This commentary was submitted by US Representative Tammy Duckworth in the Chicago Tribune. 

Reject fearmongers, welcome Syrian refugees

Note: Ms. Duckworth, I am copying your commentary with my own response included after each paragraph.  My responses begin with RS:. I encourage you to respond.  I encourage all who read it to respond.

This is a time for the United States to lead with strength, not fear.

  RS: One could argue our president is not leading at all, much less with strength.

In combat one should never let the enemy determine the battlefield or dictate the terms of war. I've experienced the mission challenges that emerge when our nation engages in armed conflict with an enemy it does not truly understand. Unfortunately, I am concerned we may be repeating past mistakes as we confront a barbaric new enemy — the Islamic State.

  RS: So you admit the enemy is not truly understood by us.  This is a problem since we should not ignore what we don;t understand.  Are you suggesting we vote to let them in without understanding who we are letting in.  Sounds like the process that gave us Obamacare.

As last week's terrorist attacks made clear, Islamic State is a deadly and determined adversary. However, despite its brutality, Islamic State is no match for the American military and would be destroyed in a conventional war.

  RS: But we're not fighting them in a conventional war.  Maybe we shoud be fighting them more conventionally instead of udner the rules of engagement, or lack thereof, we currently impose on our military.

They realize this too, which is why they are seeking to force the United States and our allies to fight on their terms by waging a bloody but sophisticated propaganda campaign that attempts to radicalize Sunni Muslims — wherever they live — against the West. This campaign relies in part on provoking an understandable but ultimately self-defeating reaction among horrified Westerners against all Muslims, which perpetuates a cycle of distrust and conflict.

 RS: There are not many people claiming all Muslims are terrorists.  There is a good argument for ISIS members being Muslim though.  It is not a valid argument to say I think all Muslims are evil or terrorists.

It would be a mistake to react as Islamic State wants us to, which is why the callous actions of many governors, including here in Illinois, are so disappointing. They are sending a signal that innocent victims fleeing the brutality of the Syrian civil war are not welcome in the United States, which plays right into our enemy's hands. It empowers and emboldens radicals who want nothing more than for us to conflate their twisted barbarism with the entire Muslim world, and to appear indifferent to human suffering as we turn inward. Ultimately, this poses a threat to our national security.

 RS: The governors are sending a signal to proceed with caution, and not simply open the doors to any and all who claim to be a refugee.  Can you not see how prudent it is to proceed with caution?  Your own words indicate as much.

It is not difficult to imagine a child we reject today fighting alongside Islamic State years from now. Abandoned in a dangerous and hopeless place, that child could turn into a fighter firing rocket-propelled grenades at American helicopters, just like the one who brought down my Black Hawk 11 years ago this month.

 RS: You do understand ISIS is training children to kill infidels?  The child we let in may be a trained would be killer.  And so could his mother.  Women have been using suicide bombs just in the last several days.

We are not powerless in that child's fate.

 RS: Correct, and we should not relinquish that power either.

When I was a child, I witnessed the refugee crisis borne out of people fleeing the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao in Southeast Asia. I remember families loading all they had into boats and risking everything on the South China Sea. I am proud the U.S. took in refugees during those years, and ever motivated by the knowledge that we could have done more.

 RS:  I agree,  but these are not those.  They were not people intent on killing infidels. 

I can only imagine choosing to carry my precious 1-year-old daughter, Abigail, as we flee halfway across a continent, and placing her in a rickety boat or rubber dinghy that may not survive the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea, because that ordeal is still safer than staying home. That is exactly the choice parents are making in Syria today. These families are leaving everything behind in a desperate attempt to escape the horrific violence being perpetrated both by Islamic State and the brutal regime of Bashar Assad.

 RS:  Then let's make sure the USA remains the strongest and most secure country on Earth.

I certainly understand the concerns many have expressed after last week's brutal terrorist attacks, and the temptation to turn inward as a result. I also have no difficulty imagining a would-be terrorist seeking to enter our country by exploiting our humanitarian good intentions. But this is where a dose of reality is required: The current security screening process takes almost two years to complete and is particularly stringent for people from unstable regions like Syria. It involves biographic and biometric screenings, as well as vetting for connections to terrorist organizations by the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, and other agencies. I welcome efforts to improve security even further, which is why I am working in Congress and the Obama administration to develop a range of additional measures to strengthen the screening process.

 RS:  Our own FBI director claims we are unable to adequately screen these refugees under current circumstances.  Why should I beleive you or President Obama over the man who is to screen these people?  And the director is not alone in his thinking.

So let us reject the cynics and fearmongers who question our country's ability to conduct effective security screenings that balance safety and freedom. America must be resolute in the face of terror and never allow our enemies to scare us into retreating behind walls and abandoning our values. Even as we work to destroy Islamic State, we must feel compassion for its victims, because they include both those whose lives were shattered Friday night in Paris, as well as the millions of Syrians who have been displaced and are seeking refuge.

 RS:  Cynics and fearmongers exist on both sides of this debate.  Let's not give in to those.  Instead, let's use logic and reasoning to come to a proper process that leads to both security and compassion for refugees.  Let's understand that refugees are one thing, but terrorists are completedly different.  When you can tell the difference you are almost there.

By remaining steadfast and true to our values, the United States can lead the fight to crush Islamic State. This requires engagement, however, not retreat. In this fight, our compassion and values are required in addition to our military might. We must not yield the field of battle to our enemy. This is a time for the United States to lead with strength, not fear.

 RS:  Crushing ISIS requires we make some changes in strategy and policy, namely in terms of rules of engagement.  It is indeed a complex problem, which is why prudence is needed.

U.S. Rep. Tammy Duckworth represents Illinois' 8th Congressional District.

 RS:  Ms. Duckworth, please answer the following questions and share your answers publicly.  I think these questions should properly explain why openign the door to Syrian refugees should be done by first checking the peep hole.

1. Do you want to allow members of ISIS, who may be Syrian, into the USA?
2. Do you know these refugees are not traveling with documentation that can be trusted or verified since there is no source of truth for those documents?
3. If a Syrian member of ISIS wanted to come into the USA as a refugee, do you think he or she would self-identify as a terrorist?
4. Do you know that ISIS is training Muslim children to be terrorists and to kill?
5. Do you know that in the last couple of weeks Muslim women have killed using suicide bombs?
6. Do you think it wise to at least try to ensure terrorists do not try to pass as refugees?
7. Do you understand the FBI says they cannot screen these people to learn if they may be terrorists?
8. What would you do next? 
Remember, it only takes one!

College Is Not For Everyone

Students set to protest student loan debt


I am sick and tired of this nonsensical protest and debate over student debt and here is why.


Students are going to college of their own free will knowing the cost and knowing they are borrowing at lower than ever interest rates to pay for it.  They also know the job market is horrible, despite what President Obama says about the economy and job creation under his administration.


For decades every politician in Washington DC has told every teenager in America to go to college, get a good education and find a good job.  Consequently, more students than ever are entering college, and avoiding trade schools and community colleges.  Colleges are booming with students.  Enrollment is up all over the country.


If any of these students are enrolled in Econ 101 they'd be learning about the cost curve, supply and demand.  When demand goes up, price go up, until supply catches up, then price stabilizes.  When demand goes down and supply is up, prices drop.  As more students enroll at State U, costs go up.  Colleges meanwhile, are spending more money to increase capacity, and attract even more students.  Since the interest rate is low,  money is cheap.  As schools build more classrooms, dormitories and athletic complexes, the cost of higher education goes up and up. 


Now compound that activity with a lower than expected job market, and more students are entering schools and staying for post graduate courses than ever.  More students, more cost, fewer jobs.  People in the job market are not getting out as quickly either, and delaying retirement as cost of living increases and retirement savings are not quite what they hoped for.


It s a cycle that leads to higher costs.  What is the solution you ask?


Drop out of school or delay going to college if you're not there yet.  Check out community colleges or trade schools.  Avoid the typical four year college.  If this were to happen broadly, many schools would be forced to slow down the rate of building and lower costs.


There are also many trade jobs available to those willing to work and get their hands dirty.  Many trade jobs offer good salaries or wages, plus benefits.


Another thing people may not realize is that as more and more college graduates can't find full time employment in their chosen field of study, the value of a diploma decreases also.  More prospective employees means lower wages and salaries, not higher.


Stop expecting everyone else to pay for a college education that means less every year that we repeat hitting our heads agains the campus gates.

Divisive Liberals

I once heard someone say that republicans think democrats are wrong, but democrats think republicans are evil.  If that is true, and I see that in many, many cases, then divisiveness is the ultimate result.


Examples of this liberal think are as follows:

1. Liberals think that conservatives opposed to abortion hate women.
2. Liberals think that conservatives opposed to Obamacare hate grannies.
3. Liberal think that conservatives opposed to the welfare state hate the poor.
4. Liberals think conservatives who disagree with the global climate change thory hate clean air and polar bears.
5. Liberals think conservatives opposed to higher taxes hate the middle class.
6. Liberals think conservatives opposed to open borders hate immigrants.

Of course the only logic behind such assertions is that liberals think conservatives hate just about every demographic group there is.


Meanwhile the left leaning groups lean further left every election cycle.  We now have an avowed socialist running in the democrat presidential primary race.  And his opponents keep moving further left to keep up with him. 


Of course the result of all this leftward leaning while declaring the right hates you, only causes division among the citizens.  You can see it online on any social media platform, in the streets, and on TV and in movies. 


If you disagree, consider that only #BlackLivesMatter to large numbers of citizens who could not be considered conservative and never would vote republican.  You see rich versus poor, white versus black versus brown, christian versus muslim.


The fact that so many democrats are willing to overlook possibly illegal and definitely immoral, acts by Hillary Clinton, is proof of how much the party rank and file are buying into the division.  Many of the same people who wanted George W. Bush tried for war crimes, are so willing to accept Hillary's faults and explain them away as insignificant or old news.

Who Should be Able to Donate Money to Political Campaigns?

Media Lobbyists Financing Campaigns


Reading this article about lobbyists and super PACs raising money for presidential hopefuls got me thinking about campaign finance reform.  Here is my solution:

1. Only registered voters should be permitted to donate to political campaigns or to spend money advertising on behalf of a candidate or issue.  Corporations, labor unions and professional associations are not registered voters.  Groups like the AFL-CIO, NRA or Planned Parenthood are not voters and should not be allowed to donate money.  Only voters should have the right to donate.  If members of these groups believe strongly enough in a candidate or issue they can write their own check and donate.  This also eliminates the circumstances whereby an idividual member disagrees with the group leadership on issues and candidates and does not want to support them.
2. Some dollar limit should be imposed on individual voters' donations.  We could debate that amount forever.  I suggest $5000 per donor per candidate or issue.  This would eliminate the huge sums of money spent on mudslinging and negative attack ads.  Candidates would be forced to spend their money more wisely and efficiently.
3. Unrelated to campaign finance reform, but campaign reform nonetheless, is the negative advertising.  When I coached youth sports I had a rule for my assistant coaches when dealing with kids.  Before you could criticize a player, you had to compliment him.  I would revise that rule to apply to political campaigns as follows.  Before you attack your opponent, you must tell me something about yourself.  This will force candidates to spend time explaining why they should get your vote, instead of why the other candidate should not.  It will turn the campaign into one of the choice of the better candidate, instead of the lesser of two evils.

Live to Fight Another Day

Cop Slams Teen Age Girl

Did this policeman handle the situation correctly?  No.  The police officer reacted badly, but he was reacting to the girl's action.  Surely there was some other method available, even though this girl was told my multiple authorities to leave the room.  But if this girl had done as she was instructed, none of this would have happened.

Many people are quick to blame cops for any use of force, excessive or otherwise.  There are cops who use too much force at times.  But if this young girl had simply stood up and walked out of the classroom with the officer, there would be no video to watch.

The lesson to be learned is do what police tell you, and if things go very wrong, you will have your day in court to tell the judge.  The key thing in that statement is you will live to fight another day.

If you obstruct police authority, things will not go well for you and you will lose that battle on that day.  In some cases we have seen people die in police altercations, though not in this case.  But the lesson remains valid.

However, if you do as you are told, there will be no use of force by the officer, and you can tell the authorities how wronged you were, and let the process work that out.

Breaking rules and/or laws does not give you permission to not follow police orders given in a lawful manner.  Get up and leave the room, and you won't get body slammed.  It cannot be worth it to aggravate the situation thereby causing an escalation of force required for the officer to remove you.

Nobel Prize Economist Says Growth is Key

Pro-Growth Economist Angus Deaton Echoes JFK

Economic growth is key to getting out of poverty.  High taxation and high regulation inhibit growth, and therefore lead to more poverty and greater inequality of income.

Conservatives have argued this for years.  Ronald Reagan was criticized for his "tax cuts for the wealthy", but lower tax rates led to higher tax revenues and greater economic growth.   Those tax cuts were followed by a long period of economic growth.

President Kennedy also argued for lower taxes to provide for higher growth.  At the time the highest tax rate was 90%.  That rate has already been proposed anew by candidate Bernie Sanders.

Many people on the left repeat the theme of "trickle down economics" when referring to this lower tax for higher growth meme.  In fact, trickle down has never been an accurate description of what occurs here.  What does happen is tax payers are allowed to keep more of their income to spend as they wish versus sending it to the government to spend.  When people have more money to spend or invest they do so.

There are several factors the impact the economic engine that we can control.  Taxation is one, and regulation is another.  Reducing both would be a good step toward growing the economy and raising the economic position of many, including lifting them out of poverty.

Just Fall from a Turnip Truck?

Five Year Old Meets Pope


In case you just fell from the turnip truck, this story is complete fiction.  Ask yourself the following questions to validate my assertion.

1. With heightened security around  the pope not permitting him to mingle with the crowd, are we to believe a 5 year girl simply climbed barricades and walked to the pope's vehicle?
2. Are we to believe a 5 year old wrote the letter that is quoted in this piece?
3. What 5 year old anxiously awaits the pope to hand deliver a letter in a highly guarded motorcade?  Or 25 year old for that matter?
4. How do you suppose the secret contents of the letter became so public?
5. Do you still think this is a spontaneous act of a 5 year old?
6. Would you like to buy ocean-front property in Kentucky?

We Still Have Free Speech, No?

UC goes back to the drawing board on controversial revamp of free-speech policy

So the University of California system instituted an intolerance policy which in effect limited free speech to only non-offensive language.  The problem with that policy, according to some, is that it did not go far enough.

The problem as I see it is that we have this thing called the 1st Amendment which provides for free speech.  In particular, it provides for free speech that others may not agree with.  The reason that is so is because speech that everyone agrees with requires no protection at all.

Too many colleges and universities are trying to protect overly sensitive students who seemingly are incapable of either countering the speech with debate, or ignoring it.  What will come of our country if our youth are treated like china dolls who cannot be permitted to hear rough or insensitive language?  This intolerance for free speech must not continue.

Liberal Misdirection

The US government willingly provides programs for many people to help them when in need.  Some of these programs were designed to lift people out of poverty, but in fact, keep some people in poverty, and dependent on government.  This post to Facebook by the Oklahoma Republican Party highlights the irony two different points of view.

Why is it that people know the animals will stop hunting for food when given food, but cannot understand why humans would not stop looking looking for work when provided a living by government?

To drive this misunderstanding of liberals on this matter, consider the follow up post to Twitter by Patrick Smith @Patrick_Speaks

Here's @officialOKGOP comparing poor people to animals
http://thkpr.gs/3680185  pic.twitter.com/pS5o1MG83X

 Mr Smith wants you to believe the Republicans consider poor people to be the equivalent of animals.  That is not the point and Mr. Smith knows this, yet he misrepresents the meaning to cause you to distrust or dislike republicans.

Removing History

Take Down Jefferson Memorial, Rename DC?

This whole discussion about the Confederate flag is getting way out of hand.  Certainly there should be discussions about racism, but relating racism to the history of slavery in America is misguided.  Here is why.

The flag did not kill anyone.  The flag is a symbol.  Depending on who is asked the symbolism varies, but it is a symbol.

The discussion is still too emotional for many following the mass murder in a Charleston, SC. church.  Calmer heads must prevail when discussing potentially heated topics such as racism.

In an effort to remove a symbol we risk removing our history as well, and that is dangerous.  We have all heard the saying about ignoring history and begin doomed to repeat it.  Removing history removes the lessons learned from it.  Think about your children going to school and not learning about that period of our history. 

Let us not forget that Americans abolished slavery, and were the first people in the world to do so.  In fact, many places around the world still practice slavery.  We have done great things in our short American history, and fighting the Civil War and ending slavery is one of the most important series of events in that history.

Talk about the slippery slope that many people say would never happen, is also misguided.  There are countless examples of asking for an inch and taking a mile.  Where would it end?  The video above shows people think we should rename our nations capital, and tear down memorials for people we no longer think deserving.  No matter how well intentioned, the ends do not justify the means.

Instead of removing anything that offends some person, which would amount to almost everything we have, let's learn form our history and move forward with renewed good will toward all men.

Thoughts on Immigration and American Exceptional-ism

The United States is a nation of immigrants.  Most families can trace their family tree back to someone who came here from somewhere else.  In my case, my great-grandparents immigrated to the USA from Germany in the 1880's.  They were of Dutch descent living in Germany.  They boarded a ship there, and landed in Baltimore harbor, and eventually settled in Kentucky.

Once here, they became Americans.  They assimilated into churches, communities and schools.  They raised families and followed the laws of the land, and they prospered.  As God says, they went forth to be fruitful, and multiplied

Immigrants from many countries did likewise, and the country grew in size, scope, wealth and power to be the greatest country in the history of the world.  We walked and drove cars on the moon, cured diseases, raised billions of people out of poverty, and shared our wealth with the world.  Americans continue to be the overwhelmingly most charitable people in history.

Today these resourceful people who built the nation, freed slaves, fought and won world wars, and accomplished so much, are being replaced by a nation of the aggrieved.  Every little thing, and some larger, seems to find someone claiming offense and demanding retribution.  This is not what America stands for.

Even freed slaves pulled themselves up to become more than chattel, though not without a great struggle.  Descendents of slaves are now captains of industry, leaders of armies, judges, and even the President of the nation.  Hispanics, Asians and Indians are elected office holders, men and women alike.   We have broken so many racial and ethnic barriers to get this far.

It was never without struggle, pain, or risk of life, limb and fortune.  But for those who worked hard and smart, took calculated risks, and succeeded, America benefited.  America became great on the backs of immigrants.

This country should never turn an immigrant away who wants to continue the traditions of American exceptional-ism.  The problem we have is separating those immigrants from another kind that do not want what American stands for.  There are many who will succeed and others who will fail to succeed in this country.  But there are many who will not try, and some who will take advantage.  We must never allow America to suffer because we stop trying, stop caring, and stop risking.

Supreme Court Disasters

Supreme Court Disasters

"When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, "we the people" are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our "public servants" are really our public masters. And America is no longer America."

Whether you support gay marriage or not, Obamacare or not, the Supreme Court is not staying within its constitutional powers, and Dr. Thomas Sowell explains it fairly clearly.  If you value the constitution and the  United States of America, you should not be praising these decisions. 

US Constitution

Confounded Confederacy

Confederate Flags Removed in Alabama

The governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley, ordered Confederate flags removed from a Confederate Memorial, but the memorial remains.  I guess those flags are offensive, but the memorial isn't?

Where will this lunacy end?

Words Have No Meaning

Supreme Court Uphold Obamacare Again

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

I did the math and 85% of people who signed up for Obamacare are getting an average of $272 per month subsidy to pay for their health insurance.  If 85% of people buying it cannot afford Obamacare without federal subsidies, what does that tell you about the promise of affordability?

If after 10 years there are still an estimated 30 million people without health insurance, what does that tell you about accessibility?

Stay on the Porch, Part 2

From Free Speech Movement to This....

I previously wrote about the things you cannot say in the blog entry from May 1 below.  The University of California system has now doubled down on the list by adding more things you cannot say or do, called 'microaggressions'.  Where will it end?

Grace Under Pressure

I continue to be amazed at the grace with which families and community member in Charleston deal with the grief, anger and pain of the deaths of nine of their family members.  The ability to forgive the perpetrator for his deeds displays God's grace very openly, and obviously with heavy but hopeful hearts.  I only pray that I could be so graceful under pressure.

The community of Charleston has displayed so much love, comfort and grace in supporting the surviving family and congregation suffering so much.

This is the lasting image we should take with us over the next days, weeks, months and years, when deal with such travesties.  This is also the lasting image our politicians should take with them as they deal with all the issues of the day going forward.  I can only hope they recognize the victory of love and grace over racism and hatred.

Liberals Want to Know

Following the mass shooting in Charleston, liberals have taken to the microphones demanding more gun control, and asking how we stop the hating.  How do we stop the hating?

Let's look at liberal arguments over the years:

1. If you don't like Obamacare, you hate grandma.  Remember images of a Paul Ryan lookalike pushing granny over the cliff in her wheel chair?
2. If you don't support abortion on demand, you hate women. 
3. If you want lower taxes, you hate the poor.
4. If you support the police, you hate the people in poor neighborhoods.
5. If you support religious freedom, you hate gays.
6. If you support free enterprise, you hate the middle class.
7. If you do not support the EPA, you hate the environment.
8. If you do not support Common Core, you hate children.

So, in other words, liberals claim conservatives hate everyone.   But if you repeat the theme often enough in various forms, anyone who disagrees with your point of view is a hater.  How do you deal with haters?

Hate is at the heart of most evils.  Mass murder, genocide through the ages, and terrorism, are all based on hatred of some group.  So hatred begets violence.  Is it any wonder why we have violence since we explain everything in terms of hatred?  Can't we just have an honest political debate without labeling the opposition as haters?

Who Could Have Made This Up, Part 2?

5 Devastating Facts about Obamacare

If anyone tells you that Obamacare is working, don't believe them.  This column explains just 5 failures of this law and the way it was executed.

Who Could Have Made This Up?

Cover Oregon Cover Up

Who would ever have thought that in The US of A someone could spend $300 Million on a web site that doesn't work?  Meanwhile back in DC, Obamacare supporters spent nearly $1 Billion building their colossal web failure.

Is anybody accountable for that epic failure?  President Obama and Secretary Sebelius are two I'd start with.

If you can't run with the big boys, stay on the porch!

Liberals often criticize conservatives for the views they hold, and vice versa.  That is acceptable debate.  What is not acceptable debate is shutting down your opposition by stifling debate.  One way liberals stifle debate is by declaring certain words or phrases off-limits, due to their implied racial undertones or hidden meanings.  There are many examples, but most recently there are these two.

First, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a list of words you may not use to describe Hillary.  Really?  Yes, really.
Here Are The Words Hillary’s Supporters Won’t Let You Say

Second is the use of the word thug to describe people involved in the criminal activity commonly called protesting, but which actually is looting, destroying, stealing, and burning.  These are criminal acts that are not under the banner of protesting.
VIDEO: Fox News Hosts Debate Whether It's OK To Use 'Thug' And The N-Word

So if you oppose Mrs. Clinton's desire to be the next president, you cannot use the list of words to describer her or her positions on various topics.  Stifling debate is what that amounts to.

And if you use the word thug to describe criminals taking advantage of  circumstances to commit crimes when they are least likely to be caught, you are using a racially insensitive word, much like the N-word.

If you cannot argue your point of view without stifling those who have opposing points of view, then you lose your argument.  Valid debate includes the use of arguments, facts, and expert opinions, statistics, to convince others your opinion is correct.  It does not include shutting your opponent up.

Job Creation

Jobs: How to Create Them

John Stossel wrote this article to detail how the government does not really create jobs regardless of what politicians say about that.  Business owners create jobs when they invest in a product or service that people are willing to pay for.  If profit can be made form the enterprise, then wealth is created and job numbers can grow.

Capitalism is an economic system that allows for free enterprise, private property, and wealth creation.  No other system has done so much to grow wealth, create jobs, and raise billions of people out of poverty.

Deal With It People

In recent months there have been a number of stories about college students that leads me to believe today's students need to grow up and toughen up.  Students are demanding so many protections against speech and activities of others that they should not need.  In fact, being exposed to such speech and activity will better prepare students for life, during and after college.

Examples include:
Being offended by a movie at Michigan
Needing to cope with tough times at Columbia
Safe zones at schools to protect feelings
Fraternity hazing which can hardly be called hazing

I really think our students today are being overly protected, and demanding of more protection.  When law students need to be excused from exams to deal with emotional distress over a legal matter involving crime, what does that say about their future prospects as lawyers?

If students in their late teens and early twenties cannot deal with hearing or seeing possibly offensive subjects, then how will they ever deal with jobs, families and society after college?

Isn't college intended to be a place where a variety of viewpoints, subjects and activities are to be learning exercises that will prepare you for life? 

Our nation, our world, will be in deep trouble if people are taught and trained to avoid unpleasantness by retreating into a cocoon or burying their heads in the sand.  People truly to embrace the reality that no one has a right to never be offended or troubled.  Deal with it people.

Want to Stop Poverty, Create Wealth?

Then read this column by Walter Williams, Ph.D.

When will we begin to realize that intentions mean nothing without results?  This builds on my eralir post:  Social Science and Social Policy

Clintons Don't Deserve the Respect They Get

Clinton Memory Lane: George Will

If you read this column by George Will, you should recall all of the scandals involving President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.  The latter being a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State, and now the eventual Democrat nominee for President.

If the Clintons were Republican, this would never be allowed to stand.  The media would be playing hardball with them in that case.  Even today liberal minded journalists predict great things for Hillary and say those things will happen because these scandals are just more among many that won't stick.

Voters need to ask themselves if voting for the first woman President is really more important than voting for the best candidate for the job.

Prisoner Gender Swap

Convicted Murderer to Get State Funded Surgery

Question #1:  If this person was not a convicted murderer serving 17 to life in prison, who would be paying for this surgery?

Question #2:  Did this judge consider the feelings of the murder victim's family before deciding they should help pay for this surgery?

Tax Incentives Work, So Why Not More of Them?

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported on the lack of tracking by the city of Cincinnati for return on the investment of tax incentives designed to attract businesses to the area.  They found there is no such tracking of ROI.  City doesn't track return on incentives

The state of New York has been advertising their program of reduced taxes, abatement and other incentives to attract businesses and expansions in their state. The federal government has been giving grants, low interest loans, and tax incentives to many businesses to expand and build, especially in the area of green energy technology.

Does this work to attract new and expanding businesses?  It does, but how much so is the question.  Cincinnati cannot tell you that answer.  Maybe others can. My point here is that if tax incentives work, even in mostly liberal New York, why are liberals opposed to reducing taxes for all business, and even for all people?

The tax incentive business is a negotiating ploy to get business owners to choose one city or state over another for the location of new business or expansions.  If I was the governor of any state, or mayor of any city, I would fight to lower all taxes, then tell all business owners to move here.  In fact I would tell all citizens that our doors are open for business and all taxes are lower than you'll find in the next state over.

We know there is an optimal tax rate where tax receipts are the highest possible and the rate is the lowest possible.  Lowering tax rates has lead to higher tax receipts under Kennedy, Reagan and G.W. Bush.

Liberals typically claim corporations are not paying their fair share.  The 1% are not paying their fair share.  But then they create these tax incentive zones to attract business.  Well, which is it?  If it works in some places, why not all places?

If we really want the economy to take off and wealth to be created, then why don't we actually practice what we know to be true?

Operation Choke Point - Killing Legal Business

Operation Choke Point - Washington Post

The Obama administration, through use of the FDIC, is choking off legal business' access to financial services such as checking accounts, payment processing and loans.  They are doing this not because there is any particular illegal activity by those businesses, but because they don't like them.

Imagine if a government official told your bank manager to close your checking account because he did not approve of your lifestyle.  Below is the telling quote form this article, along with links to supporting reports.

"... just because there are some bad apples within a legal industry doesn’t justify effectively destroying a legal industry through secret executive fiat."

Mind you, there is not a piece of legislation supporting this government action to force legal business out of business, or at least impose serious roadblocks to continued operations.

This policy was introduced by the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder, and obviously endorsed by President Obama.  Fundamentally Changing America!

To Shoot or Not To Shoot

Civil Rights Leader Goes Though Scenarios
If you have any opinion about whether or not police shootings are justified, please watch this video.  The first man to experience the scenarios is a community civil rights leader who has protested against cops involved in shootings.  His opinion has since changed.  Interesting when you consider the "hands up, don't shoot" protests of the past several months.

Social Science and Social Policy

Two Parent Advantage

"The role of social science," he would write, "lies not in the formulation of social policy, but in the measurement of its results." Not in postulating what will work but in demonstrating what does work. And, increasingly, what does not work. 

 

The above paragraph is taken rom George Will's column, including the Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote.  Will explains that policy has results, and social scientists should explain the results (what works), not promote any particular policy (what will work). 

I consider myself a libertarian with some conservative leanings.  I am often told that conservatives do have compassion for the less privileged.  While liberals go on and on telling us everything we should be doing to help those same people.  If I express an opinion about school choice, I am told I do not want poor kids to be educated.  Likewise if I express my disdain for Obama-care, I am told I want granny to die.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Meanwhile their programs intended to raise the poor and uneducated out of the poverty they find themselves in have not succeeded in the least.

Ever since the 1960's and President Johnson's war on poverty, the percentage of citizens living in poverty has not changed very much if at all. (USNews & World Report)

The bottom line is this: If you wait until after you graduate high school to get married, and wait until after marriage to have children, your likelihood of living in poverty is about 10% of what it would be if you change the order of those three events in any way.

Liberals have great intentions.  Despite all the policies they have implemented in 50 years, they just cannot demonstrate the results we all desire.  Maybe it is time to listen to conservatives and libertarians.

Mandatory Voting Violates First Amendment

Obama Praises Idea of Mandatory Voting

Isn't the president supposed to be a constitutional scholar?  I know I've heard that said.  So now he supports the idea of mandatory voting for all.  Let's analyze this shall we?

Voting is political speech, and we have the right to vote if you meet all criteria such as citizenship, age and residency.  Having the right to vote also provides for the right not to vote, just as the right of free speech is partnered with the right to remain silent.  So Mr. Obama, the constitutional scholar, wants to revoke your right to free political speech by taking away your right to remain silent, or not vote.

The value of your one vote is in the ability to express your political will by placing a ballot in the box.  Presumably, your vote carries the same weight as all other votes.  But if people vote who do not have the right to do so, what then happens to your one vote?  It becomes less meaningful of course. 

The point of this is that identifying yourself at the polling place proves you have the right to vote, or not.  It prevents fraudulent voters from voting.  It does not prevent rightful voters from voting.

Once we determined this to be that case, then all we need to do is figure out how all voters can best identify themselves as such.  This is not the hurdle some would have you believe.

The Real Impact of Minimum Wage, Part 2

Ruinous 'Compassion", by Dr. Thomas Sowell

"The following year, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was passed, requiring minimum wages in the construction industry. This was in response to complaints that construction companies with non-union black construction workers were able to underbid construction companies with unionized white workers (whose unions would not admit blacks)."

The real reason for minimum wage laws was to prevent blacks from taking work away from whites, and it was effective.  Minimum wage laws do help masses of people improve their standard of living, as is implied by the term 'living wage'.  In fact, minimum wages prevent many people with little skill and experience from ever getting the skills and experience they need to improve their earning potential.

The Real Impact of Minimum Wage

Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage

"Substitution Effect" is what this is called.  When the price of anything goes up, people substitute lower cost for higher cost items and services.  The same thing holds true for labor as for gasoline, food, clothing, etc.

Businesses are not immune to the substitution effect either.  In fact, they must earn more than they cost, so finding lower cost alternatives is a requirement for staying in business.

More Settled Science

Global Warming - Walter E. Williams

I too am quite tired of hearing about how the global warming/climate change is settled science.  The summary of Dr. Williams column is quite appropriate.

"The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it's settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty."

Government Workers

I don't know if this will be true or not, but we'll find out in 61 years.  I do know that the government is involved in far too many aspects of our daily lives. 

 Ronald Reagan famously said the 9 most terrifying words in the English language are:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

I’m from the government and I’m here to help'

He also said this about government:

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"

 

Most government workers are not elected, and most of them are protected by employee unions which make it difficult at best to downsize the government.  Laws passed are seldom if ever repealed, and agencies created never get decommissioned.  

 

In order to justify their positions the agency management in almost all agencies must created regulations that give them authority to act.  That authority also gives the nation reason to fear government.  

All new regulations require compliance.  Complexity of regulation requires experts to navigate the maze of regulations.  Hiring experts to help you through the maze adds to the cost of whatever endeavor you are involved in.

If you think it impacts only businesses you are mistaken.  Think about simple things like low volume flush toilets and incandescent light bulbs.  Think about tax credits for replacing appliances with energy efficient versions.

While many things the government regulates are good ideas, the free market will do what is smart and good anyway.  But the complex maze of regulation and red tape cannot improve upon the free market.

At Clintonemail.com

Hillary Clinton uses email.  Not surprising as most Americans anymore do also.  But Hillary Clinton has an email problem.  Her problem is not the email sent or received, nor the server on which it was processed.  Her problem is lack of credibility and lack of integrity.

Mrs. Clinton was not truthful in her dealings with the American people, and this revelation was brought to light when her email service was exposed.  If Mrs. Clinton expects others to follow certain policies and procedures, but not do so herself, she should not expect our support for her past performance, or support for her ambition to become the next President of the United States. 

Mrs. Clinton should not be the person who determines which and when certain emails are made available for scrutiny.  Mrs. Clinton should not be hiding behind ambiguous policy interpretations by political cronies in order to prevent those emails from being made available.  She should be allowing the server and contents to be examined.  Who does that is open for debate, but it should be voluntary on her part to make them available.

Until she does so, she should not be given consideration for election to any office.

Is It Any Wonder?

So Michael Brown did not put his hand up in surrender to Officer Wilson.  Instead he assaulted the officer in an attempt to take away the officer's firearm.  The grand jury heard the testimony and came to that conclusion, as did the US Department of Justice investigators.  Attorney General Eric Holder said so in releasing their report.

But all of that does not matter because Mr. Holder also said the cops in Ferguson are bad, real bad.  All during the riots in Ferguson in 2014 the AG told America that cops are bad.  The mayor of New York City told America their cops are bad.  The Rev. Al Sharpton told America cops were hunting down black youths in the streets.

So is it any wonder we have had 2 police officers shot dead in New York City, and now 2 officers shot and wounded in Ferguson?  Like elections Mr. President, words having consequences too.