Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Higher Education Graduating Failures : Universities Don't Care

Higher education has for the most part been about the money and self preservation. The prevailing attitude among universities and colleges is and has been for decades is 'what's in it for me, how can I make sure my job is secure and effortless as possible.'

Once you have tenure, it's a free ride after that. Responsibility for serious commitment is gone.

But it's not just academia, this is the new standard in many industries as well, more so in education but still a part of  the 'new word order' rapidly taking center stage in our larger civil society.

The question that remains is who will take the reigns of responsible leadership for the next generation? What we have now for leadership is failing the country. What can we expect from the next gerneration that can't even read or write?

The Dumbing Down of College Curriculums
Charles Sykes / /     

Let’s concede at the outset that many students find their college years enlightening and enriching. But something is rotten in the state of academia, and it is increasingly hard not to notice. There once was a time when employers could be reasonably certain that college graduates had a basic sense of the world and, as a minimum, could write a coherent business letter. That is simply no longer the case, as some academic leaders appear ready to admit.

Harvard’s former president, Derek Bok, mildly broke ranks with the academic cheerleaders when he noted that, for all their many benefits, colleges and universities “accomplish far less for their students than they should.” Too many graduates, he admitted, leave school with the coveted and expensive credential “without being able to write well enough to satisfy employers … [or] reason clearly or perform competently in analyzing complex, nontechnical problems.”

Bok noted that few undergraduates can understand or speak a foreign language; most never take courses in quantitative reasoning or acquire “the knowledge needed to be a reasonably informed citizen in a democracy.” Despite the massive spending on the infrastructure of higher education, he conceded, it was not at all clear that students actually learned any more than they did 50 years ago.

Indeed, a recent survey of the nation’s top-ranked public universities by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that only nine of them required an economics course for graduation; just five required a survey course in American history; and only 10 required that students take a literature course. Despite the lip service given to “multiculturalism” on campus, the study found that: “Fewer than half required even intermediate study of a foreign language. This knowledge deficit has been a long time coming.

By 1990, the cost of four years at an elite private college had passed the median price of a house in the United States. But a survey sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1989 found that a majority of college seniors would flunk even a basic test on Western cultural and historical literacy: 25 percent could not distinguish between the thoughts of Karl Marx and the United States Constitution (or between the words of Winston Churchill and those of Joseph Stalin), 58 percent did not know Shakespeare wrote “The Tempest,” and 42 percent could not place the Civil War in the correct half-century.

Most seniors were unable to identify the Magna Carta, Reconstruction, or the Missouri Compromise; they were “clearly unfamiliar” with Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice,” Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment,” and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”
Cover.Fail U (2)

These concerns now seem almost—quaint. The fact that college students had huge gaps in their knowledge was old news by the early 1990s. But today the question is no longer whether students have learned specific bodies of knowledge; it is whether they are learning anything at all.

Purchase Charles Sykes’ Book: “Fail U.: The False Promise of Higher Education
In their widely cited book “Academically Adrift,” Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa concluded that 45 percent of students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” during their first two years of college. More than a third (36 percent) “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning over four years of college.”

Traditionally, the authors wrote, “teaching students to think critically and communicate effectively” have been claimed as the “principal goals” of higher education. But “commitment to these skills appears more a matter of principle than practice,” Arum and Roksa found. “An astounding proportion of students are progressing through higher education today without measurable gains in general skills,” they wrote. “While they may be acquiring subject-specific knowledge, or greater self-awareness on their journeys through college, many students are not improving their skills in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.”

But those are precisely the skills that employers increasingly expect from college graduates. A 2013 survey of employers on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that 93 percent of employers say that a demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than a candidate’s undergraduate major. More than three-quarters of the prospective employers of new college graduates said they wanted colleges to put more emphasis on such basic skills as “critical thinking, complex problem solving, written and oral communication, and applied knowledge.”

Trashing the Curriculum
So how could we spend so much for so little? The most obvious answer is that colleges and universities frankly don’t care whether students learn much of anything. Once again, Harvard’s Bok is willing to admit that administrators have few incentives to worry about something as irrelevant as student achievement because student learning can’t be monetized and doesn’t do anything to advance academic careers. “After all,” he writes, “success in increasing student learning is seldom rewarded, and its benefits are usually hard to demonstrate, far more so than success in lifting the SAT scores of the entering class or in raising the money to build new laboratories or libraries.”

There are, of course, other factors at work. The dumbing down of elementary and secondary education has made its way to the collegiate level; too many unprepared students are admitted despite their inability to do college-level work. Nearly four out of 10 college faculty now agree with the statement “Most of the students I teach lack the basic skills for college-level work.” This inevitably contributes to the flight from teaching (few professors want to teach remedial courses) and the overall lowering of standards. This general indifference to what, if anything, students learn is embodied in the modern curriculum that enables students to study just about anything, without necessarily learning much at all.
This is an excerpt from “Fail U.: The False Promise of Higher Education” by Charles Sykes. Copyright © 2016 by the author and reprinted with permission of St. Martin’s Press, LLC.

Republican Commitment Needed : A Black Women Explains

The question that I have is why isn't there more understand and commitment to the real problem of black poverty and achievement is education and the opportunity to succeed among black community members?

As this author points out, political parties give lip service to the problem, but offer little personal involvement, that is actually going to neighbor hoods to acquaint themselves with first hand knowledge of the problems that face the black families and communities.

Republicans should and could do a better job of taking a personal interest in these communities. The problem for Republicans, they are freighted by the hateful attacks that will come from the progressive liberal democrats that have a vested interested in keeping the black community poor and ignorant to their own possibilities if the are given an opportunity to improve themselves.

Not true comes the retort - No? Why don't we see Black Lives Matter or Rev. Sharpton camped out in Chicago???

I’m an African-American Woman. Here’s My Advice to Conservatives Wooing My Community.
Kay Coles James /     

The moment Donald Trump urged black voters to consider supporting him—asking, “What do you have to lose?”—the consultants and pundits sprang into coordinated action, bombarding the airwaves with their “r” and “b” words. “Donald Trump is a racist,” posted Daily Kos. “Donald Trump is a bigot,” piped in The New York Times’ Charles Blow.

There’s a method to this madness, of course. Call someone a racist and they’ll no longer be heard. They’ve been accused of racism, after all, so they’re not just contemptible, they’re outside the realm of public discourse. That’s why the noise makers are so busily at work.

While all of this strikes many voters as manipulative and even childish, what really troubles me is what it masks: the pain my community is suffering right now. Everywhere I look, I see problems that cry out to be solved. African-American poverty should be going down—instead, it’s rising. Our children should be thriving—instead, millions of them live in broken homes. Our streets should be peaceful—instead, violence continues to take a devastating toll. Our schools should be nurturing excellence—instead, far too many of them are factories of failure.
Our community is reeling under the impact of unceasing assault.
And our future should be brighter—instead, we have less and less reason for hope. In short, our community is reeling under the impact of unceasing assault.

Despite all this, we remain a proud people. We’ve suffered horribly over the centuries, and yet we survive. Our traditions have largely endured. For the most part, our churches remain intact. And our babies are born with all the intelligence, creativity, energy, and possibility that God grants to every child.

But that’s where our path veers off course. Our children grow up sicker, poorer, less well-educated, and at greater risk than other American children. Our families, once boasting more marriages and two-parent households than whites, are now battered by single parenthood, unemployment, and poverty. And our community, once the self-sustaining citadel that enabled us to survive slavery and institutional racism, is now teetering on the brink of destruction. I recently conducted a detailed analysis of how we are faring, and what I found shocked me. On issue after issue, the numbers are heart-wrenching.

Take education, for example. In 1961, I was one of the first black students in my hometown of Richmond, Virginia, to integrate a whites-only public school. Decades after institutional segregation was outlawed, however, separate and unequal schools remain.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, schools serving majority-minority communities have the worst performance, the largest achievement gaps, the highest crime rates, and the least experienced teachers. Shockingly, the average high school graduation rate among black students in many of America’s largest cities is less than 50 percent. Less than 50 percent! And in cities like Detroit, more than nine in 10 black students can’t even read or do math at grade level.

It wasn’t always this way. Having been denied schooling during their enslavement, emancipated blacks embraced education as the ticket to freedom and equality. Then came historically black colleges and universities (including my alma mater, Hampton University), and African-Americans began to advance at every level of scholarship.

All that began to change under the weight of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” programs, as high-performing neighborhood schools gave way to bureaucracy-choked failure factories. Today, grim statistics and generations of wasted talent are the legacy of an agenda that has failed our children and community. That’s why I say what’s really important here isn’t the political noise, but the personal tragedies it is masking.

Scores of well-paid consultants and media personalities are on the air, seemingly debating race. But their focus isn’t really on community renewal—it’s on full-combat politics. As a result, they gleefully throw around words like “racist” and “bigot” without pausing to truly, honestly consider the plight of the minority community they purport to defend. And when they’re done, they’ll put another notch in their professional belt and move on to the next campaign or news show while African-Americans continue to suffer. That’s just not acceptable, not at all.

It’s not OK that black kids aren’t getting the very best education possible. It’s not OK that black adults are out of work and unable to pursue their dreams. It’s not OK that black families are homeless. It’s not OK that black seniors live in fear for what tomorrow may bring. And it’s not OK that so many consultants and pundits would rather play politics than help save my people.

Fortunately, many others genuinely care about economic advancement and social justice for all Americans. They recognize we need to start over. Some now call the Republican Party home because they recognize conservative policies offer the commonsense solutions my community needs. Others try to encourage the Democratic Party to adopt more effective conservative policy solutions.
Having said that, I need to make clear that this is not a battle that can be won by a political party on its own—it depends on building strong support within the African-American community, where many of us are already working to achieve community renewal.
Winning this battle, then, will depend on political parties and conservatives getting it together and getting it right.
As for conservatives, this will take focused effort, real trust, unwavering consistency, and sensitivity to symbols, as well as the powerful acts of just showing up and listening. Personnel decisions within campaigns, transitions, and governing will make a big difference too, since having experienced, politically savvy African-Americans with stature inside those three dynamics is vital to avoiding unforced errors.

Winning this battle, then, will depend on political parties and conservatives getting it together and getting it right. As difficult as the task may seem, I know in my heart it can succeed. And I know that that success will enable my community to start over and achieve the progress it so richly deserves.
With leadership, a plan, and execution, we can get this done. Otherwise, we’ll never be able to solve the problems that exist beyond the noise.

Voter ID Attacked Again : Progressives Rely On Fraud

The question that remains is if we need a photo ID for just about everything that is necessary for survival in this country, why not to Vote?

Of course, anyone that believe in the rule of law is the only way civil societies can function, understands electing our leaders may be the most important task we can perform other then paying our taxes. Still the fight to eliminate voter ID and all other restrictions such as limiting early voting and same day registration has come under attack.

It's clear to me the opponents of voter ID are most progressive socialist liberal democrats and their supporters the media and the ACLU that always have relied on voter fraud to win elections, especially important elections like the one coming in November.

And given that the justice system now is mostly corrupted with progressive socialist liberal judges, witness Wisconsin being attached by a far left judge signaling it's vote ID is unconstitutional even after it passed all necessary legal demands, what's left for those of us in the trenches to find justice?

Easy answer, when progressive liberals are in charge of justice, only corruption remains.

Amid Voter ID Battles, Here Are 7 Things the Government Requires IDs For
Fred Lucas / /     

As federal courts wrestle with voter ID laws in several states just months before a national election, there is considerably less attention being brought to other constitutional rights that require ID.
Proponents of voter ID have argued that retailers require ID to buy liquor, M-rated video games, prescriptions, or even nail polish. But these arguments aren’t really applicable to voter ID, said J. Christian Adams, general counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, and a former Justice Department attorney, who supports voter ID and other election integrity laws.

“Tell me where in the Constitution does it talk about the right to buy liquor or rent a car?” Adams told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “The Constitution does guarantee the right to use firearms, and ID is always required to purchase a firearm. If you talk about buying liquor, the left will shred that argument. If you talk about ID when buying a gun, it boxes them in.”
“ID is always required to purchase a firearm.” @ElectionLawCtr says.
Here are seven common situations that require an ID.

1. Welfare Benefits
While there is no constitutional right to welfare benefits, the Supreme Court held in the case of Goldberg v. Kelly that welfare recipients are entitled to due process with a hearing before benefits can be terminated. Nevertheless, several states require some type of proof of identity to collect welfare. The states of Massachusetts and Missouri require a photo ID on the electronic benefit cards used for purchases under food stamps or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families expenditures. The EBT cards in Kansas include a photo if a participant agrees, but isn’t required, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

New York City has a  municipal ID program. The city’s website says residents will need an ID to “get a job,” “cash a check,” “open a bank account,” “enter a government building,” and, further, says, “To be eligible for some public benefits you need to prove your identity, age and residence.”

2. Registration for Buying Guns
Laws vary by state and even by municipality on buying a firearm. The District of Columbia, the point of dispute in the landmark Heller Supreme Court decision that determined every American has the right to bear arms, still has very strict gun control laws. It requires residents to register those guns. Gun owners must also obtain a gun license for any shotgun, rifle, or handgun. The District of Columbia city government prohibits the sale of handguns, but allows restricted sales on rifles and shotguns.

In another example, New York City allows the selling of handguns, but with stricter rules than New York state. To buy a gun in the city, an individual must appear in person to fill out a 17-page handgun purchase authorization form to qualify for a purchase license. The form costs $340 and $89.75 for fingerprinting. The New York Times wrote that applicants “must provide an original Social Security card, birth certificate, two recent color photographs and other documents.” The application also requires individuals to explain employment dismissal and health history in addition to the background check that all gun buyers go through.

3. Petition Your Government
It isn’t just the Second Amendment that is subject to ID scrutiny. First Amendment freedoms sometimes require some identification, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and a former Justice Department attorney.

“The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition your government, but anyone who wants to meet with a Department of Justice official has to show a government-issued photo ID to get into the Department of Justice building for the meeting,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.
The right to peacefully petition on Capitol Hill—beyond writing or calling a congressional office—generally requires becoming a registered lobbyist. States have various requirements for registered lobbyists as well.

4. Right of Assembly
Further, many municipalities require permits to hold protests or rallies in a public space under certain circumstances. This process varies based on the city, but requires some paperwork by the organizers.

5. Right to Marry
Official ID for obtaining a marriage license is nearly universal across states, said von Spakovsky. He noted that under the 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling by the Supreme Court, marriage is a fundamental right.

Today, the state at the center of that case requires photo ID. Fairfax County, Virginia, near the District of Columbia, states that requirements to get a marriage license include a “valid photo identification (a valid driver’s license with picture, passport, or military identification).”
And, New York City’s website states, “You and your prospective spouse must have one form of proper identification in order to apply for a Marriage License.” The options include a driver’s license, active military ID card, passport, or permanent resident card.

6. Freedom of Movement
While the right to board an airplane isn’t spelled out in the Constitution, von Spakovsky said the right to travel could be broadly considered a basic public accommodation and a freedom of movement issue, even though the Transportation Security Administration requires photo ID for everyone boarding a plane.

Freedom of movement is recognized under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1869 that this protected the rights of citizens, the “right of free ingress into other states, and egress from them.” “The 1960s civil rights movement was in part about the fundamental right to travel on trains and public buses,” von Spakovsky said.

7. Public Accommodations
Opponents of voter ID laws contend that it’s difficult for minorities to obtain ID for voting. This could reasonably extend to public accommodations, von Spakovsky said. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits businesses such as restaurants and hotels from denying service on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin. “I can’t remember when I checked into a hotel and they didn’t ask me for photo ID,” von Spakovsky said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is involved in current litigation against voter ID laws in states such as North Carolina, Kansas, and Texas, told The Daily Signal Wednesday that no one is available to comment regarding these other civil liberties that require some type of ID.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Bathroom Laws Unequal : Courts To Decide, Not the People

The progressive attack on common sense never ends. The rest of us have to depend on the courts to protect our rights under the law. Really? Given what has transpired in Wisconsin with it's voter fraud prevention laws that were enacted by a legislature but nearly completely struck down again except the ID requirement, by a liberal judge that believe he is the law.

Just where do you think those of us down here in the trenches will get justice?

It’s Telling the Left Targets Only This State Law on Public Restrooms
Matt Sharp /

Pop quiz: Which of the following sentences comes from North Carolina’s new law protecting privacy in public schools and government buildings?
1. “The provision of separate facilities or schedules for female and for male patrons, does not constitute a discriminatory practice when such separate facilities or schedules for female and for male patrons are bona fide requirements to protect personal rights of privacy.”
2.  “Nothing contained in this chapter that refers to ‘sex’ shall be construed to mandate joint use of restrooms, bath houses, and dressing rooms by males and females.”
3.  “Nothing in this subsection prohibits separate treatment of persons based on sex with regard to public toilets, showers, saunas and dressing rooms for persons of different sexes.”
If you guessed “none of the above,” you would be correct. These three provisions are from statutes in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, respectively. Now let’s compare the provisions with some of the actual language from the North Carolina law, known as HB2:
Designating multiple or single occupancy bathrooms or changing facilities according to biological sex … shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination.
These four state laws are nearly identical. The laws each allow a business or public accommodation to have separate locker rooms and restrooms for men and women, rather than requiring either to give people who identify as transgender access to the facility of their choice. At least a dozen states have similar laws. And in the remaining states, common sense was allowed to rule, resulting in a societywide consensus that businesses can (and should) maintain distinct restrooms for each of the sexes.

The same principles are enshrined in the plain language of Title IX, a federal law that opponents of these commonsense laws often cite. Actually, though, it recognizes that federally funded schools and colleges can maintain separate facilities on the basis of sex. So why the uproar and contentious litigation over HB2, a law that does little more than follow what has been the norm across our nation (and our laws) for hundreds of years?

The same question can be asked over Mississippi’s recent conscience protection law, which ensures that individuals who work in the wedding industry cannot be compelled to create expression that violates their beliefs or personal convictions. Existing laws provide conscience protections in other contexts, such as ensuring that a medical professional is not forced to participate in abortions. Or consider a recently enacted law in Tennessee that allows counselors to refer a client if the client is pursuing goals that conflict with the counselor’s beliefs.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission recognized that a baker or cake artist could not be compelled to produce a cake with a message opposing same-sex marriage, while at the same time refusing to extend the same protection to Jack Phillips, who declined to create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage.

Mississippi’s law was a necessary response to efforts to punish those who hold the time-honored view of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It sought to guarantee that a person’s personal convictions are not trampled in the stampede to impose same-sex marriage on our nation.
While opponents of the North Carolina and Mississippi laws aim to portray them as radical new types of laws, the truth is that both laws are modeled on similar legislation that is decades old. Yet rather than take a wait-and-see approach to see how the two laws would operate in practice, opponents rushed to court.

Why? Because that is their modus operandi. When they can’t win through the normal legislative process, they rush to court seeking a judge who would strike down the law that they were unable to defeat through the representatives of the people. Despite no evidence of discrimination under either law, and despite no documented instances in either state of someone being denied goods or services based upon their sexual orientation or gender identity, opponents of the laws reject the will of the people and, via judicial fiat, seek to impose their own will on everyone.

We all should be troubled by what this portends for democracy. Laws with solid legal foundations and decades of precedent in other states are challenged immediately by activists as unconstitutional—a word that has been redefined to mean “a law that they disagree with.”
Indeed, the fact that activists are challenging these two laws, and not the dozens of other, similarly worded laws in both red and blue states, reveals their true colors.

These activists are not concerned with what is or is not constitutional. They are not concerned about the rule of law. They are focused on defeating their enemies, those with whom they disagree, by any means necessary. We should all hope and pray that the courts on which these activists so heavily bank their hopes will see through the façade and rule in accordance with the law and in favor of common sense.

The Clinton Machine : Unscrupulous, Sinister and Immoral

Here is a very comprehensive look at Clinton machine for getting and keeping power, and the money it brings to them personally. (See the URL below)

This has nothing to do with the country and it's problems other then the Clintons are using our liberties and freedoms to make themselves rich. To hell with the country.

And as a side bar, understand what Hillary did in Benghazi can be considered negligent homicide. But where's the outrage?

Are the Clintons really the very definition of what criminals are, the answer is a resounding yes.

And yet, millions of people don't know who they are and don't care that our country and it's national security has been compromised by them and their friends in the progressive socialist liberal democrat party, that is the now democrat Marxist collective.

This sight URL will explain just how deep the Clintons have gone into being the new 'Bonnie and Clyde'' where they are stealing not only our money but destroying our country as it was founded.

Light Speed Sex In November : Who Knew?

I don't know the author here, but I believe they have some good insight that reveals truth.
Light Speed Sex -
If you were to strip naked and run around in a circle at the speed of 298 km/sec (the speed of light) it would theoretically be possible for you to screw yourself.
However, since you are not physically capable of achieving that speed as a mere human, you can easily accomplish the same result by voting Democratic in the Nov 8, 2016 election.  

Wikileak's DNC Source Murdered? : Julian Assange Hints It's So

No price to high to pay for Power

This a little tongue-in-cheek but it still say things that many people believe is close to the truth. Getting and keeping power has no limits. None!

Interesting enough though when one considers what happened to the member of the democrat national committee who, supposedly was the leak to Julian Assange, Wikileaks, on emails that link the democrats to all sorts of despicable and criminal acts to skirt the law.

Seth Rich was shot to death in DC early one morning. The media is not outraged as he is suspected to be the leak of DNC documents to Julian Assange.

It appears the democrats are glad he is dead. There hasn't been any outrage by party leaders or the subservient national press. A nonbeliever has been dispensed.

But the question that remains is, who make it happen?

Monday, August 29, 2016

Ogbjma's Immigration Unlimited : Ogbjma's Payback Jihad of Chaos

Does it matter that states that are seeing refugees arrive had no idea they were coming and from where? They arrive on our shores, they are loaded on buses or airplanes at taxpayer expense, then transporting them to all 50 states.

The immigration authorities  have no idea who they are and apparently don't care, seeing how they have to bring these people in under the cloak of secrecy. Is this a good program that will benefit the American people? Hardly. But then it never had anything ever to do with America or it's people other then fundamental change as Mr Ogbjma promised.

This is about a religious jihad designed and executed for transformation of civil society. It's about creating confusion and financial chaos in cities and states. Nothing more.

But how do we assign responsibility, and hold them to it for what is going to happen because these people have no attachment to the greatness of our country?

Left-Funded Rally Aims to Pressure Lawmakers to Welcome More Refugees
Kevin Mooney / /     

Are you concerned about the plight of international refugees? Would you like to see the U.S. government take decisive, constructive action on behalf of displaced persons across the globe who have been forced to flee their homes? If so, you’re invited to “stand up against the voices of intolerance” this Sunday in Washington, D.C., where you can join forces with other concerned Americans.

But if you do participate, policy analysts who have examined the refugee crisis want you to know they have good reason to believe the rally is a highly politicized event organized for the purpose of lobbying the Obama administration and Congress to allow more refugees into the U.S.—including those from war-torn Syria and Iraq who may have ties to terrorism. A major contributor to causes on the left, the Tides Foundation, is collecting contributions for the rally.

President Barack Obama said he would boost the number of Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. to 10,000  for the fiscal year beginning last October and ending this Sept. 30. As of June, about 2,800 Syrians had resettled in America, according to Pew Research Center. But after a slow start, the administration is poised to meet or surpass its goal of admitting 10,000 Syrians, Anne Richard, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, told reporters in a conference call earlier this month.

Skeptics, worried about the effects on the economy and the difficulty of screening for terrorists, point to studies showing resettlement of refugees in the U.S. rather than the Middle East is both costly and counterproductive.

High Costs of Resettling Refugees
A report by the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies found that it costs 12 times as much to resettle a refugee in America than it does to provide for services and relief to the same refugee in the Middle East.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan research outfit included State Department expenditures, welfare use rates, and other figures and benefits from the departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and other U.S. agencies. Its report says:
Based on that information, this analysis finds that the costs of resettling refugees in the United States are quite high, even without considering all of the costs refugees create. We conservatively estimate that the costs total $64,370 in the first five years for each Middle Eastern refugee. This is 61 times what it costs to care for one Syrian refugee in a neighboring country for a single year or about 12 times the cost of providing for a refugee for five years.
“The organizers, funders, and the supporting groups are putting this rally together to exert pressure to ensure that the Obama administration increases the admission of Syrians into the U.S.,” Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Signal.
For their part, the rally’s organizers insist they have put together a genuine grassroots movement of concerned citizens who want the U.S. government to assume a leadership role in ongoing efforts to alleviate the refugee crisis. This point is made on the rally’s website:
As borders have closed to those fleeing war and violence and as the voices of fear and intolerance have grown louder, we will not let politics or fear stand in the way of our compassion. We urge the United States government to uphold its founding principles and its traditional leadership role in refugee protection by further assisting the countries that are carrying the heaviest burden of the ongoing crisis. We believe that every act of rejection is an affront to humanity and every act of compassion a reminder of what is best in each and every one of us.
The website created for the rally lists the San Francisco-based, nonprofit Tides Foundation as a fundraising vehicle. The foundation and its sister organization, Tides Center, are major benefactors of “left wing” causes for more than 30 years, according to the Capital Research Center, which investigates the “aims and activities of left-liberal special interest groups.”

‘Same League as George Soros’
Foundation financial records put the Tides network on a par with the grant-making efforts of George Soros, the Hungarian-American businessman and progressive political activist. Soros is chairman of Open Society Foundations, an international grant-making network previously known as Open Society Institute.

“Tides’ grantmaking is in the same league as George Soros’s Open Society Institute,” a Capital Research Center report states. “From 1999 through 2008, Tides distributed $630.6 million in grants, a sum within hailing distance of the Open Society Institute’s $901.4 million, according to records.”

Soros is a major funder of National Immigration Forum, a group advocating amnesty for illegal immigrants that is listed as an organization supporting the rally. The website encourages participants to purchase an orange or white T-shirt with the logo of the DC Rally 4 Refugees, set to take place from 10 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., rain or shine, at the Sylvan Theater near the Washington Monument.
The website also asks supporters to donate to the rally through the Tides Foundation, listing its address and a fund number. In response to an inquiry from The Daily Signal about the role of Tides, rally spokeswoman Lauren Cozzi said in an email:
DCRally4Refugees is 100 percent dependent on individual contributions. The Tides Foundation is the organizational instrument that provides DCRally4Refugees with tax-exempt status on the donations. The Tides Foundation is not hosting the event, nor is it fundraising on behalf of DCRally4Refugees.
Cozzi also said the DC Rally 4 Refugees organization “was founded by a grassroots group of advocates inspired to help after volunteering directly with refugees fleeing war and violence in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions.”

‘We Can Each Make a Difference’
The United Nations Refugee Agency’s figures show more than 65 million people throughout the globe have been forced to leave their homes in response to armed conflict, political persecution, and other extreme circumstances. About 21 million of them are refugees, according to the U.N.
The rally website describes the international refugee crisis as the worst since World War II:
Nearly 5 million human beings have fled Syria alone since the start of its civil war in 2011 and are now living in limbo in neighboring countries. In addition, millions of Iraqis and Afghans have fled their homes under the threat of violence. Millions of refugees from Somalia, South Sudan, and elsewhere also need protection and assistance.
Rally organizers’ volunteer efforts in trouble spots around the world provided them with the impetus for Sunday’s event. “After seeing the scale of human suffering with my own eyes while volunteering in Lesvos, Greece, I realized I had to help refugees in any way I could,” Kathy Hertz, founder and executive director of DC Rally 4 Refugees, said in a press release. “Despite having no idea how I would finance a rally, I trusted in my desire to educate people about the global refugee crisis and show how we can each make a difference.” Hertz added:
Many people have shared with me their desire to help refugees, but did not know how to do so. I founded DCRally4Refugees to give them a way to help, provide tools, and create a large coming together of people for increased safe refugee resettlement and support. On the one-year anniversary of the drowning death of Aylan Kurdi, the young boy whose photo shocked the world, we unfortunately cannot say that things have changed. Refugees are still risking their lives daily and too many of them are dying in the process. I know we can do better.
Almost 10,000 displaced persons have drowned while attempting to cross from Turkey to Greece and Libya to Italy, according to the rally website.

‘Timed to Influence the Number of Refugees’
Asked by The Daily Signal to comment on the organizers’ policy objectives, Cozzi, the rally spokeswoman, said: “DCRally4Refugees will raise awareness about the global refugee crisis and urge U.S. action—at home and overseas—to alleviate suffering through relief efforts and refugee resettlement.” Noting the rally will take place near Capitol Hill, the website said participants “will call on the U.S. to provide more refugee resettlement and increased support to countries and organizations already involved, support proven relief efforts overseas, and offer resources for those who wish to help, raising a collective voice against intolerance.”

Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said he sees more than mere happenstance at work in the timing of the rally: Obama is set to play host to a refugee summit at the U.N. on Sept. 20. The president also is expected to release his fiscal year 2017 plan for refugees by the end of September.
The rally is not only “to exert pressure to ensure that the Obama administration increases the admission of Syrians,” Krikorian said, but “timed to influence the number of refugees the State Department is trying to settle.”

Krikorian told The Daily Signal that he makes a critical distinction between refugees and additional Syrians who may be brought to the U.S. from countries, often in Europe, other than Syria:
Once they leave those countries they are basically just looking for a better job. … It seems to me the administration has not made a persuasive case for why any of these people should be brought here, especially since our research shows it costs 12 times as much to take care of a refugee here than it does to take care of them in the Middle East.

University of Chicago Takes A Stand : No More Safe Places

Oh my goodness - someone opened a window to allow a breath of fresh air to entered the room! I wonder what the push back will be from the progressive liberal left to not have a safe place to hide from reality. It just easier for the left's neurosis of living a lie to be a way to evade the truth about your own ideology.

Talk is cheap these days as witness our political leaders, but the proof will be in standing firm in the face of the mob that threatens to destroy the campus if leadership doesn't acquiesce.

A College Strikes Back Against Safe Spaces
Katrina Trinko / /     

If you want to be unquestionably affirmed and unchallenged in all your beliefs and views, don’t go to the University of Chicago. In a letter published by Intellectual Takeout, John Ellison, dean of students at the Chicago college, warns incoming students that there is no tolerance for the kind of student demands that have trended in recent years:
Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Mind you, the extreme leftness of academia—there are around five times as many liberal professors as conservative ones, according to a 2014 survey by the University of California Los Angeles means that even if this trend of ditching safe spaces continues, few liberal students will be seriously affected by hearing challenging ideas, at least in the classroom. But it’s a start.

And it might mean that more students potentially are exposed to conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro, author of “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans,” and “Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth.”

Back in February, Shapiro, a popular speaker, was scheduled to speak on “When Diversity Becomes a Problem” at California State University, Los Angeles, having been invited by the conservative Young America’s Foundation campus chapter. Then-Cal State LA President William Covino tried to postpone Shapiro’s speech, writing in an email that Shapiro should be “part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity.” In other words, no matter how many liberals were allowed to give talks without instant rebuttal, Shapiro’s viewpoint was simply too dangerous to go unchallenged.
Ultimately, Shapiro refused to postpone—and delivered his talk, despite protests.
College should be a place where students, regardless of whether they’re liberal, conservative, libertarian, green, no labels, or somewhere in the mushy middle, do encounter other perspectives.
“Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building Thursday afternoon to block other students from attending the event,” The Daily Signal reported at the time.
The attitude of Cal State LA administrators to the Shapiro speech highlights the current problems at colleges. Heat Street’s Jillian Melchior obtained emails from college administrators discussing Shapiro’s appearance. One, sent in early December by Scott Bowman, dean of the College of Natural and Social Sciences, included this take on Shapiro’s speech:
It could be explosive in the current environment. Nothing he says is hate speech in my view but his critiques of the Left’s obsession with micro-aggressions and various tactics of groups (e.g., Black Lives Matter) would be labeled racist by them, which is his point, by the way.
How have we gotten to the point where college administrators are so terrified of the student body encountering a conservative that months before a speech they’re thinking out coping strategies?
As The Onion put it in a headline last year, “College Encourages Lively Exchange Of Idea,” with the subhead being “Students, Faculty Invited To Freely Express Single Viewpoint.” The Onion ostensibly is a parody site, but actions like Cal State LA’s make it seem like such ideas are no joke.

College should be a place where students, regardless of whether they’re liberal, conservative, libertarian, green, no labels, or somewhere in the mushy middle, do encounter other perspectives. If you are serious about pursuing the intellectual life, you should have enough faith in your ideas to be able to use reason to argue for them. And you should take seriously other people’s views, both to realize where you are wrong (I realize being wrong may not be the easiest concept for students raised amid the self-esteem movement, but it is a thing that happens), and to expand the vigor of your own arguments in response.

Nothing was preventing those students who think Shapiro is outrageously wrong from civilly fighting back, whether via another event, writing op-eds, or a host of other options.

“Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn, without fear of censorship,” wrote University of Chicago’s Ellison in the same letter. While Ellison noted the importance of civility and the inexcusability of harassment, he added, “We expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement.” “At times,” he warned, “this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.”

That might be an unusual concept for some on the left. Fun fact: A 2014 Pew Research Center study found that 44 percent of “consistently liberal” Facebook users had blocked someone based on political content, compared to 31 percent of “consistently conservative” users. Who’s intolerant now?
But debate, especially the kind that causes discomfort, because it makes you think seriously about what you believe and why—is what college should be for. As Oklahoma Wesleyan University President Everett Piper put it in a fiery post in November, “This is not a day care. This is a university.”

And it appears that some students agree. At University of Missouri, where the debate over “safe spaces” erupted last fall, undergraduate enrollment “is down more than 2,100 students, or almost 8 percent, this semester compared to fall 2015,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported earlier this week.
Maybe there’s hope that some millennials do want a war of ideas—and not a silencing of all perspectives that don’t fit the liberal ideology. After all, any robust republic requires plenty of debates—and not just among candidates, but among citizens, wrestling with what the best course forward for their country is.

As Shapiro put it in a speech to students at University of Missouri last year, “You’re in a safe space, thank God. It’s called America.” Perhaps colleges and students are finally waking up and realizing that.

The Ogbjma Legacy : Regulated Environmental Destruction

Mr Ogbjma's legacy will be one of abject failure on every aspect of global warming, and if that's not bad enough, many see Mr Ogbjma's executive actions on climate change, and many other areas as well, as nothing less then criminal behavior.

Mr Ogbjma's legacy will be a president that decided our Constitution of a government by and for the people was not to his liking, and therefore tried to destroy it, and sadly for the most part, he has succeeded.

Would even a Conservative president like Scott Walker or Ted Cruz be able to turn our country around remains a question. And given the two that are now running for the top job aren't even close to conservative, it remains to be seen if we will survive as a nation of freedom and liberty.

What Obama Is Doing to Seal His Environmental Record
Fred Lucas / /     

Before his last day in office, President Barack Obama wants to impose new fuel-efficiency standards and establish a green energy plan for North America to top off an environmental legacy including major international agreements and a massive expansion of regulations and subsidies. “He will be leaving office with a very strongly negative legacy,” predicted Nick Loris, research fellow on energy and environment with The Heritage Foundation, in a phone interview. “After he failed to get a ‘cap and trade’ bill through Congress, he has used unelected bureaucrats to implement and pioneer regulatory onslaught.”

Early in his presidency, Obama and liberals in Congress unsuccessfully proposed financial incentives for companies to reduce carbon emissions, saying such a “cap and trade” approach would help curb global warming During his weekend address Aug. 13, Obama spoke about “ambitious investments” that led to tripling the use of wind power, increasing the use of solar energy “thirtyfold,” and more energy-efficient vehicles.

“We’re not done yet. In the weeks and months ahead, we’ll release a second round of fuel-efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles,” Obama said of his Jan. 20 departure after eight years, adding:
We’ll take steps to meet the goal we set with Canada and Mexico to achieve 50 percent clean power across North America by 2025. And we’ll continue to protect our lands and waters so that our kids and grandkids can enjoy our most beautiful spaces for generations.
‘Little to Mitigate Global Warming’
Three days after that address, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration formally announced they are adopting new fuel-efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles such as tractor-trailers and buses. This will mark the second time the Obama administration has put new fuel-efficiency standards in place. The White House, in a press release, asserts that 20 percent of carbon pollution comes from heavy-duty vehicles. Separately, the Energy Department created a new program to spend $140 million on research and development for “fuel-efficient truck technologies.”

This will almost certainly mean higher costs with minimum impact on global warming, Loris said.
“Trucks, buses, and garbage trucks, these are all industries that measure their fuel to a tenth of a mile because energy efficiency is key to their bottom line,” Loris said. “There is little this would do to mitigate global warming. You could shut down the entire economy and the temperature would only move a few degrees Celsius.”

Obama’s other ambitious goal before leaving office was reached during the North American Leaders’ Summit in late June, where Obama met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Ottawa. The plan is to have the three countries operating on 50 percent clean energy by 2025.  Such a goal will be nearly impossible to reach in nine years, said Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute.
“Of course it’s not doable,” Michaels told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Even if you substitute nuclear power for fossil fuels, that wouldn’t be enough time to build enough nuclear plants.”

‘Legacy of Unconscionable Costs’
Sticking to the deal will be a challenge, agreed David Kreutzer, a senior research fellow for energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation. “Whatever the cost, it won’t be incurred by the Obama administration,” Kreutzer said in a phone interview. “He can take on the role of an energy reformer and his successor will have to deal with the lost jobs and high energy prices. The current government of Canada might seem inclined to sign on, but Mexico needs investment and might not want to tie itself into poverty.”

The regulatory costs of environmental regulations artificially raise energy prices, which are typically shouldered by lower-income Americans, according to an analysis by The Heritage Foundation.
A 2011 poll by the National Energy Assistance Directors Association found that 37 percent of low-income families sacrificed medical and dental coverage to pay for higher energy bills. The poll found almost one in five identified a family member who became sick because their home was too cold.
“It’s a legacy of unconscionable costs imposed with no climate impact,” Kreutzer said.

The president could have made a larger investment in cutting-edge technologies such as those associated with nuclear power, including fusion research, contends Tony Sadar, a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail.” “Progressives are looking at sunbeams and windmills,” Sadar told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “You’re not really progressive if you’re looking at ancient technologies. Early on, the president supported research into nuclear power generation. But we’ve seen a return to the alternative energy that leaves much to be desired economically and even environmentally.”

‘He Is Doubling Down’
Michaels, of the Cato Institute, said much of the Obama legacy will be the “boondoggles” of solar and wind power along the countryside. “His long-term legacy will be that he committed this country to sources of power that will never supply much dependable electric power,” Michaels said, adding:
The fact that solar and wind have been subsidized for years shows they are not successful. He makes no attempt to hide the fact that he believes Europe is doing so many wonderful things that we should. If he was consistent on that, he would observe that most of Europe is disengaging from these energy sources, while he is doubling down.
The Daily Signal sought comment from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, both of which support much of Obama’s environmental agenda, but neither responded by publication time.

Courts have delivered a setback to some of Obama’s environmental agenda. In February, the Supreme Court blocked EPA rules limiting carbon emissions from power plants. The high court ordered a stay, until more than two dozen lawsuits challenging the regulations can be sorted.
Lower federal courts halted the Interior Department from imposing stricter regulations on hydraulic fracturing, and separately stopped an EPA rule on small waterways and wetlands. The lawsuits and court rulings were based in part on executive overreach.

The United States entered an international climate agreement with 171 other countries negotiated in Paris that is intended to curb carbon emissions that government leaders say contribute to global warming. The governments hammered out the deal last year, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry signed the agreement in April. Though treaties require Senate ratification, negotiators from the Obama administration and other countries worded much of the agreement to allow the measures to be handled by the executive branch.

Scaling Back Taxpayer Subsidies 
The Obama administration has scaled back some taxpayer subsidies after spending hundreds of millions on loan guarantees for green energy companies that failed, Loris noted.  Solyndra, the politically connected solar panel company that went bankrupt despite a $500 million Energy Department loan, was the most publicized debacle. But dozens of other companies got taxpayer subsidies.

In congressional testimony, Loris noted the underlying themes of subsidies to green energy companies showed taxpayer money going to failed companies that couldn’t survive even with such help; projects backed by larger companies that should be able to operate without taxpayer help; and numerous other companies that benefit from taxpayer subsidies.

The government surprisingly seems to have learned something from the bad investments, Loris said.
“I haven’t seen new major loan guarantees, though there have been extended tax credits,” Loris told The Daily Signal. “There could be a recognition that government isn’t good at picking winners and losers. Folks will recognize that politicians shouldn’t invest in energy.”

America Without Independence : Pride In Country Is Failing?

Today, what exactly does it mean to be an Amerian? hmmmm - As this article points out, we are trending away from our history due to ignorance and that all consuming capitulation to the notion 'we are one of you', that sinister and loud voice from the mob that threatens one's existence in the larger society as an individual.

Pride in something as fundamental as the source of our prosperity and freedom comes from knowledge of how it came to be. If you don't know were we came from, how will anyone know what to expect from the future? Who's idea was it to even think our pledge is optional?

The very existence of America is based on the notion we are free to chose our own destiny, not be told by others who and what we are or can be. But to be able to make decisions as adults that will direct us to that freedom, we must educate our youth to understand who we are and how we got here.

But most people today, it seems, don't want to be left out of the main steam thinking that change for the sake of change is a good thing, and if you oppose their 'new world order' of the group as change for the better, with individual thinking, you will be cast out into the darkness as being different. That is, if you're not obedient to the will of the group, you are seen in opposition to it's basic agenda, everyone must comply to groups will to be accepted. Acceptance is the rule of the day.

The question I have is who is in charge of setting the rules now? Who is the group leader?

What a School Letting Students Opt Out of Pledge of Allegiance Says About Our Patriotism
Jarrett Stepman / /     

Can America thrive as a post-patriotic society A Florida elementary school recently caused a stir on social media when a man posted an image of his niece’s waiver from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The waiver form asked parents if they would like to opt their child out from “standing and placing his/her right hand over his/her heart” and reciting the pledge. The infuriated uncle wrote on Facebook, “My niece brought this home from school today…What is happening to our country?!?”

Florida students have been able to opt out of the pledge since 2000.

The just over 30-word Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, received an addendum of “under God” in the 1950s under President Dwight Eisenhower, but has remained a fairly constant and little-changed staple at schools and public gatherings for over half a century. While the specific merits of the pledge have elicited opposition on the left and right over the decades, the casual and increasingly dismissive treatment of even simple patriotic acts is a symptom of deeper trends in American society.

The decline of patriotism in American life will lead to profound crisis for the world’s youngest civilization—which has been fortunate enough to maintain one of the oldest, and certainly the greatest, of political systems.

A June Gallup poll indicated that only 53 percent of adults are “extremely proud” to be Americans, a 17 percent decline since 2003. The numbers were dragged down in particular by millennials; only 34 percent of adults under the age of 30 reported being “extremely proud” to be citizens of the United States. These steadily declining numbers, more than economic malaise or any other factor, demonstrate the current fragility unity of the world’s greatest superpower.

In spite of recessions, economic setbacks, and widespread government dependency, Americans remain a dynamic and entrepreneurial people at heart. But these factors alone aren’t alleviating the fact that most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, fueling the current populist mood of the nation.

The great French observer of American life, Alexis de Tocqueville, warned that “ … epochs sometimes occur in the life of a nation when the old customs of a people are changed, public morality is destroyed, religious belief shaken, and the spell of tradition broken.”
Tocqueville ominously wrote that the country in such a state:
… assumes a dim and dubious shape in the eyes of the citizens; they no longer behold it in the soil which they inhabit, for that soil is to them an inanimate clod; nor in the usages of their forefathers, which they have learned to regard as a debasing yoke; nor in religion, for of that they doubt; nor in the laws, which do not originate in their own authority; nor in the legislator, whom they fear and despise. The country is lost to their senses; they can discover it neither under its own nor under borrowed features, and they retire into a narrow and unenlightened selfishness.
The decline in true or even symbolic patriotism is especially bad news for a country like the United States. The blending of disparate races, ethnicities, and religions into a lasting national identity has been one of the greatest and historically rarest triumphs of this country. Americans have traditionally embraced displays of patriotism to a degree that astounds and occasionally disturbs citizens of other countries. But it has been necessary for a civilization that has brought together so many diverse peoples under one flag.

The long-term American cultural project of assimilation is fraying and its decline could open up the cleavages that exist under the country’s surface. For most of the world, “nationalism” has symbolized ethnic identity more than love of country—in the wake of quickly declining patriotism, this will likely become the norm in the U.S. as well.

When using the phrase “land of opportunity” is labeled a “micro-aggression” by universities, and most students fail a basic civic literacy test, it is no wonder young Americans have little attachment to their country. They may learn that their only true ties are to the subgroups their leftist professors imbue with such importance, rather than to all of their fellow Americans. While the trendy notion of being a “citizen of the world” is popular in Western, cosmopolitan societies, in a globalized world in which communities have broken down, individuals fall back on tribe or look to radical mass movements to fulfill this sense of loss.

The flippant way in which patriotism is being cast aside in this country makes it vital that Americans attempt to restore patriotic sentiment and understanding of the nation’s traditions for current and future generations. Leaders capable of articulating what has made America unique are necessary, as is a public that has a keen understanding of what ideas are at the cornerstone of the republic.
South Carolina’s new law requiring students to study the founding documents is one of many ways civic and patriotic attachment to country can be restored—and similar laws could at least provide a baseline for responsible citizenship.

In an 1894 speech, Theodore Roosevelt spoke of the need for “true Americanism” for the U.S. to be a great country. He said:
We shall never be successful over the dangers that confront us; we shall never achieve true greatness, nor reach the lofty ideal which the founders and preservers of our mighty Federal Republic have set before us, unless we are Americans in heart and soul, in spirit and purpose, keenly alive to the responsibility implied in the very name of American, and proud beyond measure of the glorious privilege of bearing it.
If the trends continue and America proceeds down the path of being a post-patriotic society, no election or economic boom will put the country back on the right track or restore sagging confidence in the country’s political institutions.

Patriotism and pride in the U.S.’ unique institutions and founding principles has been the glue holding together a country diverse in ethnic backgrounds and creeds. Without allegiance to the American experiment, we may find that our citizens choose ethnic ties or “global citizenship” as more meaningful than their hollowed out and meaningless American identity.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Black Americans In The Harness : Democrats Along for The Ride

Black Votes Matter copy
I guess it's understandable that the progressive socialist liberal media is outraged that Trump will make a statement saying the democrats haven't done anything to make the black population lives any better, even after decades of saying they would.

Trumps question is, why are black voters still voting for the same lies over and over again? 'What have you got to lose by voting for me?'

Telling the truth is outrageous and unacceptable to the media that is playing cover for Hillary and the democrats.

Clinton's 'Pay for Play' Scam : $Millions for A 'Can Do'

Play for pay - how long will it take for the voting public understand that the Clintons are not here to help?

The Clintons are about taking advantage of every situation that presents itself to advance their main goal in life of obtaining more money and more power to get more money.

There are no limits to their greed. Not the nation or their souls, if they actually have them now. I believe they sold them a long time ago.

Is Dick Morris Right? : Hillary Explains Democrat Voters

And as if we all didn't know this from the beginning. It's who they are and always have been. It's just sad that so many among us still are living the fantasy of by mortgaging their souls to the Clintons they will find peace and prosperity.

Maybe she is right, maybe the democrat voter is stupid, and more then willing to sacrifice their all they have to become obedient and compliant slaves to the agenda of progressive socialism.

For decades the progressive democrats have promised everything and delivered nothing, and yet the line up and cheer year after year, decade after decade, and the whole time they are being screwed.

What's their secret?

Teaching Socialist Dogma to The Unwashed : But Professors Can't Lead for Free

Socialist professors copyThey don't preach the gospil of progressive socialism for free because it's their job to know what is best for you, and then telling you how to live your life.

And since 'we are living is a closed society, guarded by a longevity of indiferent ignorance and depraved insolence, we have to have adequate compensation that is befitting our place in that sociality.

'Our years of study have shown us the truth of the universe and therefore it's complexities have been revealed to us. We are the chosen ones to lead.

'You, the common man, are placed in society in such a way that it is your duty and honor to work hard to make sure we have the all of the needed benefits of privilege that will sustain us now and into the future to insure we will continue unabated by a necessity to labor in common fields of endeavor as leaders.

'And because we been educated to the highest levels and therefore have been placed in positions of leadership, with special abilities to explain how life should be lived, it is our right to have access to the fruits of your labor.

Beyond Comprehension : Cliff Camping

Description: ziex: speaking of the insane, progressive democrats, here also is an example of those that have little or no concern that other people will view them as crazy, actually this is beyond description and comprehension.

They call it 'cliff camping'. Just looking at this makes me weak in the knees. Why would anyone do this? Why would anyone want to do this?

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Immigration Enforcement Law Failing : Deportations Down

Here again is Mr Ogbjma doing the political two step on immigration. He has no intention of reform, he believes that by getting as many people across the boarder as he can and by any means necessary, he can secure a voter base that will be unstoppable. And if you believe millions of illegals aren't voting in local and national elections, why would the progressive judges declaring voter ID unconstitutional even when these laws where fund constitutional? Progressive Justice?

Why else would Mr Ogbjma push so hard for sanctuary cities and open boarders other then establishing a huge new voter base? His religious jihad for civil society chaos might be high on his list as well.

Case in point, a Wisconsin progressive liberal democrat judge decided to bar an approved and voted on law by the state legislature to modify early voting and voter ID. And after the states attorney general asked for a 'stay', he only got vote ID.

Wisconsin as a 'blue state' has a nasty history of voter fraud. Just imagine what goes on in California and other blue states.

Under Obama’s New Enforcement Program, Fewer Illegal Immigrants Being Captured for Deportation
Josh Siegel / /

Under a revamped Obama administration program intended to encourage greater cooperation from local law enforcement agencies in helping deport illegal immigrants who the government considers “a danger” to public safety, fewer people are being taken into custody for eventual removal from the country. In November 2014, the administration introduced the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), a less demanding version of a previous system that had been accused of violating immigrants’ civil rights, and did not differentiate between low-level and serious offenders. The old program, called Secure Communities, influenced a number of local jurisdictions—known as “sanctuary cities”—to not work with the federal government.

Child Rape Case Inspires Lawmaker to Fight Philadelphia’s Sanctuary City Policy

While more local agencies are indeed working with federal immigration authorities since the new program began, a new study shows that those closer ties have not resulted in greater apprehensions of illegal immigrants who the government seeks to deport.

The federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) reports that only 2 percent of its requests to local law enforcement were declined in the first two months of fiscal year 2016.
However, during that same time period, ICE did not take custody of more than 60 percent of individuals it had requested information on. “Obviously it takes an enormous time to turn around something as big as a Department of Homeland Security program, and this is clearly something that needs continuing monitoring,” said Susan Long of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, who acquired and compiled the data for her recent study. “But there is no indication at this point that the PEP directives have in fact been implemented successfully.”

New Program, Narrower Focus
In the old program, Secure Communities, ICE asked law enforcement agencies to hold somebody in custody for an extra 48 hours from when they would normally be released so that person could be picked up and deported. These requests were known as detainers. With the new program, local authorities, in most cases, are asked to only notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they plan to release someone from jail whom the government seeks to deport. ICE still can issue a detainer if it believes it has probable cause to deport an illegal immigrant who has been arrested, even if they haven’t been convicted.

In addition to switching from Secure Communities to the Priority Enforcement Program, the administration at the same time also announced it was narrowing the types of people it seeks to deport. ICE officers are told to first target illegal immigrants considered to be threats to national security and public safety, who have likely been convicted of a felony. Other priorities for deportation include individuals who have been convicted of multiple misdemeanors, and recent arrivals who came here illegally after Jan. 1, 2014.

With about 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally, the administration argues that smart policy dictates focusing its deportation efforts more specifically, at people it considers to be dangerous.  The natural result of this more narrow focus is that ICE is seeking to deport fewer people, according to the statistics acquired by TRAC.

For example, in October of 2008, the first month and year from TRAC’s data, ICE issued more than 19,000 detainer requests to local law enforcement. None of those requests were rejected by local law enforcement. In November of 2015, the last month and year of TRAC’s data, ICE submitted a little more than 6,000 detainer and notification requests to local agencies. Almost 100 of the requests were rejected. Still, that refusal rate—about 1.6 percent—is much less than what it was at the height of the controversy over Secure Communities, when there were more sanctuary cities.

In June and July of 2014, for instance, 10.4 percent of ICE requests to local law enforcement were refused.

Serious Criminals ‘Getting Through’?
Immigration experts who reviewed the TRAC study noted that it has limitations. It only captures a short amount of time since PEP was implemented, and it does not show how many of those taken into custody by ICE were actually deported. But some observers are concerned that even with increased cooperation from local law enforcement, ICE is apprehending fewer people it seeks custody of.

Randy Capps, the director of research for U.S. programs at the Migration Policy Institute, says that because ICE is more narrowly tailoring its deportation focus to those it considers to be serious criminals—and recent border crossers—it stands to reason that some of those who are not taken into custody are dangerous.

“It’s clear that the overall number of people getting detainers and into ICE custody are both going down so we have evidence that ICE is narrowing whom they seek to deport,” Capps told The Daily Signal. “And it is also clear a lot more major jurisdictions are sending people into ICE custody, while there are still some that are not.” “So one has to ask, are people who would be considered a top priority and may commit a serious crime getting through and not getting deported?” Capps added. “We don’t know for sure because ICE has other ways to pick these people up. But one can assume a fair number with serious convictions are not getting into ICE custody.”

‘No Correlation’
An ICE official, who would not comment directly on the TRAC study, told The Daily Signal it’s not appropriate to conclude that just because the agency is receiving greater compliance from local jurisdictions, it should therefore be taking custody of more people who are referred to them for deportation. That’s because, in instances where local agencies refuse to help facilitate the removal of illegal immigrants targeted by ICE, federal immigration officials often go off into communities on their own to find and take custody of those individuals.

These dispatched ICE officers, known as Fugitive Operations Teams, are usually tasked with finding and apprehending illegal immigrants who don’t show up for their deportation hearings, or those who have been ordered removed but escape before they’re deported.

How Other Nations Stop US From Deporting Criminal Illegal Immigrants
But in other situations, the ICE official and Capps said, the Fugitive Operations Teams will be dispatched to find those who the government considers to be serious criminals—people who local agencies refuse to help deport. “There is no direct correlation between a record showing an alien in ICE custody and a local jurisdiction honoring an ICE detainer,” the ICE official said. “In uncooperative jurisdictions, ICE officers often attempt to track down and arrest those individuals after they have been released from local custody. These are considered ‘at-large’ arrests because they take place outside the confines of a jail.” These type of arrests that occur without the help of local law enforcement are not included in TRAC’s data.

“That wouldn’t show up in this [TRAC] data,” Capps said. “It does not count as someone taken into custody via a detainer. And as the number of issued detainers comes down, I think you will see fugitive operations picking up a higher share of people than in the past.”

Fugitive operations are also considered more expensive and time-intensive, Capps said.
“The limitation of fugitive operations is ICE has to go find people,” Capps said. “With that, there are all sorts of extra constraints, and it is much more expensive and difficult to do. When someone is in jail, they are captive, and you just go get them.”

Local Laws ‘Trumping’ ICE Policy
For ICE, the implementation of PEP was supposed to help avoid that extra effort, by promoting flexibility with how cities and counties devise their policies, and thus encouraging more cooperation.
That has happened in some cases. ICE reports that of the 25 jurisdictions with the highest number of declined detainers, 17 of those jurisdictions are now PEP participants in some shape or form. These 17 jurisdictions represent 61 percent of previously declined detainers. So from ICE’s perspective, there is still progress left to be made.

Indeed, the TRAC data shows that since fiscal year 2014, a number of local jurisdictions in California have racked up the highest numbers of declined detainers and notification requests. Before PEP was implemented, the Santa Clara County Main Jail had the highest refusal rate in the nation at 88.2 percent.

In the latest available data since PEP has been in place, from July through November 2015, ICE reports that Santa Clara County has only declined 4.8 percent of requests. Yet ICE has still been unable to take custody of the illegal immigrant in nearly every one of those cases. “This raises the question: Did Santa Clara’s cooperation actually increase? Or did ICE simply stop recording refusals that occurred? Or is there some other explanation for these wildly dissimilar trends?” the TRAC report states.

To Capps, no matter what ICE considers to be cooperation, the data makes sense. In California, it’s harder to apprehend illegal immigrants through detainer requests because of a state law, known as the Trust Act, that strictly limits the situations in which local agencies will help ICE take custody of those it seeks to deport.

“The huge discrepancies in the refusal rate vs. not taking somebody into custody suggests to me that the refusal rate does not have that much meaning,” Capps said. “The share taken into custody has much more meaning in showing who is actually cooperating, and how well PEP is performing as it’s intended to. And some of that is outside ICE’s control if states and localities have laws that for the time being seem to be trumping ICE policies.”