar’s blistering commentary concluded, “Whatever you think of the IRS scandal of recent years, it pales in comparison to what we are seeing take place here. …if the President fails to publicly condemn this, he will have given those of us who believe in government as a tool to greatly benefit the people every reason to feel betrayed and left to be defined as fools.”

Thus far, the President has remained silent. And while the IRS issued a typical double-speak statement, they offered no apology or reimbursement to the victims of their fully sanctioned theft operation.

What’s most perplexing, however, is the deafening silence from Congress.

When the IRS comes like a thief in the night and steals our cash (with full impunity), our top law enforcement agency (Department of Justice) refuses to investigate the IRS’ partisan targeting and illegal release of taxpayer records, and our elected officials sit in stone cold silence, where do We the People turn for justice?

There are only two solutions to this problem. One is the ballot box andTuesday is Election Day. Will you continue the status quo or will you have the courage to stand up and finally say, “enough is enough” – regardless of party? That decision alone could initiate seismic waves of change.

The second answer is the ultimate enactment of the FairTax® Plan. The FairTax is the only tax plan that replaces the income tax and eliminates the IRS. In a way, you hold the key to both solutions.

As Mike Huckabee writes in his latest article, “…as Americans, we are all guilty of one inexcusable sin: continuing to tolerate this out-of-control rogue agency that thumbs its nose at us even as it’s trampling our constitutional rights. It’s long past time for the Fair Tax.”

Finally, as candidates go into the final days of the 2014 midterms the mud’s slinging and the vitriol is erupting. And candidates who stand FairTax strong are fighting mistruths, half-truths and outright falsehoods.

One such candidate in the Georgia Senate race, David Perdue, is defending his FairTax support against opponent Michelle Nunn. And wouldn’t you know Neal Boortz has something to say about it! Like him or despise him, he always has an opinion. Click here to see what Neal’s saying now.