Friday, January 31, 2014

The President’s Brother, Malik Obama, Funds Hamas

Report: Malik Obama, the President’s Brother, Funds Hamas
           Posted By Bryan Preston On January 30, 2014

On Tuesday we noted that Malik Obama is President Barack Obama’s half-brother, but the two are very close. Malik Obama was best man at the future president’s wedding, and has visited the White House during the Obama years. We also reported that Malik Obama posted a photograph of himself on the Barack H. Obama Foundation website in which he is wearing a scarf emblazoned with calls for Muslims to destroy Israel.

Wearing a scarf is by no means the full extent of evidence that Malik Obama is anti Israel and supports its destruction. According to anti-terrorism activist Walid Shoebat, Malik Obama raises money through an Islamic charity organization, and uses that money to support Hamas.

Hamas is a designated terrorist organization by the United States Department of State, and has been since 1997. Hamas’ original foundational charter explicitly called for Israel’s destruction. Hamas continues to insist that it will make no agreements that recognize Israel’s right to exist. Hamas officials were quoted in Arabic-language media last fall saying that “no usurper has any right to a speck of dust” of the territory that Hamas believes belongs to Palestine, which includes all of present-day Israel.

Along with being president of the IRS tax-exempt Barack H. Obama Foundation, which the IRS’ Lois Lerner fast-tracked to tax-exempt status and illegally back-dated so the foundation and Mr. Obama could avoid legal trouble, Malik Obama is executive secretary of the Islamic Da’wa Organization. That organization collects funds and sends them directly to designated terrorists organization Hamas. The funding goes toward attacks and “martyrdom operations” — suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

Obama’s alleged connection to Hamas’ attacks is through the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO) of Sudan dictator Omar al-Bashir.
Bashir himself is an international criminal who has waged a bloody war against Sudan’s Christians and animists in Darfur, and who once harbored Osama bin Laden, but President Obama’s administration has sought to mend ties with him anyway.

The IDO to which Malik Obama belongs and leads is supposed to exist for proselytizing for Islam, but it also raises funds for “Gaza relief.” These unmonitored funds pass through a bank, Al Shamal Bank, which was founded by Osama bin Laden and is still known to be linked to al Qaeda. Shoebat reports:
The funds are then distributed through Hamas to whichever way they like to spend them. For example, one fund to aid Hamas comes from an Account #1782 under IDO and is advertised by the Muslim Brotherhood as “Aiding Our Brothers in Gaza,” which is set up in the Shamal Bank, an Al-Qaeda bank that was founded by Osama bin Laden. Shamal Bank, as explained in a 1996 State Department report on bin Laden’s finances:
“Bin Laden co-founded the Al Shamal bank with a group of wealthy Sudanese and capitalized it with $50 million of his inherited fortune…”
The Al Shamal bank was also identified as one of bin Laden’s principal financial entities during the trial earlier this year of four Al Qaeda operatives convicted in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
In fact, the banking of Malik’s IDO through Al-Shamal is ironclad and is advertised on their own websites [Here] and [Here].
Shoebat continues:
Malik’s IDO is part of a Coalition of Islamic Organizations (CIO) which also includes the Islamic Society in Gaza, a Hamas front organization founded by Hamas terror leader Sheikh Yassin and headed by Hamas Prime Minister / terror leader Ismail Haniyeh who was its president for almost ten years.
The relationships and financial links get quite complicated, by design. Walid Shoebat notes that Malik Obama’s boss within the Islamic Da’wa Organization, Suar al-Dahab, has explicitly and repeatedly called for Israel’s annihilation. Shoebat has much more on this at his website.
The best man.
The president and his brother Malik in the White House.

‘From the River to the Sea!’ and ‘Jerusalem is ours – We are coming (or) we march forth’!

Who Said This? (Hint - He's Still Lieing!)

Other things King Barrack has said:

“I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work,”

“I will make sure we renegotiate NAFTA”

“I promise 100% transparency in my administration.”.

“I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year.”.

“I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”.

“I will remove earmarks from PORK projects before I sign any bill.”.

“I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year.”.

"I will bring ALL of our troops home within ONE year."

“I’ll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!”.

“I’ll have no lobbyists in my administration."

"I'll close Guantanamo."

"I'll resign if I don't cut the deficit in half by the end of four years."

"I'll unite the people of this great country."

"If you like your health Insurance you can keep it, PERIOD!"

Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on
the White House website for five days."

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

A brief history of Kristallnacht - Beware 1%'ers

JAMES TARANTO: Tu Quoque ad Hitlerum: A brief history of Kristallnacht analogies.

Today’s New York Times column from Paul Krugman, titled “Paranoia of the Plutocrats,” typifies the prog-left’s reaction. “You may say that this is just one crazy guy,” Krugman writes. “But Mr. Perkins isn’t that much of an outlier.” Rather, according to Krugman, Perkins belongs to “a class of people who are alarmingly detached from reality.” . . .

Are they? A little context is in order here. Krugman notes that Perkins isn’t “even the first finance titan to compare advocates of progressive taxation to Nazis.” (Nor is he in fact the latest; his letter is about what he hears as a hateful tone, not about taxes or any other substantive question of policy.) Krugman cites an earlier example, from 2010.

But Kristallnacht references have been a part of public debate for decades. And their use hasn’t been limited to “finance titans” or people on the right. Blogger Ed Driscoll notes an example nearly a quarter of a century old: a March 1989 op-ed titled “An Ecological Kristallnacht. Listen.”

“In 1939, as clouds of war gathered over Europe, many refused to recognize what was about to happen,” wrote the op-ed’s author. “In 1989, clouds of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin.” (Kristallnacht actually occurred in 1938.) In case that wasn’t heavy-handed enough, he also invoked Neville Chamberlain.

The author of that piece was one Albert Gore, then junior senator from Tennessee. It appeared–where else?–in the New York Times. . . .

In March 2010, Krugman’s then-colleague Frank Rich experienced 1938 flashbacks. Congress had just enacted ObamaCare, by a partisan vote and over public opposition that was both broad and intense. “How curious,” Rich wrote, “that a mob fond of likening

President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.”

Ninety-one Jews were murdered on Kristallnacht, and some 30,000 were rounded up and taken to concentration camps. In the 2010 “vigilante violence,” not only was no one killed, but the Daily Beast’s John Avlon reported only four windows hurt. Yet Avlon was as excited as Rich: “The parallels, intentional or not, to the Nazis’ heinous 1938 kristallnacht . . . are hard to ignore.” (As an aside, has an adjective ever done less work than that “heinous”?)

Well, there’s a class of rich people who are out of touch with reality, all right. . . .
Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?

I would call attention to the parallels of Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."


Jan. 24, 2014 4:49 p.m. ET

Regarding your editorial "Censors on Campus" (Jan. 18): Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."

From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent. There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these "techno geeks" can pay. We have, for example, libelous and cruel attacks in the Chronicle on our number-one celebrity, the author Danielle Steel, alleging that she is a "snob" despite the millions she has spent on our city's homeless and mentally ill over the past decades.

This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant "progressive" radicalism unthinkable now?

Tom Perkins
San Francisco
Mr. Perkins is a founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

Eating Our Young

Eating Our Young

Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On January 26, 2014 
 

It is popular now to talk of race, class, and gender oppression. But left out of this focus on supposed victim groups is the one truly targeted cohort — the young. Despite the Obama-era hype, we are not suffering new outbreaks of racism. Wendy Davis is not the poster girl for a resurgent misogyny. There is no epidemic of homophobia. Instead, if this administration’s policies are any guide, we are witnessing a pandemic of ephebiphobia [2] — an utter disregard for young people.

The war against those under 30 — and the unborn — is multifaceted. No one believes that the present payroll deductions leveled on working youth will result in the same levels of support upon their retirements that is now extended to the retiring baby-boom generation. Instead, the probable solutions of raising the retirement age, cutting back the rate of payouts, hiking taxes on benefits, and raising payroll rates are discussed in an environment of après moi le déluge [3] — to come into effect after the boomers are well pensioned off.

The baby-boomer/me generation [4] demands what its “greatest generation” parents got — or, in fact, far more [5], given its increased rates of longevity. The solution of more taxes and less benefits will fall on young people and the unborn, apparently on the premise that those under 18 do not vote, and those between 18 and 30 either vote less frequently than their grandparents or less knowledgeably about their own self-interest.

The Social Security pyramidal scheme [6] is merely the tip of the ephebiphobic iceberg. Currently student indebtedness exceeds $1 trillion. Many of these loans begin compounding before graduation and are pegged at interest rates far higher than parental mortgages.

The cause of this tuition bubble is also not controversial. The prices colleges charge for annual tuition, room and board have for over two decades far exceeded [7] the annual rate of inflation.

There were four causes of such price gouging of students. None of them had anything to do with offering better education for a more competitive price for job-hungry graduates. The first was automatic escalations in the amount of money students could borrow that would be backed by federal guarantees. If campuses hiked their wares at prices consistently twice the rate of inflation, they could assume that students — while in college — could qualify to borrow the needed sums. What happened afterwards was not all that much a concern of the campus, at least as long as it did not affect subsequent admissions.

Second, the size and compensation of the administrative class exploded [8]. Again, the reason why was not difficult to understand. Awash in federally backed loan dollars, hoping to lure students with high-tech and social amenities, and to indoctrinate them with race, class, and gender ideology, campuses created new positions from diversity associate provosts to technology gurus — all to oversee everything from rock-climbing walls to on-campus lectures and paid workshops from fashionable cultural icons.

Third, there was a radical bifurcation [9] among faculty, a sort of divide-and-conquer strategy that rewarded fossilized tenured professors with reduced teaching loads and support for research, while cutting back on new replacement tenure-track billets and upping the percentage of units taught by pastime adjunct teachers. The new younger Morlocks did the grunge 1A work for their more rarefied and contemplative elder Eloi, and the students who paid for it sat through their lectures on fairness and equality.

Finally, the idea of medieval exemption masked the oppression.  Colleges were loudly progressive. Faculties sided with the Palestinians and Walmart greeters in the abstract, never the exploited part-timers in their midst. The noble poor were always distant, not the supposedly clueless lower-middle-class student who went into hock [10] to subsidize academic rants on equalitarianism.

Little need be said about Obamacare. It is a third method of a vast redistribution scheme between the age cohorts, one that seeks to hike insurance premiums on the mostly young, healthy, and low paid or unemployed in order to subsidize the health care costs of the older, less hail, and more affluent. The success of Obamacare hinges on taxing a youthful cohort for a service it will rarely use in order to subsidize those better off who will use it a lot.

This administration has added so far about $8 trillion to the national debt [11].  By the end of its two terms, the national debt will have doubled in less than eight years. After the tax hikes and sequester, we may nonchalantly talk of deficits stabilizing at over $600-800 billion, forgetting that such annual red ink will in aggregate add trillions to the soon to be $18 trillion in aggregate debt. The tab can only be serviced by continuing virtually non-existent interest rates. For the present generation of toddlers, it is likely that the debt will only continue to grow and the eventual cost of servicing will soar. Interest rates will rise, and those who ran up the tab will be retired — while those who were not responsible for the profligacy will pay if off.

In short, those now in the womb to the age of thirty will have to subsidize Social Security and Medicare for benefits that they themselves will never commensurately enjoy. They are paying far more for college than did either their parents or grandparents, and receiving less sound education and more dismal job prospects — with aggregate student loan debt that may match their mortgage obligations. Finally, the youth have no choice whether they wish to become as profligate as were their parents. Like it or not, for the next generation’s natural lifespan, federal budgets will be reduced and taxes probably raised to service the enormous debt of others.

The old notion of marriage in one’s early twenties, two or three children by one’s thirties, a two-car garage in the suburbs and a mortgage paid off by retirement is already a myth from a now forgotten age. Like the citizens of Petronius’s Croton, the best bet for generations X, Y, and Z are an inheritance from those of an easier age.  We can easily caricature today’s youth — the prolonged adolescence in the garage or basement, the tattoos and piercings [12], the sorta, kinda going to school or part-time working that so often eats up one’s twenties and early thirties — but the fault is more so their parents’ generation who strangled and bankrupted the economy.

In California, the boomers have virtually stopped natural gas and oil production in the Monterey Shale formation. It was adults that idled hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated farmland that in turn put thousands out of work. The youth did not cancel new water projects and put California on the edge of disaster. The rich, affluent, and mature were opposed to salvaging a billion board feet of torched timber after the recent Sierra forest fires. It was always the smug older establishment that decided that they had enough money and security not to worry whether the less fortunate others might have commensurate opportunities. To the Bay Area grandee, one spotted newt or valley rat is always worth sidetracking a few thousand youthful futures [13].

So, yes, there is something nauseating about the full, tenured professor indifferent to the plight of the part-timer, the Sierra Club attorney who cares nothing for the out-of-work young logger, and the pensioner with additional Social Security who assumes that the minimum-wage young fellow at Starbucks should always pay more benefits that he will never see.

Symbolic of the many gifts bestowed by the baby boomers to the present generation of youth — aside from Botox and liposuction — was the new idea of the “intern”: an unpaid helot position predicated on the notion that the young and poorer might someday win a wage from the older and richer.

How odd that President Obama, in his soon-to-be-infamous “I have a pen and phone” boast to bypass the Congress, claimed that he would act outside the Constitution to enact his agenda and help the “kids.”

In truth, no administration in recent memory has done more to harm young people. Like some strange exotic species of the animal kingdom, we Americans are now eating our own young.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Common-Core (ObamaCore)

ObamaCore: The Nationalization of K-12 Education

 

From state academic standards and tests to charter and virtual schools, the K-12 education world has changed in the 30 years since President Ronald Reagan’s landmark “A Nation at Risk” commission diagnosed the myriad problems with public schooling in America. However, with their eagerness to federalize what has always been a state and local responsibility, advocates for national English and math standards known as Common Core don’t seem to have learned anything in the intervening decades.

One lesson that might have been learned is that state-based models produce better results than top-down initiatives that originate in Washington. It should come as no surprise; state and local taxpayers fund 90 percent of K-12 education and have far more invested in their schools than do federal bureaucrats or D.C.-based education lobby groups.

Had the Beltway forces behind Common Core, including the Obama administration, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve, Inc., been interested in improving students’ academic performance, they would have looked to Massachusetts’s success.

In the early 1990s, Massachusetts was an unremarkable performer on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and SATs. However, in the wake of landmark 1993 education reform legislation, state SAT scores rose for 13 consecutive years. In 2005, Massachusetts students became the first to score best in the nation in all grades and categories on the NAEP assessments. Since then, they have repeated the feat each time the tests have been administered.

While U.S. students lag behind their international peers, the Bay State’s eighth graders tied for best in the world in science in the 2007 Trends in International Math and Science Study. Massachusetts has truly responded to the alarm sounded by “A Nation at Risk.”

Yet strategies embraced by Common Core’s proponents are the opposite of those that worked in Massachusetts. The Bay State’s success was based on a golden triangle of rigorous academic standards, the high quality tests students must pass to graduate from high school, and teacher testing all aligned to the same liberal arts-rich content.

Common Core, on the other hand, recycles top-down policies. Its roots can be traced to a letter written to Hillary Clinton by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy, after President Bill Clinton’s 1992 election. The letter laid out a plan "to remold the entire American system" into a centralized one run by "a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels" where curriculum and "job matching" will be handled by government functionaries "accessing the integrated computer-based program."

Today, many national standards advocates still embrace these same anti-academic impulses despite two decades of evidence to the contrary.

In 1998, Connecticut had higher reading scores than Massachusetts. Yet just as the Bay State was adopting clearly articulated academic goals, Connecticut opted for a skills-based workforce development approach. By 2005, Massachusetts's scores had jumped dramatically, while Connecticut was one of seven states that experienced outsized drops in reading scores.
Compared to Massachusetts’s former English standards, Common Core reduces classic literature, poetry, and drama by 60 percent. It ignores the works of Charles Dickens, Edith Wharton, Arthur Conan Doyle, and novels like Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. The change is fatal because literary vocabulary is of far higher quality than what is in the “informational texts” Common Core favors.
In math, Common Core delays the progression to algebra I – the gateway to higher math study – by at least a year. Stanford University Emeritus Mathematics Professor R. James Milgram, the only academic mathematician on Common Core’s validation committee, refused to sign off on the final draft, describing the standards as having “extremely serious failings” and reflecting “very low expectations.”

Common Core’s problems aren’t just academic. It was adopted using a process which bypassed the state legislatures that fund American K-12 education.

In 2011, after 45 states had already adopted the standards, Pioneer Institute commissioned the first independent study of how much it will cost states to transition to Common Core. The study pegged the price tag at $16 billion.

Most disturbing are serious questions about Common Core’s legality. The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which defined the federal government’s limited role in K-12 education; the 1970 General Education Provisions Act; and the 1979 law establishing the U.S. Department of Education (USED) all explicitly prohibit the federal government from funding, directing, validating, or controlling any nationalized standards, testing, or curriculum.

Yet Race to the Top, a federal education grant competition that dangled $4.35 billion in front of states, favored applications that adopted Common Core. The USED subsequently awarded $362 million to fund two national testing consortia to develop nationalized assessments and a “model curriculum” that’s “aligned with” Common Core. In his February State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama took full credit for Common Core’s D.C.-led uniformity.

Several states, like Texas, Virginia, and Nebraska, opted out of Common Core. Anti-Common Core movements have sprung up in a majority of the remaining states, and what began at the grassroots is now making its way to state legislatures. Last April, the Republican National Committee passed forceful anti-Common Core resolutions.

Public education has largely languished in the U.S. because pursuit of an ever more centralized bureaucracy trumps academic excellence and parental choice. Neither the federal government nor the D.C. groups behind Common Core can point to a single program they have advocated for that remotely approaches Massachusetts’s student achievement results. It’s hardly the first example of ignoring facts and exceeding federal authority in support of a domestic policy agenda over which states rightfully have jurisdiction.

Jamie Gass directs the Center for School Reform and Charles Chieppo is a senior fellow at Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think tank.

ObamaCare - Quote


It is a coin flip, at best, for the president as to whether his signature achievement, his only achievement, will fail.

 It will be repealed in essence by a popular referendum: The mass refusal of people to go along with Obama’s top-down, compulsory system that was set to transform a sixth of the economy. 

That possibility should traumatize and probably is traumatizing the White House. 


Same goes for any Democratic lawmaker who spent time thinking this through. 


The political implications of this are almost too enormous to calculate

A Warning from 1850







Sunday, January 26, 2014

What Obama Said, and What He Didn't - Charles Cooke

What Obama Said, and What He Didn't

                 By Charles C. W. Cooke

S&P Gets the Pitchfork Treatment - King Barack (Make 'em Pay) The Chicago Way

S&P Gets the Pitchfork Treatment
 
The Obama administration retaliates with a fraud suit . . . or is it a fraudulent suit?
                   By Andrew C. McCarthy

A dour President Obama was in no mood to hear about Wall Street’s troubles. “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks,” he warned a room full of the nation’s banking titans.

They’d been summoned to the White House woodshed over what Dear Leader had decided was excessive compensation for industry execs. The president had been on the job for less than three months, but his community-organizer roots were already showing: the fraudulent narrative — in this instance, “income inequality” — helped along by whatever arm-twisting the occasion required. The narrative camouflages execution of the statist game-plan: (1) government creates problem, (2) government locates scapegoat, and (3) government exploits scapegoat to juxtapose itself as savior — rationalizing more regulation and more power.

The pitchfork imagery leapt to mind this week because Timothy Geithner, Obama’s tax-challenged former Treasury secretary, was back in the news — specifically, the extortion news. Turbo Tim had been in the room back in 2009, absorbing the boss’s lesson in Alinsky-style government-corporate relations. Now we learn, at least according to Standard & Poor’s top honcho, that Geithner made the Obama method his own.

In an affidavit filed in a California federal court, S&P chairman Harold McGraw III alleges that on August 8, 2011 — i.e., when the Obama reelection campaign was gearing up — Geithner tracked him down by phone. The then-secretary was irate because, three days earlier, S&P had downgraded the credit rating of the United States to a notch below triple-A for the first time in history. McGraw had been forewarned by a Geithner associate that the secretary “was very angry at S&P.” When the two men finally spoke, Geithner ripped McGraw for having “done an enormous disservice to yourselves and to your country.” He further warned that S&P’s insolence — er, I mean, S&P’s decision — would “be looked at very carefully” and would prompt “a response from the government.”

That “response” came in the form of a punitive lawsuit, brought by the government against S&P. At least that’s the way S&P sees it, with what appears to be ample reason.

McGraw, it is worth noting, is hardly a tea-partying Obama basher. He runs in the Geithner-trod circles of international finance and, in 2009 — at around the same time the president held his sweat session with the bankers — Obama made McGraw his appointee to the
U.S.-India CEO Forum. While there is not likely to be a recording of the phone call with Geithner, it seems a stretch to think McGraw made the whole thing up. The statement submitted in the lawsuit this week is under oath — i.e., subject to penalty of perjury if proven false. McGraw also recalls immediately telling colleagues about it, suggesting there are probably contemporaneous notes corroborating his account.

And beyond that there is what cannot be disputed: Within days of the call, the New York Times was reporting that the Obama-Holder Justice Department was investigating S&P. In short order, Justice filed a civil lawsuit against S&P, alleging fraud — a subject in which this administration is well versed — and seeking a ruinous $5 billion in damages.

The dispute oozes intrigue. For starters, the fraud claimed by the Obama administration has nothing, ostensibly, to do with the downgrade. Instead, the Justice Department reached back several years, to S&P’s activities before the 2008 financial meltdown. Of course, the root cause of that crisis was government coercion of the financial sector. Uncle Sam pressured financial institutions to extend mortgages to poor credit risks — pressure that left-wing activists, such as a young lawyer named Barack Obama, capitalized on by bringing lawsuits that alleged racial discrimination against reluctant lenders.

Ever since the mortgage bubble exploded, Washington has searched every place but within for a scapegoat. Among the most inviting targets are the credit-rating agencies — not just S&P but Moody’s and Fitch. Like bankers, they are not very sympathetic victims. They were content to ride the government-conducted gravy train while it lasted, lavishly paid by banks that courted them to look favorably on securities backed by the suspect mortgages. The pols happily facilitated this doomed arrangement, taking credit for promoting the dream of home ownership while raking in donations from the rigged system’s flush players.

But since the bottom fell out, taking the economy with it, the catastrophe’s architects have used their control of government’s law-enforcement powers to turn on their former accomplices. There have been investigations against banks for making irresponsible loans, and against rating agencies for encouraging the recklessness.

As the Wall Street Journal drily notes, the banks that marketed mortgage-backed securities are alternatively portrayed as perps or dupes depending on the Justice Department’s whim in any given case. The contradictions plaguing the government’s desperation to find a suitable culprit are no more surprising than DOJ’s inability to rack up convictions commensurate with the wreckage. It is hard for the government to prosecute people who have a credible “the government made me do it” defense.

This, however, is not the most notable contradiction in Justice’s jihad against S&P. That distinction belongs to the absence of an obvious co-defendant: Moody’s. If providing imprimaturs for securities backed by bad loans were a game of “anything you can do, I can do better,” S&P would probably have been bested by its top competitor. Moody’s appears to have been every bit as biddable towards its bank clients, and as delusional in grading their shaky securities, as S&P is alleged to have been. Indeed, after the crash, both rating agencies were investigated by the FBI, the SEC, and state investigators, both (along with another rater, Fitch) were sued by the states of New York and Ohio, and both were grilled by Congress.

Yet, only S&P was sued by the Justice Department — and only after the downgrade. Moody’s, a chunk of which is owned by

Berkshire-Hathaway, the conglomerate run by Obama pal Warren Buffett, decided not to downgrade the U.S. credit rating in 2011, notwithstanding the government’s patent unseriousness about our astronomical debt load and the rating agencies’ post-meltdown promises to be more rigorous in their assessments. By sustaining the triple-A rating, Moody’s enabled the Obama campaign to dismiss S&P’s downgrade as an outlier. And, shocking as this may seem, the Justice Department elected not to slap Moody’s with a $5 billion lawsuit. The pitchforks aim only at S&P.

Of course, the fact that Moody’s slipped the noose does not make S&P innocent. It may be that both of them — along with the banks, the regulators, and the Beltway social engineers — were fraudulent, or at least grossly negligent. If, as some experts suggest, Moody’s was even more culpable than S&P in hawking mortgage-backed securities, its absence from the suit is the case’s second greatest irony.

The first is the Obama administration’s accusation that S&P carried out a scheme to defraud based on what prosecutors describe as “repeated” misrepresentations. Whether the rating agency made the product seem too good to be true, and whether the sophisticated financial players in this market were actually swayed by such falsehoods, remains to be seen. But I’m betting that whatever S&P said
couldn’t hold a candle to “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan, period.”

I’m also thinking that, between the pitchforks, the vengeful Treasury secretary, the not-so-mysteriously missing defendant, and the fraud stones being tossed from a glass White House, this case could be a hoot . . . especially for the defense lawyers.

The Thin Strand of Civilization - Victor Davis Hanson

The Last Generation of the West and the Thin Strand of Civilization

                Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On January 19, 2014  
 

Had the Greeks lost at Salamis, Western civilization might easily have been strangled in its adolescence. Had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union, the European democracies would have probably remained overwhelmed. And had the Japanese just sidestepped the Philippines and Pearl Harbor, as they gobbled up the orphaned Pacific colonies of a defunct Western Europe, the Pacific World as we know it now might be a far different, far darker place.

I am not engaging in pop counterfactual history [1], as much as reminding us of how thin the thread of civilization sometimes hangs, both in its beginning and full maturity. Something analogous is happening currently in the 21st-century West. But the old alarmist scenarios — a nuclear exchange, global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps, a new lethal AIDS-like virus — should not be our worry.

Over 90 million Americans who could work are not working [4] (the “non-institutionalized” over 16). What we take for granted — our electrical power, fuel, building materials, food, health care, and communications — all hinge on just 144 million getting up in the morning to produce what about 160-170 million others (the sick, the young, and the retired who need assistance along with the 90 million idle) consume.

Every three working Americans provide sustenance for two who are not ill, enfeebled, or too young. The former help the disabled, the latter take resources from them. The gang-banger has only disdain for the geek at the mall — until one Saturday night his liver is shredded by gang gunfire and suddenly he whimpers (who is now the real wimp?) that he needs such a Stanford-trained nerd to do sophisticated surgery to get him back in one piece to the carjackings, muggings, assaults, and knockout games — or lawsuits follow!

Given that the number of non-working is growing (an additional 10 million were idled in the Obama “recovery” alone), it is likely to keep growing. At some point, we will hit a 50/50 ratio of idle versus active. Then things will get interesting. The percentage of workers’ pay deducted to pay for the non-working will soar even higher. So will the present redistributive schemes and the borrowing from the unborn.

We forget that the obligations of the working to care for the 70-80 million who genuinely cannot work become more difficult, when the 90 million who can work for all sorts of reasons won’t. Note the theme of this essay: the more in humane fashion we provide unemployment insurance, food stamps, subsidized housing, legal advice, health care and disability insurance, the more the recipients find it all inadequate, inherent proof of unfairness and inequality, and always not enough.


Much of the Modern University Output Coarsens American Life


We will hear even more shrillness about “fairness” and “equality.” The more government support, all the more will grow the sense of being shorted. When someone idle receives a free iPhone, he doesn’t thank government for its magnanimity. More likely, he damns it for allowing someone else the ability to purchase an updated, superior model. I have talked to several students about their iPhones; so far not one has said, “Wow, I have more computer and communications power in my palm than a multi-millionaire had [5] just 15 years ago.” Mostly they wished they had an updated version like someone better off.

An indebted and crippled U.S. has so far survived the second decade of the 21st century largely due to some ingenious engineers and audacious workers who revolutionized the gas and oil industry, at a time when wind and solar merely amused us, when our enemies considered us ripe for perpetual petro-blackmail, and when our wherewithal to pay for more imported energy was increasingly questionable.

A very few people are saving very many. But how thin the strand of civilization hangs — given that the forces of our modern Lotus Eaters (every bit as dangerous in their postmodern imaginations as the Cyclopes are in their premodern savagery) have stopped the Keystone Pipeline, stopped most federal leasing of new gas and oil finds, and are trying to regulate fracking and horizontal drilling out of existence where it might be most vital to the U.S. — as in the Monterey Shale formation in California.

How ironic is the Sierra Club Bay Area grandee who finds light when he flips on his office switch, and would find no light were his utopian ideas about wind, solar, and biomass to come to full fruition [6]. Only what he despises [7] — radioactive uranium, messy drilling rigs, and unnatural dams — for now continue to bring him what he must have. Again, the theme: the more the green activists empty reservoirs to save a bait fish, or stop fracking, or prevent salvage logging, the angrier they sigh that it is not enough and the more they must count on someone ignoring them to provide them with what they must have.

The universities were the great backbone of the West, from the Academy and Lyceum to medieval Pisa and Oxbridge to the great 18th- and 19th-century founding of American campuses. Not necessarily any longer [8]. Too many are bankrupt morally, economically [9], politically, and culturally.

The symptoms are terrifying: one trillion dollars in student debt (many of these loans accruing at higher than average interest rates and even before students have graduated); a small Eloi class [10] of rarefied elites who teach little and write in runes that no one can decipher;  a large Morlock class of part-timers and oppressed lecturers who subsidize the fat and waste of the tenured and administrative classes; graduates who are arrogant but ignorant, nursed on –studies ideology without the liberal arts foundations to back up their zeal; and a BA/BS brand that no longer ensures better-paying jobs, if any jobs at all.

In sum, apart from the sciences and medicine, most of the university coarsens rather than enlightens American life.

The current campus is unsustainable and we are beginning to see its decline, as online courses and for-profit tech schools usurp its students. The liberal arts are not nurtured and protected for another generation in the university. Instead, their umbilical cords have become cut with the cleaver of race/class/gender no-nothingism. Again the theme: the more bloated, exploitive, and costly the university, the more it lashes out it that it is short-changed, the victim of philistine budget cuts, and the last bastion of civilized life.


Civilization Seems to Be Losing

Popular culture is likewise anti-civilizational [11]. Does anyone believe that Kanye West, Miley Cyrus, and Lady Gaga are updates to Glenn Miller, jazz, Bob Dylan and the Beatles? Even in the bimbo mode, Marilyn Monroe had an aura [12] that Ms. Kardashian and Ms. Hilton lack. Teens wearing bobby socks and jeans have transmogrified to strange creatures in our midst with head-to -oe tattoos and piercings [13] as if we copied Papua New Guinea rather than it us. Why the superficial skin-deep desire to revert to the premodern?

When I walk in some American malls and soak in the fashion, I am reminded of National Geographic tribal photos of the 1950s.

Again the theme: the more we borrow to provide iPads to our supposedly deprived youth, the more in theory they can access in a nano-second the treasures of their culture and heritage, and in fact the more likely it is that they have no clue what Gettysburg was [14], who Thomas Jefferson was [15], or who fought whom over what [16] in World War II. Our managers in education, terrified of confronting the causes of ignorance, believed that the faster youths could transmit nothingness, the more likely they might stumble onto somethingness.

The fourth-century Greeks at the end pasted silver over their worthless bronze coins — “reds” being the protruding noses and hair of the portraiture that first appeared bronze-like, as the silver patina rubbed off. The bastardization of the currency fostered many books on Roman decline. More worthless money for more people was a sign of “crisis” — analogous to our own quantitative easing and $17 trillion in debt.

Once more the theme here is not just that we are insolvent, but that we are so insolvent that it is now a thought-crime to talk of dissolution, bankruptness, and irresponsible spending — all damned as symptoms of “callousness” to the poor, proof of “social injustice”, and “obsessions” with deficits. The medicine of austerity always becomes worse than the disease of profligacy.

What do I mean about the “thinning strand of civilization”?

A shrinking percentage of our population feeds us, finds our energy, protects us, and builds things we count on. They get up each morning to do these things, in part in quest for the good life, in part out of a sense of social obligation and basic humanity, in part because they know they will die if idle and thrive only when busy, and in part simply because “they like it.”

We can stack the deck against them with ever higher taxes, ever more regulations, ever more obligations to others, and they may well continue. But not if we also damn them as the “1%” and call them the agents of inequality and the fat cats who did not build what they built or who profited when they should not have.

You cannot expect the military to protect us, and then continually order it to reflect every aspect of postmodern American sensitivity in a risky premodern world. Filing a lawsuit to divert a river’s water to the sea during a drought is a lot easier and cleaner than welding together well-casings at sea. Last week, an off-duty armed correctional officer in Fresno intervened in a wild carjacking, shooting and killing the gang-member killer and thus limiting his carnage to one death and two woundings rather than five or six killings — at the very moment Harvey Weinstein — of guns-blazing Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction fame and profits — promised to destroy the NRA [17].

These contrasts say everything about the premodern, the postmodern and the innocent who pay the tab in-between.

Each day when I drive to work I try to look at the surrounding communities, and count how many are working and how many of the able-bodied are not. I listen to the car radio and tally up how many stories, both in their subject matter and method of presentation, seem to preserve civilization, or how many seem to tear it down. I try to assess how many drivers stay between the lines, how many weave while texting or zoom in and out of traffic at 90mph or honk and flip off drivers.

Today, as the reader can note from the tone of this apocalyptic essay, civilization seemed to be losing.
(Artwork created using multiple Shutterstock.com [18] images.)

Article printed from Works and Days: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/thin-strand-of-civilization/

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Contempt For 'The People' by Leaders of the Left

Leaders Of The Left And Their Contempt For 'The People'


By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 01/24/2014
 One of the things that attracted me to the political left as a young man was a belief that leftists were for "the people."

Fortunately, I was also very interested in the history of ideas — and years of research in that field repeatedly brought out the inescapable fact that many leading thinkers on the left had only contempt for "the people."

That has been true from the 18th century to the present. Even more surprising, I discovered over the years that leading thinkers on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum had more respect for ordinary people than people on the left who spoke in their name.

Leftists like Rousseau, Condorcet or William Godwin in the 18th century, Karl Marx in the 19th century or Fabian socialists like George Bernard Shaw in England and American Progressives in the 20th century saw the people in a role much like that of sheep, and saw themselves as their shepherds.

Another disturbing pattern turned up that is also with us to the present moment. From the 18th century to today, many leading thinkers on the left have regarded those who disagree with them as being not merely factually wrong but morally repugnant.

And again, this pattern is far less often found among those on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum.

The visceral hostility toward Sarah Palin by present-day liberals, and the gutter level to which some descend in expressing it, is just one sign of a mindset on the left that goes back more than two centuries.

T.R. Malthus was the target of such hostility in the 18th and early 19th centuries. When replying to his critics, he said: "I cannot doubt the talents of such men as Godwin and Condorcet. I am unwilling to doubt their candor."

But Godwin's vision of Malthus was very different. He called Malthus "malignant," questioned "the humanity of the man," and said, "I profess myself at a loss to conceive of what earth the man was made."

This asymmetry in responses to people with different opinions has been too persistent for too many years to be just a matter of individual personality differences.

Although Charles Murray has been a major critic of the welfare state and of the assumptions behind it, he recalled that before writing his landmark book, "Losing Ground," he had been "working for years with people who ran social programs at street level, and knew the overwhelming majority of them to be good people trying hard to help."

Can you think of anyone on the left who has described Murray as "a good person trying hard to help?" He has been repeatedly denounced as virtually the devil incarnate — far more often than anyone has tried seriously to refute his facts.

Such treatment is not reserved solely for Murray. Liberal writer Andrew Hacker spoke more sweepingly when he said, "conservatives don't really care whether black Americans are happy or unhappy."

Even in the midst of an election campaign against the British Labour Party, when Winston Churchill said there would be dire consequences if his opponents won, he said that this was because "they do not see where their theories are leading them."

But in an earlier campaign, Churchill's opponent said that he looked upon Churchill "as such a personal force for evil that I would take up the fight against him with a whole heart."

Examples of this asymmetry between those on opposite sides of the ideological divide could be multiplied almost without limit. It is not solely a matter of individual personality differences.

The vision of the left is not just a vision of the world. For many, it is also a vision of themselves — a very flattering vision of people trying to save the planet, rescue the exploited, create "social justice" and otherwise be on the side of the angels. This is an exalting vision that few are ready to give up, or to risk on a roll of the dice, which is what submitting it to the test of factual evidence amounts to.

Maybe that is why there are so many fact-free arguments on the left, whether on gun control, minimum wages, or innumerable other issues — and why they react so viscerally to those who challenge their vision.

Fact-Free Liberals: Part IV

Fact-Free Liberals: Part IV

                  Thomas Sowell
1/24/2014 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell

One of the things that attracted me to the political left, as a young man, was a belief that leftists were
for "the people." Fortunately, I was also very interested in the history of ideas -- and years of
research in that field repeatedly brought out the inescapable fact that many leading thinkers on the  left had only contempt for "the people." 


That has been true from the 18th century to the present moment. Even more surprising, I discovered
over the years that leading thinkers on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum had more
respect for ordinary people than people on the left who spoke in their name.

Leftists like Rousseau, Condorcet or William Godwin in the 18th century, Karl Marx in the 19th
century or Fabian socialists like George Bernard Shaw in England and American Progressives in the
20th century saw the people in a role much like that of sheep, and saw themselves as their
shepherds.

Another disturbing pattern turned up that is also with us to the present moment. From the 18th
century to today, many leading thinkers on the left have regarded those who disagree with them as
being not merely factually wrong but morally repugnant. And again, this pattern is far less often
found among those on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum.

The visceral hostility toward Sarah Palin by present day liberals, and the gutter level to which some
descend in expressing it, is just one sign of a mindset on the left that goes back more than two
centuries.

T.R. Malthus was the target of such hostility in the 18th and early 19th centuries. When replying to  his critics, Malthus said, "I cannot doubt the talents of such men as Godwin and Condorcet. I am
unwilling to doubt their candor."

But William Godwin's vision of Malthus was very different. He called Malthus "malignant,"
questioned "the humanity of the man," and said "I profess myself at a loss to conceive of what earth
the man was made."

This asymmetry in responses to people with different opinions has been too persistent, for too many
years, to be just a matter of individual personality differences.

Although Charles Murray has been a major critic of the welfare state and of the assumptions behind
it, he recalled that before writing his landmark book, "Losing Ground," he had been "working for
years with people who ran social programs at street level, and knew the overwhelming majority of
them to be good people trying hard to help."

Can you think of anyone on the left who has described Charles Murray as "a good person trying hard
to help"? He has been repeatedly denounced as virtually the devil incarnate -- far more often than
anyone has tried seriously to refute his facts.

Such treatment is not reserved solely for Murray. Liberal writer Andrew Hacker spoke more
sweepingly when he said, "conservatives don't really care whether black Americans are happy or
unhappy."

Even in the midst of an election campaign against the British Labour Party, when Winston Churchill
said that there would be dire consequences if his opponents won, he said that this was because "they
do not see where their theories are leading them."

But, in an earlier campaign, Churchill's opponent said that he looked upon Churchill "as such a
personal force for evil that I would take up the fight against him with a whole heart."

Examples of this asymmetry between those on opposite sides of the ideological divide could be
multiplied almost without limit. It is not solely a matter of individual personality differences.

The vision of the left is not just a vision of the world. For many, it is also a vision of themselves -- a
very flattering vision of people trying to save the planet, rescue the exploited, create "social justice"
and otherwise be on the side of the angels. This is an exalting vision that few are ready to give up, or
to risk on a roll of the dice, which is what submitting it to the test of factual evidence amounts to.

Maybe that is why there are so many fact-free arguments on the left, whether on gun control,
minimum wages, or innumerable other issues -- and why they react so viscerally to those who
challenge their vision.

Fact-Free Liberals: Part III

Fact-Free Liberals: Part III


                 Thomas Sowell
1/23/2014 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell

Since this year will mark the 50th anniversary of the "war on poverty," we can expect many
comments and commemorations of this landmark legislation in the development of the American
welfare state.

The actual signing of the "war on poverty" legislation took place in August 1964, so the 50th
anniversary is some months away. But there have already been statements in the media and in
politics proclaiming that this vast and costly array of anti-poverty programs "worked."

Of course everything "works" by sufficiently low standards, and everything "fails" by sufficiently high
standards. The real question is: What did the "war on poverty" set out to do -- and how well did it do
it, if at all?

Without some idea of what a person or a program is trying to do, there is no way to know whether
what actually happened represented a success or a failure. When the hard facts show that a policy
has failed, nothing is easier for its defenders than to make up a new set of criteria, by which it can be
said to have succeeded.

That has in fact been what happened with the "war on poverty."

Both President John F. Kennedy, who launched the proposal for a "war on poverty" and his
successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, who guided the legislation through Congress and then signed it into
law, were very explicit as to what the "war on poverty" was intended to accomplish.

Its mission was not simply to prove that spending money on the poor led to some economic benefits
to the poor. Nobody ever doubted that. How could they?

What the war on poverty was intended to end was mass dependency on government. President
Kennedy said, "We must find ways of returning far more of our dependent people to independence."

The same theme was repeated endlessly by President Johnson. The purpose of the "war on poverty,"
he said, was to make "taxpayers out of taxeaters." Its slogan was "Give a hand up, not a handout."

When Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark legislation into law, he declared: "The days of the dole
in our country are numbered."

Now, 50 years and trillions of dollars later, it is painfully clear that there is more dependency than
ever.

Ironically, dependency on government to raise people above the poverty line had been going down for years before the "war on poverty" began. The hard facts showed that the number of people who
lived below the official poverty line had been declining since 1960, and was only half of what it had
been in 1950.

On the more fundamental question of dependency, the facts were even clearer. The proportion of
people whose earnings put them below the poverty level -- without counting government benefits --
declined by about one-third from 1950 to 1965.

All this was happening before the "war on poverty" went into effect -- and all these trends reversed
after it went into effect.

Nor was this pattern unique. Other beneficial social trends that were going on before the 1960s
reversed after other bright ideas of that decade were put into effect.

Massive "sex education" programs were put into schools, claiming that this was urgently needed to
reduce a "crisis" of teenage pregnancies and venereal diseases. But teenage pregnancies and venereal
diseases had both been going down for years.

The rate of infection for gonorrhea, for example, declined every year from 1950 through 1959, and
the rate of syphilis infection was, by 1960, less than half of what it had been in 1950. Both trends
reversed and skyrocketed after "sex education" became pervasive.

The murder rate had been going down for decades, and in 1960 was only half of what it had been in
1934. That trend suddenly reversed after the liberal changes in criminal laws during the 1960s. By
1974, the murder rate was more than twice as high as it had been in 1961.

While the fact-free liberals celebrate the "war on poverty" and other bright ideas of the 1960s, we are
trying to cope with yet another "reform" that has made matters worse, ObamaCare.

Fact-Free Liberals: Part II

Fact-Free Liberals: Part II

                 Thomas Sowell
1/22/2014 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell

Words seem to carry far more weight than facts among those liberals who argue as if rent control  laws actually control rents and gun control laws actually control guns.

It does no good to point out to them that the two American cities where rent control laws have
existed longest and strongest -- New York and San Francisco -- are also the two cities with the
highest average rents.

Nor does it make a dent on them when you point out evidence, from both sides of the Atlantic, that
tightening gun control laws does not reduce gun crimes, including murder. It is not uncommon for
gun crimes to rise when gun control laws are tightened. Apparently armed criminals prefer unarmed
victims.

Minimum wage laws are another issue where the words seem to carry great weight, leading to the
fact-free assumption that such laws will cause wages to rise to the legally specified minimum.

Various studies going back for decades indicate that minimum wage laws create unemployment,
especially among the younger, less experienced and less skilled workers.

When you are unemployed, your wages are zero, regardless of what the minimum wage law
specifies.

Having followed the controversies over minimum wage laws for more than half a century, I am
always amazed at how many ways there are to evade the obvious.

A discredited argument that first appeared back in 1946 recently surfaced again in a televised
discussion of minimum wages. A recent survey of employers asked if they would fire workers if the
minimum wage were raised. Two-thirds of the employers said that they would not. That was good
enough for a minimum wage advocate.

Unfortunately, the consequences of minimum wage laws cannot be predicted on the basis of
employers' statements of their intentions. Nor can the consequences of a minimum wage law be
determined, even after the fact, by polling employers on what they did.

The problem with polls, in dealing with an empirical question like this, is that you can only poll
survivors.

Every surviving business in an industry might have as many employees as it had before a minimum
wage increase -- and yet, if the additional labor costs led to fewer businesses surviving, there could
still be a reduction in industry employment, despite what the poll results were from survivors.

There are many other complications that make an empirical study of the effects of minimum wages
much more difficult than it might seem.

Since employment varies for many reasons other than a minimum wage law, at any given time the
effects of those other factors can outweigh the effects of minimum wage laws. In that case,
employment could go up after a particular minimum wage increase -- even if it goes up less than it
would have without the minimum wage increase.

Minimum wage advocates can seize upon statistics collected in particular odd circumstances to
declare that they have now "refuted" the "myth" that minimum wages cause unemployment.

Yet, despite such anomalies, it is surely no coincidence that those few places in the industrial world
which have had no minimum wage law, such as Switzerland and Singapore, have consistently had
unemployment rates down around 3 percent. "The Economist" magazine once reported:

"Switzerland's unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9% in February."

It is surely no coincidence that, during the last administration in which there was no federal
minimum wage -- the Calvin Coolidge administration -- unemployment ranged from a high of 4.2
percent to a low of 1.8 percent over its last four years.

It is surely no coincidence that, when the federal minimum wage law remained unchanged for 12
years while inflation rendered the law meaningless, the black teenage unemployment rate -- even
during the recession year of 1949 -- was literally a fraction of what it has been throughout later
years, as the minimum wage rate has been raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.

When words trump facts, you can believe anything. And the liberal groupthink taught in our schools
and colleges is the path of least resistance.

I. Fact-free Liberals - Thomas Sowell




Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words -- "educated," "smart" and "ignorant." Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today.

President Obama seems completely unaware of how many of the policies he is trying to impose have been tried before, in many times and places around the world, and have failed time and again. Economic equality? That was tried in the 19th century, in communities set up by Robert Owen, the man who coined the term "socialism." Those communities all collapsed.

It was tried even earlier, in 18th century Georgia, when that was a British colony. People in Georgia ended up fleeing to other colonies, as many other people would vote with their feet in the 20th century, by fleeing many other societies around the world that were established in the name of economic equality.

But who reads history these days? Moreover, those parts of history that would undermine the vision of the left -- which prevails in our education system from elementary school to postgraduate study -- are not likely to get much attention.

The net results are bright people, with impressive degrees, who have been told for years how brilliant they are, but who are often ignorant of facts that might cause them to question what they have been indoctrinated with in schools and colleges.

Recently Kirsten Powers repeated on Fox News Channel the discredited claim that women are paid only about three-quarters of what a man is paid for doing the same work.

But there have been empirical studies, going back for decades, showing that there is no such gap when the women and men are in the same occupation, with the same skills, experience, education, hours of work and continuous years of full-time work.

Income differences between the sexes reflect the fact that women and men differ in all these things -- and more. Young male doctors earn much more than young female doctors. But young male doctors work over 500 hours a year more than young female doctors.

Then there is the current hysteria which claims that people in the famous "top one percent" have incomes that are rising sharply and absorbing a wholly disproportionate share of all the income in the country.


But check out a Treasury Department study titled "Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005." It uses income tax data, showing that people who were in the top one percent in 1996 had their incomes fall -- repeat, fall -- by 26 percent by 2005.

What about the other studies that seem to say the opposite? Those are studies of income brackets, not studies of the flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving from one bracket to another over time. More than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005.

This is hardly surprising when you consider that their incomes were going down while there was widespread hysteria over the belief that their incomes were going up.

Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.

All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation. For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.

But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.

When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.

Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is.

Stae of the Union Messages (King Barack Fails"

Noonan: The Sleepiness of a Hollow Legend

The State of the Union is a grand tradition—but only if people are listening.

Updated Jan. 24, 2014 6:44 p.m. ET

So the president's State of the Union address is Tuesday night, and it's always such a promising moment, a chance to wake everyone up and say "This I believe" and "Here we stand." The networks are focused and alert, waiting to be filled with a president's excellence and depth. It's a chance for the American president to say whatever the storm, however high the seas, the union stands "rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible." That's how Stephen Vincent Benet had Daniel Webster put it, in a play.

In a State of the Union a president tries to put his stamp on things. Here we are, here's where we're going, all roads lead forward. We can face whatever test, meet whatever challenge, united in the desire that we be the greatest nation in the history of man . . .

What great moments this tradition has given us. JFK's father thought his son's first State of the Union was better than his Inaugural Address. It had a warmth. "Mr. Speaker . . . it is a pleasure to return from whence I came. You are among my oldest friends in Washington—and this House is my oldest home." Friends, home—another era. LBJ taking the reins in 1964: "Let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined." And you know, that's what it became. Nixon enjoyed dilating on history, and was interesting when he did.

Reagan dazzled, though he told his diary he never got used to it: "I've made a mil. speeches in every kind of place to every kind of audience. Somehow there's a thing about entering that chamber—goose bumps & a quiver." There was his speech after he'd recovered from being shot—brio and gallantry. And of course Lenny Skutnik. Just before Reagan's 1982 speech Mr. Skutnik, a government worker, saw Air Florida Flight 90 go into the Potomac. As others watched from the banks of the frozen river, Mr. Skutnik threw off his coat, dived in and swam like a golden retriever to save passengers. The night of the speech he was up there in the gallery next to the first lady, and when Reagan pointed him out the chamber exploded. This nice, quiet man who'd gone uncelebrated all his professional life, and then one day circumstances came together and he showed that beneath the bureaucrat's clothing was the beating heart of a hero.

***

Well. History still beckons, waiting to be made. The great unstated question of today: Can America come back, reclaim her old spirit, confidence and joy, can we make things again, build them, grow, create, push out into the new?

And here I think: Oh dear.

Because when I imagine Barack Obama's State of the Union,

 I see a handsome, dignified man standing at the podium and behind him Joe Biden, sleeping. And next to him John Boehner, snoring. And arrayed before the president the members, napping.
 
No one's really listening to the president now. He has been for five years a nonstop windup talk machine. 

Most of it has been facile, bland, the same rounded words and rounded sentiments, the same soft accusations and excuses. I see him enjoying the sound of his voice as the network newsman leans forward eagerly, intently, nodding at the pearls, enacting interest, for this is the president and he is the anchorman and surely something important is being said with two such important men engaged.

But nothing interesting was being said! Looking back on this presidency, it has from the beginning been a 17,000 word New Yorker piece in which, calmly, sonorously, with his lovely intelligent voice, the president says nothing, or little that is helpful, insightful or believable. "I'm not a particularly ideological person." "It's hard to anticipate events over the next three years." "I don't really even need George Kennan right now." "I am comfortable with complexity." "Our capacity to do some good . . . is unsurpassed, even if nobody is paying attention."

Nobody is!

He gave a speech on the National Security Agency, that bitterly contested issue, the other day. Pew Research found half of those polled didn't notice. National Journal's Dustin Volz wrote that Americans greeted the speech with "collective indifference and broad skepticism." Of the 1 in 10 who'd followed it, more than 70% doubted his proposals would help protect privacy.

The bigger problem is that the president stands up there Tuesday night with ObamaCare not a hazy promise but a fact.
 People now know it was badly thought, badly written and disastrously executed

It was supposed to make life better by expanding coverage. It has made it worse, by throwing people off coverage. And—as we all know now but did not last year—the program was passed only with the aid of a giant lie. Now everyone knows if you liked your plan, your doctor, your deductible, you can't keep them.

When the central domestic fact of your presidency was a fraud, people won't listen to you anymore.

The poor speechwriters. They are always just a little more in touch with public sentiment than a president can be—they get to move around in the world, they know what people are saying. They have to imitate the optimism of the speeches of yore, they have to rouse. They are the ones who know what a heavy freaking lift it is, what an impossible chore. And they have to do it with idiots in the staffing process scrawling on the margins of the draft: "More applause lines!" The speechwriters know the answer is fewer applause lines, more thought, more humility and candor. Americans aren't impressed anymore by congressmen taking to their feet and cheering. They look as if they have electric buzzers on their butts that shoot them into the air when the applause line comes. "Now I have to get up and enact enthusiasm" is what they look like they're thinking. While the other party thinks "Now we have to get up too, because what he said was anodyne and patriotic and we can't not stand up for that." And they applaud, diffidently, because they don't want the folks back home—the few who are watching—to say they looked a little too enthusiastic about the guy who just cost them their insurance.

They are all enacting. They are all replicating. They're all imitating the past.

You know when we will know America is starting to come back? When some day the sergeant at arms bellows: "Mr. Speaker, the president of the United States" and the camera shows a bubble of suits and one person emerges from the pack and walks into the chamber and you're watching at home and you find yourself—against everything you know, against all the accumulated knowledge of the past—interested. It'll take you aback when you realize you're interested in what he'll say! And the members won't just be enacting, they'll be leaning forward to hear.

And the president will speak, and what he says will be pertinent to the problems of the United States of America. And thoughtful. And he'll offer ideas, and you'll think: "Hey, that sounds right."

That is when you'll know America just might come back.

Until then, as John Dickerson just put it: Barack Obama, Inaction Figure.

Zzzzzzz.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Dinesh D’Souza Indicted By Eric Holder’s DOJ

Dinesh D’Souza Indicted By Eric Holder’s DOJ

                 Posted By J. Christian Adams On January 23, 2014  

Dinesh D’Souza, fierce critic of the President, best selling author, and filmmaker has been indicted by Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
Former College President Indicted In Manhattan Federal Court For Campaign Finance Fraud
Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and George Venizelos, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today an

Indictment charging DINESH D’SOUZA with violating the federal campaign finance laws by making illegal contributions to a United States Senate campaign in the names of others and causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission in connection with those contributions. D’SOUZA is expected to be presented and arraigned tomorrow in Manhattan federal court before U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated: “As we have long said, this Office and the FBI take a zero tolerance approach to corruption of the electoral process. If, as alleged, the defendant directed others to make contributions to a Senate campaign and reimbursed them, that is a serious violation of federal campaign finance laws.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge George Venizelos stated: “Trying to influence elections through bogus campaign contributions is a serious crime. Today, Mr. D’Souza finds himself on the wrong side of the law. The Federal Election Campaign Act was written to limit the influence of money in elections; the FBI is fiercely committed to enforcing those laws to maintain the integrity of our democratic process.”

According to the allegations in the Indictment and statements made in court:

The Federal Election Campaign Act (the “Election Act”) is designed to limit financial influence in the election of candidates for federal office, including the Office of United States Senator, and provides for the public disclosure of the financing of federal election campaigns. In particular, the Election Act limits the amount and source of money that may be contributed to a federal candidate or that candidate’s authorized campaign committee. The Election Act specifically prohibits any person from making any contribution in the name of another, including reimbursing a third person, before or after that third person’s contribution, as inducement to make that contribution. The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is an agency and department of the United States with jurisdiction to compile and publicly report accurate information about the sources and amounts of election contributions.

In 2012, the Election Act limited both primary and general election campaign contributions to $2,500 for a total of $5,000 from any individual to any one candidate. In August 2012, D’SOUZA directed other individuals with whom he was associated to make contributions to the campaign committee for a candidate for the United States Senate (the

“Campaign Committee”) that totaled $20,000. D’SOUZA then reimbursed those individuals for the contributions. By directing the illegal contributions to be made, D’SOUZA also caused the Campaign Committee to falsely report to the FEC the sources and amounts of those contributions to the campaign.

* * *

D’SOUZA, 52, of San Diego, California, is charged with one count of causing $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to be made to a candidate for the United States Senate in calendar year 2012, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. He also is charged with one count of causing false statements to be made to the FEC in connection with the illegal campaign contributions, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

The Indictment is the result of a routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC by various candidates after the 2012 election for United States Senator in New York. Mr. Bharara praised the investigative work of the FBI.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Carrie H. Cohen and Rebecca Ricigliano are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty

Article printed from Rule of Law: http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams