Archive for May, 2012
I just love it when I read an article that seems to have come right out of my mind, but has someone else’s name and words attached to it. Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite columnists, always very insightful and reasoned…………..hey!!!!………….just like me!!! Anyway, here is an article in which he points out everything that is right about the free market system and how it can help to raise people up out of poverty, and everything that is wrong about socialism (progressivism, communism, Marxism…..take your pick). I hope you will find it worthy.
By Thomas Sowell
“Education” is a word that covers a lot of very different things, from vital, life-saving medical skills to frivolous courses to absolutely counterproductive courses that fill people with a sense of grievance and entitlement, without giving them either the skills to earn a living or a realistic understanding of the world required for a citizen in a free society.
The lack of realism among many highly educated people has been demonstrated in many ways.
When I saw signs in Yellowstone National Park warning visitors not to get too close to a buffalo, I realized that this was a warning that no illiterate farmer of a bygone century would have needed. No one would have had to tell him not to mess with a huge animal that literally weighs a ton, and can charge at you at 30 miles an hour.
No one would have had to tell that illiterate farmer’s daughter not to stand by the side of a highway, trying to hitch a ride with strangers, as too many college girls have done, sometimes with results that ranged all the way up to their death.
The dangers that a lack of realism can bring to many educated people are completely overshadowed by the dangers to a whole society created by the unrealistic views of the world promoted in many educational institutions.
It was painful, for example, to see an internationally renowned scholar say that what low-income young people needed was “meaningful work.” But this is a notion common among educated elites, regardless of how counterproductive its consequences may be for society at large, and for low-income youngsters especially.
What is “meaningful work”?
The underlying notion seems to be that it is work whose performance is satisfying or enjoyable in itself. But if that is the only kind of work that people should have to do, how is garbage to be collected, bed pans emptied in hospitals or jobs with life-threatening dangers to be performed?
Does anyone imagine that firemen enjoy going into burning homes and buildings to rescue people trapped by the flames? That soldiers going into combat think it is fun?
In the real world, many things are done simply because they have to be done, not because doing them brings immediate pleasure to those who do them. Some people take justifiable pride in working to take care of their families, whether or not the work itself is great.
Some of our more Utopian intellectuals lament that many people work “just for the money.” They do not like a society where A produces what B wants, simply in order that B will produce what A wants, with money being an intermediary device facilitating such exchanges.
Some would apparently prefer a society where all-wise elites would decide what each of us “needs” or “deserves.” The actual history of societies formed on that principle — histories often stained, or even drenched, in blood — is of little interest to those who mistake wishful thinking for idealism.
At the very least, many intellectuals do not want the poor or the young to have to take “menial” jobs. But people who are paying their own money, as distinguished from the taxpayers’ money, for someone to do a job are unlikely to part with hard cash unless that job actually needs doing, whether or not that job is called “menial” by others.
People who lack the skills to take on more prestigious jobs can either remain idle and live as parasites on others or take the jobs for which they are currently qualified, and then move up the ladder as they acquire more experience. People who are flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s on New Year’s Day are seldom flipping hamburgers there when Christmas time comes.
Those relatively few statistics that follow actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time show them moving massively from one income bracket to another over time, starting at the bottom and moving up as they acquire skills and experience.
Telling young people that some jobs are “menial” is a huge disservice to them and to the whole society. Subsidizing them in idleness while they wait for “meaningful work” is just asking for trouble, both for them and for all those around them.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute
“I am from the government, and I am here to help!!!”
Well…………….that is what they say! We must, must, must get our heads out of the sand and stay abreast of what is taking place despite the silence of the mainstream media. There is much to be fearful of in Obamacare…………over 2,000 pages long and more and more rules, boards, IRS agents, and bureaucracies are being uncovered. If it is not repealed or, even better, effectively scrapped it will surely serve to be the final nail in the coffin of our Constitutional Republic.
I have included the following article as well as an excerpt from another: (in fact the second article is even more of an eye opener as it is written by a former Democrat!)
A Bunch of Doctors from the Government Here To Help You
By Hal Scherz
What do you get when you cross 3 pediatricians, 4 internists, 3 family doctors, 2 epidemiologists, 2 nurses, a PhD, an obstetrician, a perinatologist and an occupational medicine doctor? Unfortunately, this is not a joke. You get a Federal Government panel, given the imprimatur as experts on a medical subject that if any one of them individually treated, would be considered malpractice. This would be the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), an ad hoc committee charged with making recommendations about clinical preventative services. They have just issued their findings that there is no role for routine PSA screening in men to detect prostate cancer. The real question is why do we need such an agency?
There are no doctors on this panel who treat prostate cancer. You would not go to a pediatrician or obstetrician if you had this disease, so how does it make sense to aggregate 16 such people and have them opine on a subject that they know about only from a book?
The conclusions of this committee were reached using a relatively new statistical gimmick called “meta-analysis”. This allows the pooling of small studies to create an enormous one with what statisticians refer to as “strength”, which is based entirely on large numbers of patients. It does not account for the quality of the study itself, and bad methodology of small studies can be concealed by pooling data, which is what happened here.
The American Urological Association (AUA)-the true experts in this area- has denounced these recommendations. It is particularly stinging that these recommendations were released during the largest meeting of urologists in the world- the AUA annual convention in Atlanta, where over a quarter of the program is devoted to discussion about prostate cancer. I know this is true because I attended it.
Some relevant facts about prostate cancer- it is the second most common cancer in men worldwide, but in the US. It is first, and is the second leading cause of death in men. Prostate cancer worldwide has the highest prevalence in the US, where it affects 125 of every 100,000 men, and in African-Americans it is 185. When compared to the rest of the world where PSA testing is not routinely done, the death rate from prostate cancer is the lowest in the US. Here, the 10 year survival of men with prostate cancer has risen from 53% in the pre-PSA testing era to 97% now.
These statistics are just part of the story. Prior to PSA testing, 25% of men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer already had spread of the disease to their bones. Now it is less than 5%.The USPSTF got it completely wrong when they recommend waiting to get a PSA until a man has symptoms of prostate cancer. For many men, these symptoms do not occur until late in the disease, when they can suffer miserably from the side effects of advanced disease. 30,000 men die annually from this disease and this number will rise significantly because of these recommendations. It will set back the advances made in prostate cancer by over 20 years.
This is just the latest attempt by the USPSTF to limit effective screening methods for cancer. In 2010, they made recommendations to significantly curtail screening mammography for breast cancer in women. Now they are recommendations, but soon, when Obamacare is fully implemented, these will be policy, not suggestions, and will have the full force of law behind it. Other screening programs will soon be on the chopping block, like colonoscopy for colon cancer screening.
The reason behind this is simple. It is about money, power and control. On the UTPSTF web site, it states that over 1000 PSA tests were necessary to save a single life from prostate cancer. Someone in Washington has decided what the value of a human life is, and what would be the acceptable cost associated with saving it. This is called “comparative effectiveness” and is what happens in a socialized healthcare system, like in England, where resources need to be allocated prudently, and healthcare is rationed. This is the essence of Obamacare- a system where medical decisions have been taken away from patients and their doctors and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.
Just two final notes – my friend, a family medicine doctor, sent me an email that 3 of his patients called today to get a PSA before it was unavailable. And for the record, President Obama was screened for prostate cancer with a PSA within the past year.
Hal C. Scherz, MD is the Founder and President of Docs4PatientCare, VP of Georgia Urology, and Associate Clinical Professor Urology- Emory University.
The excerpt below is taken from an article in American Thinker article by Neil Snyder, January 21 2012
Our senior citizens are most at risk under Obamacare — especially those over 70. Rationing of services and death panels (only they’re called “ethics panels” under Obamacare instead of death panels for obvious reasons) are now the rule, not the exception. I have a friend who is a loyal Democrat and a strong Obama supporter. In 2008 when she voted for Obama, she couldn’t imagine that in 2012 she would have a massive heart attack and need a pacemaker. Prior to 2010 and the passage of Obamacare, that would have been a routine procedure, but not anymore. She’s over 70, and under Obamacare people who are over 70 routinely receive “comfort care.” That’s a euphemism. It means that a panel of experts has determined that your life isn’t worth saving beyond 70, so they will try to make you feel good while you die.
Where Obamacare is concerned, we’re beginning to be able to see through the fog, and what we’re learning isn’t good, especially for seniors, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg. If Obama is re-elected and Democrats retain their majority in the Senate, those “ethics panels” will busily go about doing their job and senior citizens will die prematurely from maladies that are easily treatable, and for one reason: they are over 70. That’s it in a nutshell. I’m not trying to frighten anyone. I’m simply presenting a fact.
If you’re a senior citizen and you want to take advantage of the medical technologies that your tax dollars paid to help develop over the years, you should think long and hard before casting a vote for Obama in 2012. For that matter, you should carefully consider the wisdom of voting for Democrats period. I’m not a Republican. In fact, I was a Democrat until 1985, but I saw what the Democratic Party stands for while I served as Virginia Governor Chuck Robb’s Policy Advisor for Regulatory Reform and realized that I can’t support the things that they hold most dear — chief among them being the right of a woman to kill her unborn child without penalty or even criticism and handouts to every group imaginable without regard for morality, our nation’s security, or our ability to pay.
The Republican Party isn’t perfect by a long shot and neither are its candidates, but the party is trying to undo the damage done by Obamacare; it’s the party that supports the right to life; and it’s the party that is attempting to reduce needless spending and trying to solve our deficit and debt problems. President Obama and like-minded Democrats in the House and Senate are principally responsible for creating and exacerbating those problems. Trusting them to solve those problems is ridiculous.
Ahhhhhhhh, yes, Calvin and Hobbes’ message is still resonating seventeen years after the comic strip ended. I’m quite sure there is a lesson in these priceless strips for each of us to take something of importance from and relate it to our own individual life situations. I guess that is why I have every Calvin and Hobbes book ever published in my possession……………he makes me laugh at my own quirks and shortcomings.
A couple of interesting short video’s regarding student debt and the right to a college education :
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Thomas Jefferson
I have come to the same conclusion as the very insightful author of the following article …………………………..that there are those among us with whom it is not possible to have a “rational” conversation about the evils of the “progressive” agenda…………….a.k.a. the “cradle to grave” government “assistance” mentality. Therefore, defenders of liberty must take action and if one can’t take action, it is imperative that one support those who can through financial contributions and/or fervent prayer. There is too much at stake and the pendulum has swung too far left already!!
May 19, 2012
The Vanishing Feeling of Freedom
The primary reason why it is so difficult to defend political liberty today is because freedom is a rational construct, and thus cannot be understood by the irrational. Children, or adults whose moral reasoning skills are stalled at childish levels, are unable to experience it — they literally don’t know what they are missing.
This is why authoritarians of all stripes are hell-bent on producing and maintaining a society of childish citizens: dependent, trusting of the hand that feeds, obedient, pleasure-centered — perhaps capable of proficiency in well-defined tasks, but frightened, above all else, of being left to “fend for themselves.”
In short, individual freedom, in the complex sense captured in the most profound political philosophy, is completely inaccessible to a mind without a developed faculty of practical reason. And a moral concept that cannot be understood rationally cannot be deeply experienced emotionally. What does freedom feel like? What, conversely, does the deprivation of freedom feel like? Those who hope to restore freedom to the civilized world must first win the educational battle that would make those two feelings, and the difference between them, immediately accessible to every adult.
For there is no hope of winning a debate over the best means of securing liberty with an opponent who cannot understand what difference it makes whether health care is “provided” by private citizens or by the government, why some people should be “allowed” to be wealthy when others are poor, or why anyone who believes in Christian charity would oppose government programs that “take care of people.” You might as well argue about driving technique with someone who has never seen a car.
One can read Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke until the cows come home without ever feeling what freedom means. (The world’s universities are full of political experts for whom the penny never drops.) That feeling is the surest safeguard of political liberty, and the most powerful weapon in the struggle against oppression. But it can be experienced only by those whose minds and characters have matured along with their bodies.
Consider the analogous case of justice. It is possible that every child has an innate sense of “justice” — but it is not justice as an adult understands it, because it is imbued with a child’s moral myopia, in which his own existence and immediate surroundings are the basis of all reality. Justice, as a child experiences it, primarily means that he gets what he thinks he has coming, regardless of how this might affect anyone else, or even himself in the long run.
Responsible parents and teachers of young children correct the behavior of their charges with admonitions such as “Imagine how you would feel if he did that to you,” “You can have that if you finish your work first,” or “That’s not yours.” These elders are trying to encourage the development of the concepts that make an adult sense of justice possible: respect for the independent existence of other people, a sense of the natural equality of moral worth, and an understanding that everyone should have what he has earned and deserves first claim on what he has.
What if, on the other hand, the parents themselves are observably unwilling to respect the wishes, moral dignity, or possessions of other people, and if the teachers substitute indiscriminate “sharing” for fairness, and “fitting in” for moral equality? Then the most likely product of their influence will be precisely today’s increasingly dominant moral tenor: a belief that one’s desires impose material obligations on the world, a refusal to acknowledge the moral claims of others when these conflict with one’s desires, and a complete disregard for the basic concept of a man’s possessions as the rightful fruit of his labor. In other words, adults with the moral sophistication of toddlers.
Now consider the case of political freedom. As a child experiences it, freedom means being permitted to do something by those who hold authority (parents, teachers, babysitters, etc.) — and, more positively, it means doing what one feels like doing, without fear of adverse consequences. The immaturity of impulses, and the inability to conceive of one’s long-term well-being, or to calculate the appropriate means to achieve it, are the reasons why children need adult supervision and guidance. They are not ready for the true freedom of which they cannot yet conceive.
Growing up to the birthright of our species, the natural liberty of the rational soul, entails the incremental development of the capacity to conceive ends appropriate to an adult human being, and to resist impulses towards immediate gratification that would thwart those ends. Gradually, “I want it now” gives way to “This is best for me,” and “Gimme, gimme” gives way to “If I do this, hopefully I will achieve that.” The subjective experience of life as a hodgepodge of successful and unsuccessful attempts at gratification evolves into the unified experience of an individuated soul with a consistent character and definable goals. The innate desire for happiness develops into the rational will to pursue happiness.
There is a moment along this path to maturity when a young person begins to recognize the causal chain leading from his present material state back through the various stages of activity that led him there, and ultimately to the initial idea that set the whole process in motion. This moment, when he realizes that his condition is the product of his effort — that he is a self-sufficient being, able to bring about desired effects in the world through his own thought and action — is a revelation. What is revealed to him, in part, is that this power to form complex, long-term goals and work toward them is what it means to be human. To experience oneself as the cause of one’s own effects, and one’s current state as the effect of one’s own action, is the fundamentally human experience, which produces a kind of happiness more fundamental and lasting than any short-term gratification. It is happiness as the Greeks understood it, activity in accordance with one’s nature. The subjective experience of oneself as a rational agent, as a force capable of defining and realizing its own ends, is the feeling of practical freedom. You feel free when you consider what it means to own something, and to have earned it.
The soul develops into maturity by gradually learning that freedom is not permission granted by an external authority, but rather one’s birthright — and that it is found not in doing whatever one wants without adverse effects, but rather in the capacity to choose what is best, and to weigh the value of a goal by the measure of adversity one is willing to endure to achieve it.
Or rather, it ought to develop this way. Modern moral education — formal and informal — blocks this road to adulthood by bringing down an avalanche of gratifications disconnected from achievement, thereby trapping the soul in a stale, rotting extension of childhood, in which happiness means scratching an itch.
Here is where today’s ugliest, most cynical purveyors of “capitalism” — statists all — come into the picture. The popular entertainment moguls, through a brilliant collusion (half-calculated, half-serendipitous) with the drug underworld and the millionaire socialist elite, have created a kaleidoscopic whirlpool of reason-devouring charms to ensure that the mass of humanity never again sees itself as a civilized community of rational, moral individuals.
Sounds, words, and images that, just a generation ago, would literally have been classified as pornography are now the standard, ho-hum, before-, during-, and after-school fare of every twelve-year-old in the Western world.
Mind-altering, brain-damaging drugs are readily available to every high school student, as a quick fix for all of life’s challenges. And the effects of drugs are much broader than even the most alarming statistical analysis of drug use can reveal. For the omnipresent affiliation of drugs with the world of popular entertainment (especially the most morally potent entertainment, music) has produced a general societal drug attitude. Think of the threatening hip-hop swagger, the disaffected heavy metal detachment, the modesty-obliterating pop diva exhibitionism — and consider the extent to which these popular drugged-out poses have become archetypal among modern youth (and their parents), affecting the moral attitudes and behavior of all but the most superhumanly pure and innocent souls, regardless of whether they are actually drug users yet.
Conveniently linked with this pop culture’s instant gratification ethic is the agenda of leftist authoritarianism. There has developed an easy, almost natural moral continuum between gang violence fantasies and “economic justice,” between ersatz eighteen-year-olds begging for a chance to satisfy your every lust and “reducing carbon emissions.” In this emotional universe, Snoop Dogg and Barack Obama, Beyoncé and Al Gore are somehow melded into one mental mess, like blobs of color in a child’s finger painting. I want to feel pleasure right now, and I want the whole planet to feel pleasure right now — except for those loser grown-ups who want to prevent me from feeling pleasure right now. I want them to suffer.
This nightmarish moral universe has its “mature” phase, wherein one merely empathizes with the more licentious and illegal elements of the worldview, without necessarily participating in them. Quasi-adults of this sort go by various names around the world. In the U.S., their most popular name is “Democrats.”
And therein rests the dilemma that we started with. Decades of leftist policy, education, and culture have snipped the delicate thread of moral development that leads to the adult feeling of freedom that made natural rights theory, and liberal democracy, possible. Entitlement programs are the grown-up extensions of the unearned immediate gratifications of “Gimme, gimme.” Leftist educational principles inculcate the premise of class envy — that it is wrong for one man to have more than another, regardless of how the “inequality” arose — in every young person. And the popular culture satisfies the demands of the market it has created by feeding us all a steady diet of arrested adolescence, teaching, in a thousand ways, that delayed gratification is a missed opportunity, that today has no clear link to tomorrow, and that adulthood is the enemy of freedom and happiness.
The cumulative effect of these influences is to undermine the recognition and appreciation of our rational agency, by obscuring, denying, or denigrating the cause-effect relationship between a man’s will and his present conditions. And this means obscuring, denying, and denigrating the liberty that is our birthright — i.e., human nature.
A person who knows the adult feeling of freedom also knows when freedom — that is, human nature — is being violated. Those for whom freedom remains forever the child’s notion of permission to do what one feels like doing are a grave threat to the future of mankind. Their desire for instant gratification inevitably runs up against the rational will of others, but unlike children, they are fatally resistant to the moral education that teaches respect for those others.
And unlike children, they are, at present, the dominant force on Earth. They cannot be won over with rational argument, because they literally cannot understand the terms of the debate. They have been prevented from experiencing the feeling of natural freedom — the joy of rational agency — so they cannot recognize the violation of freedom that their demands are imposing on us all day by day.
They know not what they do. Thus, they cannot be persuaded. They must simply be stopped.
Part Two: The Fiction and Non-Fiction of Obama
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 4:46pm by Tiffany Gabbay
In Part I of this report, we examined President Obama’s earliest role models and the influence each likely had on him as he shaped his worldview. With an anti-colonialist father, a mother who rejected Western society, a communist mentor, a domestic-terrorist benefactor, and an anti-Semitic preacher, the reasons behind Obama’s past and present actions come more sharply into focus. Below, we navigate through just some of the president’s questionable political positions. “Brave” enough to order the killing Osama bin Laden…but had a back-up memo to blame the military in case it went wrong?
The entire Obama administration along with the American left has heaped praise on the president for his “daring” and “brave” decision to send a Navy SEAL team into an Abottobbad compound to assassinate 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden. In fact, Obama has even used the accomplishment as the crux of his latest campaign ad — a move even liberal mediaite Arianna Huffington deemed despicable. Yet in April it was revealed that then-CIA Director Leon Panetta drafted a memo that included an escape clause for the president should the operation go awry [emphasis added]: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”
In plain-speak, Obama chose to blame the military, through a patsy — in this case, Admiral McRaven — should the mission to kill bin Laden fail. Does this sound like something a Commander in Chief would or should ever do? The Wall Street Journal adds:
Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.
While it comes as no surprise that a politician might go to great lengths to protect his or her own image, a wartime president overseeing one the most redemptive moments for America in the wake of 9/11 (and who surely took the credit for all the glory) while at the same time plotting to use the military as a scapegoat in the event bin Laden’s takedown was botched, is beyond the pale by just about anyone’s standards.
Disdain for troops or plain indifference?
Considering Obama’s OBL-escape clause memo, it seems clear the value he places on military is questionable. While a U.S. president serves many roles during his or her term in office, their greatest responsibility lies in being “Commander in Chief” of the nation’s armed forces. It is perhaps for this reason more than any other, that the president’s gaffes, flubs, and insults where America’s servicemen and women are concerned are so egregious. Recall that nearly one year ago, speaking to the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, the president announced that a soldier (who had died serving in Afghanistan) was in fact alive. In his speech, he recalled a time when he awarded the first Medal of Honor to someone “not receiving it posthumously.” However, the deceased Jared Monti did receive the medal posthumously. Then, back in 2009, Fox contributors Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer criticized the president’s lack of leadership and reverence for soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan when they revealed that in a 20-minute long speech, the president did not use the word “democracy” once even though America established “the only functioning democracy among the 22 Arab states.” The two also noted that the Commander in Chief did not treat soldiers as warriors, bur rather as “victims.“ ”We lost a lot of good men and women in order to establish a democracy,” Krauthammer said. “And he, as commander-in-chief, did not even acknowledge that.”
There was another gobsmacking incident where the president displayed what even mainstream networks dubbed a shocking display of insensitivity. During a press conference to address the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in which 13 people were killed and another 29 injured by an Islamic ideologue, the president set aside compassionate eloquence to “give a shout out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” He spoke for some three minutes before ever mentioning the shooting or those who paid the ultimate price.(Related: Do You Know Anybody Like Obama? Beck’s Latest Expose Could Go Down in History)Obama also came under fire after refusing to visit wounded troops, presumably because there was no photo-op in it for him.
Scrubbing the term “Special Relationship” from the lexicon
Now recall that Obama’s father was a staunch anti-colonialist. With this in mind, it might make sense that the president insisted on returning to Britain, our staunchest ally, the bust of “pro-colonialist” Winston Churchill — even though the move was an insult of epic proportions. The bust had been a loaned gift in the wake of September 11, meant to show the U.K.’s solidarity with America in a most grievous time. But this was not the only time Obama snubbed Britain. In fact, the Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner pointed out that this “world-class ‘statesmen’” has delivered no less than 10(11 if you count the embarrassing iPod for the Queen incident) beyond-the-pale insults to the nation with whom we supposedly shared a “Special Relationship.” Below is a list of how the ever-diplomatic Obama has handled that special relationship:
- Sending then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown a “gift” of improperly formatted DVDs that could not be played on DVD machines outfitted in the U.K. This of course was after Brown was denied a Rose Garden press conference, as well as dinner with the president when he was stateside. Gardiner said the move “would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country.”
- Refusing to personally meet with Brown after no less than five requests while proceeding to “give him the run-around at the UN General Assembly.”
- Declaring neutrality over the Falklands dispute, a move dubbed “the most brazen betrayal so far of a US ally” especially considering 255 British soldiers died retaking the islands from Argentina in 1982.
- Downgrading Special Relationship by “not mentioning Britain once” in any major policy speech and expunging the term from use by administration officials fullstop.
- Undermining British influence in NATO by pandering to France. This was done by giving Parisa lead role in the NATO alliance at Britain’s expense, granting it one of two supreme NATO command positions – Allied Command Transformation (ACT).”
- Refusing to recognize Britain’s sacrifice of 250 servicemen and women in Afghanistan, as well as its stationing of 10,000 soldiers in the warzone. Gardiner writes that in contrast to George W. Bush, “who frequently thanked the British armed forces and people for their role in the War on Terror, Obama has spectacularly failed to do so.”
- Allowing White White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to belittle British press by stating that if it’s “truthful news” you want, Britain is not the place to look. “This kind of attack would normally be made against the likes of the North Korean or Iranian state media,” quipped Gardiner.
- Reducing the United States’ greatest ally to “nothing special.” This was reflected in the words of a senior State Department official following Brown’s chilly reception at the White House: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”
It is difficult to think of another president who has ever treated Britain in such a disdainful way — but this is likely a nod to the influence of Obama’s father. Some speculate that Obama blamed Churchill for suppressing Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion in which Hussein Onyango Obama was allegedly tortured. However, author Diana West notes that Churchill didn‘t become prime minister for the second time until the end of 1951 and that the Mau Mau Rebellion didn’t begin until the end of 1952, “one year after Obama‘s grandfather’s release.” She added that returning the Churchill bust likely indicates a “more an open breach in the Western continuum out of which a new orientation toward the Third World will become increasingly apparent.” In other words, Obama seeks to strengthen the U.S. relationship with the Third World while downgrading the relationship shared with other world powers — particularly ones viewed as colonialists like Britain.
Breaking with Israel
Following his lead with U.S.-Britain relations, President Obama has been no friend to Israel either.Friends with those who consider the Jewish State the “biggest obstacle to peace” in the region, the president snubbed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in much the same way he snubbed brown when refusing to share dinner with the Israeli leader. This of course seems small in comparison to the monumental sell-out that occurred when Obama’s declared to the world that Israel should “return” to its “1967 borders.” Nevermind the fact that there are no such borders but rather armistice lines, and that in either case, they are equally indefensible.
Of course, no mention of the president’s stance on Israel would be complete without mentioning his former instructor and friend, the late Edward Said. The pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University professor openly condemned Israel, which he considered to be an illegitimate, colonialist state. There is that word again: “colonialist.” Said frequently bemoaned the “plight” of the “oppressed” Palestinians and was even a member of the PLO’s Palestinian National Council throughout the 1970s and 80s. He inevitably stepped down in 1991, allegedly in protest to the Oslo peace accords and to what he considered Yasser Arafat’s unduly moderate stance toward Israel. In 1998 Obama attended a speech by Said in which the scholar called for a campaign “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”
Given Obama’s apparent animus towards nations he deems “colonizers,” it comes as no surprise that he has abandoned one of America’s greatest ally, indeed the greatest ally in the Middle East. When examining the president’s view on Israel it also becomes clear why his administration supports the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood — a group whose own cleric recently declared that it was sending an army of martyrs to establish a Caliphate in Jerusalem. Ironically, administration official James Clapper infamously declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact “secular.” Meanwhile, a new barrage of rocket-fire into Israel has begun emanating from the Sinai. But perhaps that is just a coincidence.
Voting against legislation that would ensure life-saving measures were taken to aid infants born alive after botched abortions
Outside of foreign policy, Obama’s actions at home are equally puzzling. It sounds like a line from the trailer of a horror movie, yet a September 2000 report from the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee observed that physicians at Christ Hospital in Illinois used induced labor as a means of aborting healthy late-term fetuses and infants “with non-fatal deformities” and that many of these babies ended up surviving the procedure only to be left to die. “Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance,” nurse Jill Stanek testified.
Another nurse, Allison Baker, testified that these live-born infants were being deposited in “soiled utility rooms” where they were left to expire and Stanek recalled when an infant “was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.” The testimony continued in much the same gruesome fashion, after which a piece of legislation was introduced that would require physicians administer all life-saving measures possible when these botched abortions occur. MCCLPAC explains the bill:
Legislation was then introduced to require appropriate care for abortion survivors. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) defined as legal persons “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further, “born alive” was defined as “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”
While this all sounds reasonable, Obama was the sole opponent of the legislation — not once but twice, the second time was during the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002. His reasons for voting against the bill, as laid out in an article by Stanek, include that it would: add undue burden to the mother; is a legal trick to define a fetus as a person (if a person then the aborted infant would be subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution); it would interfere with a doctor’s judgement; that there was “no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony”; it was all a ploy to derail Roe v. Wade. Regardless of his reasons, it bears repeating that Obama was still the only person who voted against the legislation. When one thinks of the Complete Lives System of Obamacare, this stance, too, might make sense.
Changing his stance on gay marriage nearing the election
Another of Obama’s contradictions stems from his stance on same-sex marriage. He claims to be a practicing Christian, and that his faith shaped his view that marriage is something that can only be shared between a man and a woman. Obama has since changed that tune — several times in fact — the latest instance being his declaration that same-sex marriage should be legal. Examine the inconsistency: The Blaze’s Billy Hallowell reported that in 1996 the then-state senator candidate affirmed his “unequivocal support for gay marriage.” “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” But by 1998 Obama, during another election cycle said he was “undecided” on the issue. Then, during a senate campaign debate in 2004 with Alan Keyes, Obama said that marriage is between one man and one woman and that he does not support gay marriage. Hallowell adds:
In 2004 (yes, another election year), Obama took a more middle-ground route, as he publicly supported domestic partnerships and civil unions. He also took the opportunity to say that, unlike his statement in 1998, he did not support gay marriage. “I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws,” he said. “I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about primarily just as a strategic issue.”
By the second year of Obama’s presidential term, he then hinted that a change of heart could be in store yet again:
“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage,” he said. “But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”
During his announcement in May, 2012, Obama cited his gay and lesbian friends, soldiers and staffers as inspiration for the change of heart. He also explained that it was his Christianity that helped him to see that people in committed relationships should be allowed to marry. To the contrary, many believe the president was motivated by politics, rather than faith, especially given the suspect timing of his declaration.
Other anomalies and contradictions
During his expose, Beck noted a series of other seemingly unfathomable acts committed by either the president, his friends or members of the White House. From the administration member who declared that NASA’s primary goal should be ”Muslim outreach” to a first lady who once said that she was never proud of her country until her husband was elected president; from the president saying that the U.S. Constitution needs to become a “photo-negative” in order for it to make sense in today’s world, to an administration official declaring that our enemies are “not terrorists” nor jihadists — the list reads like something out of a fiction novel. And indeed that is what Beck said: Obama’s life is a “work of fiction”.
If you know anyone who appears to be sitting on the sidelines this election year, I would urge, no scratch that…………………I would beg you to please ask them to consider linking to the embedded video and/or reading the following article………………………. I am all too familiar with the people and events highlighted in this expose of our President. The only reason I have become such an ardent (some would say passionate!) opponent of Obama, his czars, his circle of friends and his agenda is because of my dear sweet Aunt Evie. She set me on a path four years ago with one simple question, “Mary Margaret, I want to know who is this Bill Ayers being reported about in the news and on talk radio. I promised her that I would look him up on the internet and “report” back to her. One search of his name brought up numerous troubling associations of both Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. For one, in 2006 he traveled to Venezuela where he addressed the “World Educational Forum” officially entitled “Bolivarian Education and the Overcome of the Capitalist School.” During his speech he touted education as the “motor-force of revolution” and he ended with cries of “Viva Presidente Chavez! Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta La Victoria Siempre!” And this is just one example among the countless nefarious associations our President has with persons who outwardly proclaim their affinity for Marxist-like, radical ideologies (ever hear of Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Samantha Powers, John Holdren, Kevin Jennings, John Podesta, Carol Browner?). The video clearly links to audio of the President’s own words. We should all be paying very close attention to the meticulous research which has been done over the years on Obama, et al……………….. the “fundamental transformation of America” is what Obama promised everyone in 2008…………………….to be very sure, he is making good on that promise!!!
Posted on May 12, 2012 at 12:25pm by Tiffany Gabbay Tiffany Gabbay
It could be argued that if then-presidential candidate John McCain had truly assailed his rival Barack Obama over his exhaustive collection of dubious dealings and less-than-scrupulous friends (think: Davis, Khalidi, Pflager, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Said, etc.), he just might have taken the election. Instead, McCain chose to “keep above the fray” — although few are clear as to why bringing up substantive and valid concerns over the first-term senator’s past constituted otherwise to the Maverick-camp. Now, President Obama is three years into his first term as president, and his campaign for reelection has officially kicked off with a record-setting $15 million celebrity-fundraiser hosted by devotee George Clooney.
If the president’s true history continues to be replaced by the alternate narrative he has constructed for himself; if his fact, rather than fiction-based life is swept under the carpet again, he will likely retake the Oval Office.
With this in mind, Glenn Beck dedicated his Thursday evening broadcast to reviewing the staggering array of inconsistencies, embellishments and “manufactured lies” perpetuated by the president over the course of his political career.
Dreams from an anti-colonialist father
It is difficult to understand what truly moves the president without understanding who his father was. In his book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” Dinesh D’Souza described in painstaking detail, an unsavory character who womanized, abused, drank excessively (killing a man in one drunk-driving incident, losing both of his legs in another, and later killing himself in yet another), abandoned his eight children at various points in their lives, married thrice without ever having divorced his first wife, and advocated taxing income at a 100% rate. Unbelievably, the man described is not a work of fiction. He was President Barack Obama’s father.
Barak Obama Sr. (spelled without the “c”) was a Harvard economics graduate student from Kenya and despite the president’s insistance that his paternal lineage comprised humble stock, Barak Sr. was actually from a prominent and wealthy farming family. His father, Hussein Onyango Obama, was also an observant Muslim who chose the Arabic name “Barak” because it means “blessed.”
In an article written for the East Africa Journal in 1965, “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barak Sr. explained that in the wake of colonialism, socialism was necessary to ensure national autonomy for Kenya. “The question,” he wrote, “is how are we going to remove the disparities in our country, such as the concentration of economic power in Asian and European hands . . .?” [emphasis added]
Obama Sr. went on to insist that “theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”
D’Souza explains the significance:
Absurd as it seems, the idea of 100 percent taxation has its peculiar logic. It is based on the anti-colonial assumption that the rich have become rich by exploiting and plundering the poor; therefore, whatever the rich have is undeserved and may be legitimately seized.
Recall now that the president’s book is titled Dreams From My Father, not Dreams Of My Father. In the memoir, Obama described longing to emulate his senior, writing, “it was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.”
D’Souza also noted those close to Obama Jr., including his grandmother Sarah Obama, agreed with the passage. She told Newsweek, “I look at him and I see all the same things — he has taken everything from his father . . . this son is realizing everything the father wanted.”
While some might argue that it is implausible to think the president would seek to live-out the dreams of a deeply flawed man who callously abandoned him, human nature and psychology dictates otherwise. Even into adulthood, we often seek the approval of our parents — sometimes even the ones that withhold love — because theirs is the affection we most desire gaining. True, one cannot hold the president responsible for the sins of his father, but that does not mean he doesn’t still seek his approval.
All the while, Obama dimisses the influence his father had on him. Yes, it is possible that the president is so repulsed by his father’s life that he would reject everything the man ever stood for, but then why would his own memoir read as a tribute to the dreams his father never had the opportunity to realize?
“We’re not in Kansas anymore”: Stanley Ann Dunham
Not a tremendous amount his known about the woman with an unusual first name who married Barak Obama Sr., some say, to spite her racist father. But what we can glean from various accounts provides relevant insight into Obama’s upbringing and influences.
After moving several times as a child, Stanley Ann Dunham eventually settled in progressive Mercer Island, just outside Seattle. She attended Mercer Island High School, a place that distinguished itself by having a former Communist Party member serve as chairman of the island’s school board. But that is not where the leftist connections ended.
According to the American Thinker, Dunham attended her high school’s ”anarchy alley,” where philosophy courses on Karl Marx were offered. The academics leading the effort were Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman, both reportedly of the Marxist “Frankfurt School“ and who taught ”critical theory” to students that included curriculum on the rejection of societal norms, and attacks on Christianity and the traditional family. Dunham’s peers considered her an “inquiring mind” and it is said that she grew to become part of the left’s intelligentsia.
After her family moved to Hawaii, Dunham attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa where she studied anthropology. It was in her Russian language class that she met the future president’s father, who would later leave Dunham and their new child, Barack Jr. to attend Harvard. Eventually the two divorced (though some claim they were never married in the first place) and she went on to marry Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, who worked as a government relations executive for an Oil company. While Soetoro was a Muslim, accounts differ as to the level of his observance. In 1967 the family moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. Obama’s memoir paints Soetoro as an even-tempered man who became increasingly interested in Western culture while Dunham became increasingly interested in Indonesian and other world-cultures. Inevitably a rift was formed.
According to Dr. Rich Swier, Dunham moved between Indonesia and Hawaii twice more before traveling the world to “pursue a career in rural development that took her to her Ghana, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal and Bangladesh.” She also traveled to China and Pakistan and by 1992 earned her Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. Her 1000-plus page dissertation, according to Swier was titled: “Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: Surviving and Thriving Against All Odds.”
What perhaps bears mention is that President Obama has portrayed his mother as a simple girl from Kansas when she was in fact anything but. He has also credited her with providing him with his political world view.
Mentored by a Communist
After Barack Jr.’s family re-relocated to Hawaii, he found another mentor. In his book “Dreams From My Father,“ Obama often and affectionately mentioned his ”dashiki-wearing” role model from whom he sought both career and personal advice. While it is clear this father figure played a pivotal role in the young Obama’s life, the mystery-man is only ever referred to by his first name: “Frank.” Given the history, most believe the person in question is none other than the late Frank Marshall Davis – a man publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).
Recalling his friend, Obama wrote: “It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created.” But by that point in time, Frank was far from the harmless throw-back characature Obama painted him to be — that is of course assuming his last name was Davis. National Review’s Paul Kengor revealed that after moving to Hawaii Davis launched a Communist publication espousing the virtues of the Soviet Union. Kengor wrote:
Davis served as an editor and writer for a Communist-line publication, the Chicago Star, in the 1930s. I next learned that the Midwest native had flown thousands of miles away to Hawaii to take up permanent residence, just when American Communists were looking to launch a publication there, namely the Honolulu Record. Subsequently, Davis wrote a weekly column for that publication.
Kengor went on to reveal that with the determined help of research assistants, he obtained Davis’ weekly column, “Frank-ly Speaking” and that its contents mirrored perfectly “Soviet propaganda.”
All the while Obama has denied his Frank is the same Frank.
After his 1960s-style awakening with Frank, another influential figure found his way into Obama’s life. In fact, Reverend Jeremiah Wright is the man credited with having led the community organizer to Christianity. A member of Wright‘s Trinity United Church in Chicago’s South Side for 20 years, so influenced by the controversial pastor was Obama, that he even named his other book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of the reverend’s sermons.
Wright is of course best known for espousing anti-Semitic and anti-Western sentiment, once declaring that America’s “chickens had come home to roost” in the wake of the September 11 attacks. To Wright, the U.S. had brought the worst terrorist attack in history upon itself by perpetrating crimes against humanity across the world.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright blasted. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards.”
Wright practices and preaches a form of Christian ideology rooted in Marxism dubbed “Black Liberation Theology,” which operates with the mindset that members of the black community are still subjugated by white, racist oppressors. Those “oppressors” can range from a single individual to a head of state or even an entire government or geographical region (i.e.: “The West”).
With a victimhood mentality deeply entrenched in the collective mindset of the movement, Black Liberation Theology preys upon and seeks to reignite past resentments within the black community, thus fomenting a racism of its very own. While this tactic is certainly anathema to tenets of Christian “brotherly love,” it does not seem to stop Wright from fanning the flames of hatred. In fact, Black Liberation Theology condones violence so long as it is wielded by “the oppressed” in their “struggle to remove inequities” (whatever those might be).
In an analysis of the theology, Ron Rhodes writes: “The removal of inequities is believed to result in the removal of the occasion of sin [i.e., the oppressor] as well.”
In other words, assaulting, even killing your perceived foe is considered a good deed by Black Liberation standards.
Despite this, President Obama sat in the pews of Wright’s church for 20 years while the incensed
Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers
preacher spouted a steady stream of anti-Semitism and 9/11 conspiracy theories, proclaimed the HIV virus was an invention of the U.S. government to infect and ultimately annihilate the black populace, vehemently opposed interracial marriage and post-segregation assimilation, and praised the dictatorships of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. Wright is also friendly with fellow-Chicagoan and radical Louis Farrakhan.
All the while, Obama claimed ignorance, suggesting he was absent the days Wright delivered his more piquant declarations and dismissed his spiritual adviser of 20 years as a kind of “crazy uncle” that you may love, but take with a grain of salt. Wright must have been none-too-pleased.
Launching his career with the help of Marxists and domestic terrorists
Another point of contention has been President Obama’s ties to notorious domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who many believe was instrumental in launching Obama’s political career. Leader of the radical “Weather Underground,“ Ayers has railed against capitalism and the ”establishment” for nearly half-a-century, often resorting to physical violence to carry out his goals. Aside from organizing typical protest demonstrations (some of which turned riotous), Ayers is perhaps best known for orchestrating a series of bombings: at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol Building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.
You might also recall that Ayer’s “Days of Rage” demonstrations — in which he incited aspiring revolutionaries to “kill all the rich people” including their parents — served as inspiration for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Where does a resume like that take you in life? The halls of academia, of course. Ayers served as a “distinguished” professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago from 1987 to 2010.
No one knows the exact origins of their relationship. Perhaps it was through Frank Marshall Davis, or Obama’s parents, or the fact that he lived merely three blocks away that Obama connected with Ayers in a seemingly profound way. Whatever the case, the 1960s radical must have taken a shine to the Obama as he is credited with helping him gain admission to Harvard and, in 1995, along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn, organized meet-and-greet gatherings at his Chicago home to introduce the aspiring state-senator to their inner-circle of friends political allies (including fellow Marxists Alice Palmer and Quentin Young). Evidence also strongly suggests Obama’s memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” was in fact penned by Ayers.
Obama has brushed off the level of his involvement with Ayers but in his book, “Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War-Activist,” Ayers admitted the tie:
“In 2008 there was a lot of chatter on the blogosphere about my relationship with Barack Obama: we had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fundraiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign.”
It is also worth noting that Ayers’ father Tom is said to have given Obama his first professional break, yet the president claims to have never met him.
All the while, the president has trivialized his relationship with Ayers, begrudgingly admitting to have attended a political event at his home, but that he had no clue of the Weather Underground nor Ayer’s history as a domestic terrorist.
Part two of this special report will review some of the president’s political actions and associations that likely reflect the influences he acquired from this strange and controversial cast of characters.
I received a most enlightening video in an e-mail today from Christopher and it is pretty amazing. I promise you that it is well worth the fifteen minutes it takes to view. In the video, a gentleman, who spent twenty-nine years living in the U.S.S.R., engages a young Occupy Wall Street protester in an educational discussion of socialism/communism versus capitalism as well as an insightful analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Credit goes, not only to the Russian immigrant, who obviously is well-informed about the history of our Constitutional Republic and the Jewish history of the Middle East conflict, but also to the Occupier, who was polite and willing to listen. I hope you will consider sharing the video with anyone you know who is, as was the case with this young Occupier, simply not educated about the evils of socialism or knowledgeable about the dire situation facing the Jews in Israel. Please click on the link below to view the video.
I discovered this information on the internet today and felt that the information would be important to keep in mind when listening to the MSM reporting of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The first definitive evidence that OWS is linked to the attempted bombing of a bridge in Cleveland is reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
“One of the five self-described anarchists arrested last week for attempting to blow up a local bridge signed the lease for a West Side warehouse where about a dozen members of the Occupy Cleveland group live. In a one-hour recording of a Friday evening general assembly meeting of the group posted on its website http://occupycleveland.com/live-stream/, Occupy leaders expressed concern about Anthony Hayne’s name being on the lease, which strengthens his link to the group.”
The video provides some additional, if somewhat unconventional analyses:
Over the past few days the blogosphere has been jam-packed with examples of the various offenses being perpetuated by the Obama administration via lies and outright distortion of the facts, to keep “a boot on the neck” of domestic energy producers and wealth creators, as well as disturbing reports that Obama has invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House despite the fact that the MB has a long history of deception, promotion of Sharia law, anti-Semitism, and anti-Western values. Instead we are distracted by the student loan debt issue which the President jetted around college campuses this week looking for votes………………….
Of course, as usual, the MSM conveniently leaves out reporting on what Obama didn’t say to students (from Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin.com):
“In 2007 I missed two votes to extend the student loan bill that I now want you to believe is the most important things I’ve ever promoted. Can I get an amen?” “More than half of all young college grads are now jobless or underemployed. Can I get an amen?” “According to my own Vice President, government meddling in the free market actually increases college tuition. Can I get an amen?” “Since I took office, over $5 trillion has been added to the national debt — or over $16,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Can I get an amen?” “Student loan interest rates are set to double because the then Democrat-controlled Congress voted to do so. Can I get an amen?”
A great article was posted by Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe in which he states:
“If insanity is doing the same thing again and again but expecting a different outcome, then the federal government’s strategy for keeping higher education affordable is crazier than Norman Bates. For decades, American politicians have waxed passionate on the need to put college within every family’s reach. To ensure that anyone who wants to go to college will be able to foot the bill, Washington has showered hundreds of billions of dollars into student aid of all kinds — grants and loans, subsidized work-study jobs, tax credits, and deductions. Today, that shower has become a monsoon. As Neal McCluskey points out in a Cato Institute white paper, government outlays intended to hold down the price of a college degree have ballooned, in inflation-adjusted dollars, from $29.6 billion in 1985 to $139.7 billion in 2010, an increase of 372 percent since Ronald Reagan’s day.”
And Jacoby adds:
“Federal financial aid is a major source of revenue for colleges and universities, and aid packages are generally based on the gap between what a family can afford to pay to send a student to a given college, and the tuition and fees that college charges. That gives schools every incentive to keep their tuition unaffordable. Why would they reduce their sticker price to a level more families could afford, when doing so would mean kissing millions of government dollars goodbye? Directly or indirectly, government loans and grants have led to massive tuition inflation. That has been a boon for colleges and universities, where budgets, payrolls, and amenities have grown amazingly lavish. And it has been a boon for politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, who are happy to exploit anxiety over tuition to win votes. But for students and their families, let alone for taxpayers who don’t go to college, it has been a disaster. The more government has done to make higher education affordable, the more unaffordable it has become. More of the same won’t yield a different outcome. By now, even Norman Bates would have figured that out.”
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN……AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!