Why are College Tuitions So High and Getting Higher?

Quickly on the heels of the release “Love Gov” -- the Independent Institute’s satirical videos series on meddlesome government -- a new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concludes that federal aid to college students raises the cost of higher education.

Duh!

Many observers have been puzzled by the relentless increase in tuitions charged by private and public schools alike -- at a growth rate greater than that of any component of the consumer price index, including health care. Some blame the price increases on the greed of campus administrators. But that assessment is an unfair oversimplification that fails to ask: what has enabled schools to hike tuitions so much?

Most U.S. colleges and universities, whether public or private, operate as not-for-profit entities, but that doesn’t mean they are run like charities indifferent to the bottom line. If the tuition at a school is, say, $10,000 per year, and some third party finances half that amount by providing a scholarship or low-interest loan, it’s wishful thinking to believe that the student will then pay only $5,000 per year. That conclusion would follow only if the tuition charge remains unchanged – and that outcome is only a pipe dream.

An economically rational college administrator will want to raise the tuition sticker price to as much as $15,000 per year, so as to capture some or all of the third-party payment, while leaving the student’s out-of-pocket cost the same. That way the school gets the extra money that has become available, but it doesn’t risk driving away cost-conscious applicants for admission.

Where does that extra $5,000 go? If history is any guide, precious little goes to current faculty salaries or the hiring of additional teachers (which would reduce average class sizes). Instead the money is allocated to expanding the school’s administrative staff – more assistants to the president or provost, and to more college bureaucrats with little or no classroom teaching responsibilities. Although these staffers surely will defend their positions vigorously, they contribute indirectly at best to the instructional, research, and service missions of their institutions.

All of this is made possible, of course, by the prevailing (and unquestioned) assumption that public subsidies of four-year post-secondary degrees are essential for young people to succeed in an ever more technical, globally competitive economic environment. In reality, the modern workplace does not necessarily need all of its workers to possess a baccalaureate degree. Warehouse workers and retail employees, for example, no longer need to be especially literate or numerate to parse paper manifests or maps. They instead can rely on bar codes and GPS devices to deliver customers’ orders.

Public policies that promote ever wider access to America’s colleges and universities, which remain among the world’s best, also have opened the door to students unprepared by our failed K-12 public schools to meet the academic demands necessary to earn a college diploma. Remediation of those educational deficiencies now absorbs inordinate college faculty attention, leads to the offering of degrees in undemanding majors, and threatens to devalue undergraduate educations to the level of high-school diplomas.

Many students meanwhile leave school laden with mountains of debt. Because much of the more than $1 trillion in outstanding loans is federally guaranteed, taxpayers are on the hook for repayment if the borrowers default.

The time is long past to end taxpayer subsidies to institutions of higher education and to restore market pricing and market discipline to America’s colleges and universities. A post-secondary education is a privilege, not a right for which everyone qualifies or merits.  

William F. Shughart II, research director at Independent Institute, is J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice at Utah State University’s Huntsman School of Business

via: The American Thinker

Some of Hillary's Greatest Accomplishments

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

 

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

   Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours

  Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

  Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle was:
 

   • She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

  • She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the    appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million    dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to    Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his    affairs.

   • Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for lying under oath to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

   • Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

    After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

  Now we are exposed to: the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next. But to her loyal fans – “what difference does it make?”

Author Unknown

And Now a little Truth about Money Politics and the Koch Brothers

As we all remember, the media completely freaked out after the Supreme Court decided Citizens United in favor of free speech. Taking aim primarily at the right-leaning Koch Brothers, the media posed as defenders of democracy against the corrupting influence of outside money in politics. As usual, the facts prove that the media are big fat liars.

Although legions of left-wing corporations like NBC News, Politico, MSNBC, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, The Washington Post, LA Times, NPR, PBS, Univision, Comedy Central, MTV, HBO, and ESPN spend billions of dollars pushing a political agenda 24/7, the left-wing media want a monopoly on free speech. The media believe only left-wing media corporations should be allowed to spend unlimited sums of corporate money to advance a political agenda.

This means, of course, that the Koch brothers must be relentlessly Alinsky’d by the media into Public Enemy Number One — into the very symbol of everything that is wrong with outside money in politics.

How big of a lie is this attack?

So big that the Koch brothers only rank 59th in campaign contributions, with a measly $18 million, which is about half of what NBC News paid Brian Williams to attack President George W. Bush with lies about Hurricane Katrina.

Not only that, if you look at the list top donors on this list, as Gateway Pundit reports, the Kochs are behind 18 different unions (and yes, unions are corporate donors using corporate dollars).

And guess who benefits from the $620 million in outside corporate dollars from these unions? Democrats, of course, which is why the media only complains about a drop-in-a-bucket of $18 million in corporate dollars coming from the likes of Koch Industries and says nothing about the $620 million coming from unions.

And I can assure you that that $620 million is only a drop in the bucket compared to the billions in corporate dollars spent by left-wing multinationals through their media companies to affect the outcome of legislation and elections.

Thank You: Breitbart

Valerie Jarrett and Her Communist Roots

FBI files confirm what we feared in 2008 — that the president and his closest advisor come from a long line of Communists. Not liberals or socialists, but Reds. And now we've all inherited their socialized medicine.

FBI papers obtained by government watchdog Judicial Watch document hard-core communism in the family of Valerie Jarrett, President Obama's most trusted and influential White House advisor. Here's what they reveal about her Chicago kin, who were known as "concealed Communists":

Her late father, James E. Bowman, was involved with Communist front groups and was in contact with a paid Soviet agent in the 1950s — Alfred Stern — who was wanted for espionage.

Jarrett's maternal grandfather, Robert Rochon Taylor, was investigated by the FBI for his membership in Communist groups and his business relationship with the same Soviet agent tied to her father.

Her late father-in-law, Vernon D. Jarrett, was assigned by the Communist Party USA to a special cultural arts "cell" that spread "the Communist Party line" and ran publicity for communist candidates and also raised money for them, the FBI says.

He helped the cell spread communist propaganda "among the middle class," indoctrinating them through newspaper columns, radio shows, speeches, plays and other cultural anesthesia.

Jarrett was such a threat as a Communist propagandist that he was flagged by the FBI as an internal security risk to be swiftly arrested in the event of a hot war with the Soviet Union. The FBI also investigated his wife, Fernetta "Fern" Jarrett, for Communist activities.

These FBI files on Jarrett's relatives are voluminous, covering their un-American activities during the height of the Cold War, when the FBI said the Communist Party USA sought to alter the American form of government "by unconstitutional means." (Sound familiar?)

That people running our country are the children of Communists ought to trigger an avalanche of in-depth news stories. Yet even with documentary evidence to safely guide them, the White House press corps yawns.

"If her father was waving the Confederate flag, I'm sure there'd be massive media interest in how that impacted (Valerie Jarrett's) politics," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told us.

Long before Obama was nominated in 2008, we ran a controversial series called "The Audacity of Socialism," in which we tried to warn voters that Obama and his ilk were a different breed of Democrat.

These weren't garden-variety liberals, we argued, but radicals orbiting anti-American subversives whom Democrats like Truman and Kennedy once went after.

Reed More about Jarrett's and Obama's Communist Roots: Investors Business Daily

Maybe Trump is Right About Illegal Aliens and Crime

Non-Americans commit over five times more serious crimes per capita than Americans.

It is estimated that there are some 133,741 foreign criminals in prisons and jails in the USA.  

They are not there for spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking, and very few are there for immigration violations, as those illegal alien criminals are typically deported in fairly short order or simply let go as we have seen time and time again. They are there in large part for molesting, raping, killing, maiming and murdering people in America, as you will see below. 

Add in the 168,680 convicted criminal immigrants who have final orders of removal but who remain at large in the U.S., and another 179,018 convicted criminal aliens with deportation cases pending but who are also at large, and we have a total non-American felon population of 481,439...a number the size of our 35^th largest city, Sacramento, California, and larger than the entire populations each of Atlanta, Kansas City, Omaha, Miami, Minneapolis - and more.   

And remember, for most of these felons, there was a victim. 

Looking at it another way, illegal aliens constitute 27% of the federal prison population. This means that a group which comprises less than 5% of the population nationally is committing 27% percent of the federal crimes.  So just by that metric alone, illegal aliens commit over five times more serious crimes on a per capita basis than residents do. 

But here's another fact.  According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in an April 7, 2005 report to Congress entitled "Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails", "The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years--about 27 percent. * The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico."  Sorry to report the truth here, but quite a few people owe Mr. Trump an apology.  

That doesn't even include all the other criminal aliens that the government desperately tries to hide from the public even though they must announce it: according to Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, the 36,007 criminal immigrants that the Obama administration released in 2013 to prowl the streets of America even though they had a collective 88,000 convictions, including 193 homicides, 426 sexual assaults, 303 kidnappings and 1,075 aggravated assaults. And that was just one year's worth of criminal illegal aliens let go to continue to prey on the citizens of the USA.  

In 2014, in a cynical move that can only be described as depraved especially because Mr. Obama ‘s most important job is to protect  Americans, the Obama administration released another 30,558 criminal immigrants, who had a total of 79,059 convictions, into America to mingle with its unsuspecting, innocent, law-abiding citizens.  Someone ought to tell the man what his job is. 

Much More: Family Security Matters

CNN Uses Tragedy as a Political Weapon

Under the leadership of Jeff Zucker, we have all witnessed CNN turn into The PornTragedy Network, a ghoulish reality show channel that grabs hold of human disasters and milks them dry.

That’s bad enough, but CNN goes even further. If you are paying attention, you will see that every tragedy is also exploited by CNN into a political weapon to be used against their enemies on the Right.

Even before Zucker, when more than a dozen children were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary, CNN went all in on gun control. Not because any gun control law ever proposed would have stopped this mass murder; not because gun control had anything to do with a sick, twisted, evil young man gunning down a bunch of school children. No, CNN’s approach here is purely partisan…

CNN used a pile of dead elementary schoolchildren — not to find a solution to ensure such an abomination never happens again — but as a way to put Republicans, gun-lovers, the NRA, and everyone else CNN hates on automatic defense.

Instead of addressing mental health issues, how gun-free zones attract mass-shooters, asking why in God’s name we leave our children unguarded, or merely waiting for the facts, CNN brings up guns.

After the Zucker era began, CNN did the same with Trayvon Martin in a major way. A black teenager is shot in self defense by a Hispanic male. Immediately, CNN is attacking Stand Your Ground laws — which, again, didn’t have anything to do with anything involved in the shooting. Stand Your Ground wasn’t even part of Zimmerman’s defense.

But by manufacturing a narrative around Stand Your Ground, CNN could bring Republicans and conservatives into the studio to berate them and put them in a rhetorical box — you either oppose Stand Your Ground or YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE.

CNN was able to bring race into the Trayvon Martin shooting by lying about George Zimmerman’s race. Instead of reporting Zimmerman is Hispanic, CNN dishonestly (and intentionally) described him as white.

Within minutes of the Amtrak derailment, CNN was feasting on the dead over the issue of infrastructure. Not only did CNN refuse once again to wait for the facts, in the end, we discovered that infrastructure didn’t have anything to do with anything. Amtrak had all the safety equipment necessary. It was bureaucracy that stopped it from getting installed on time.

Once that became known, CNN dropped the Amtrak story.

Even though some CNN obsessive news coverage about ineffectual government bureaucracy might save lives, those lives aren’t important enough to CNN for them to question the effectiveness of the bloated federal government.

Regardless, for at least a couple of days CNN was able to jiu jitsu the dead bodies of a tragic train crash into an attack against the Right by screaming INFRASTRUCTURE. Either you agreed with CNN that untold billions needed to be immediately spent by our bloated federal government on infrastructure or you wanted people to die in train accidents.

Read More: Breitbart

Remember ABC's Climate Predictions for 2015? Climate Hoaxers Wrong Again

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12,  2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.) 

On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program "puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015."  

As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that "flames cover hundreds of miles." 

Then-GMA co-anchor Chris Cuomo appeared frightened by this future world. He wondered, "I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?" 

Ultimately, ABC delayed the air-date for Earth 2100 and the one-hour show didn't debut until June 2, 2009. The program showcased the terrible impact of global warming from 2015 through 2100. In the special, a "storm of the century" wiped out Miami. Other highlights included a destroyed New York City and an abandoned Las Vegas. By 2084, Earth's population will apparently be just 2.7 billion. 

On June 13, 2008, ABCNews.com promoted the special by hyperventilating, "Are we living in the last century of our civilization?" Unlike the 2015 predictions, that suggestion hasn't (yet) been proven wrong.

Seven years later, the network has quietly ignored its horribly inaccurate predictions about 2015. When it comes to global warming claims, apparently results don't matter for ABC.  

via: NewsBusters

No Global Warming in over 18 Years but we still have Global Warming

Probably the fact that there has now been no “global warming” for 18 years and six months. Not only does this contradict all the doomladen climate models cited in the IPCC’s various reports – none of them predicted the so-called “Pause” – but it also means that not one of the kids in school being fed climate propaganda by their on-message teachers has ever personally lived during a time of global warming.

So it’s quite understandable that – just as they tried to do with the “Medieval Warming Period” and also “the decline” (which proved so troubling to Michael Mann and his pals) – the alarmists are doing their damnedest to write the “Pause” (or, if you will, “hiatus”) out of scientific history.

And now they’ve done it!

Or so the journal Science tells us in a new paper being greeted with a predictably rapturous reception by the usual suspects at the Guardian, the BBC and the New York Times.

Here, for example, is Pravda’s take:

The so-called hiatus has been touted by non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science.

Those claims have resonated; two years ago, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change felt the need to explain why the Earth was not heating up as expected, listing such reasons as volcanic eruptions, reduced solar radiation and the oceans absorbing more heat.

“The reality is that there is no hiatus,” said Tom Karl, director of the National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina. He is the lead author of a study published Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Science

So that’s it then, is it? Game over for the deniers, now dramatically disarmed of their most powerful weapon by “the Science”?

Er, not quite, no, as this exquisitely damning rebuttal from the Global Warming Policy Forum makes clear.

The thrust of Karl’s paper is this: that far from staying flat since 1998, global temperatures have carried on rising. It’s just that scientists haven’t noticed before because they’ve been looking in the wrong place – on land, rather than in the sea where all the real heat action is happening.

And how did Karl et al notice what everyone else has missed until now? Well, by using a specialised scientific technique called “getting your excuses in early before the Paris climate conference in December.”

Essentially, this technique involves making adjustments to the raw temperature data (sound familiar?) and discovering – lo! – that the sceptics were wrong and the alarmists were right all along. 

Read More at: Breitbart

VIDEO Ted Cruz Sums Up the Gay Marriage Debate

Al Sharpton's daughter is a Crooked Chip off the Old Crooked Block

The Rev. Al Sharpton’s daughter unwittingly proved that her $5 million sprained-ankle suit against the city of New York is a mountain of BS.

Dominique Sharpton posted pictures to Instagram showing she completed a difficult mountain climb in Bali, Indonesia — even though her suit says that “she still suffers” debilitating pain after twisting her ankle in a street crack in Soho last year.

She didn’t seem to realize that her mountaineering exploits might undermine her legal claims as she bragged online about the difficulty of her ascent.

“We hiked UP the mountain, over the clouds… into the SUNRISE,” Dominique, 28, wrote in the May 16 post.

“One of the most beautiful sites ever. And YES I ALMOST DIED GETTING UP THERE LOL. #Balidays we made it, WHEW.”

She also posted another picture on the photo-sharing site of the sun rising over a blanket of clouds.

She described the sight as “unreal.”

What legal experts saw as truly unreal, however, is the younger Sharpton’s brazen boasting after she claimed in court papers that she was in “permanent physical pain.”

“It is starting to look like Tawana Brawley is orchestrating the Sharpton trial strategy,” quipped CNN legal analyst Paul Callan. “It graphically demonstrates bad judgment and good feet. It all adds up to no case.”

Read More: The NY Post

Reagan's Trickle Down Economics vs Obama's Trickle Down Socialism

Ronald Reagan’s economic plan saw GDP surge at a 3.5% clip – 4.9% after the recession. That’s a 32% bump.

During the Obama years, thanks to his big government policies, the US economy has stalled. Today the quarterly GDP was announced. The GDP for the first quarter of 2015 braked more sharply than expected at only a .2% pace. The US economy has grown an anemic 9.6% during the Obama years (excluding today’s dismal number).

Of course, Obama’s record on job growth is also much worse than President Reagan’s record.

Net job growth has declined under Obama. By the end of the second year of their terms as president, economic growth under Reagan averaged 7.1% , under Obama an anemic 2.8%.

And today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978 during the Carter years.

via: The Gateway Pundit 

The Debate is Over and the Science is Settled we now know Climate Change is a Lie

John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel in 1980, says that the theories of man-made climate change are no longer credible in light of the so-called hiatus in rising temperatures, not to mention that “polar ice is increasing, not melting away.” Coleman adds, “Polar Bears are increasing in number.”

“Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing),” Coleman recently said.

“I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid,” he declared.

Coleman insists that there is no credible evidence of man-made warming, nor has there ever been. He also says that the theory that carbon dioxide is a pollutant has not been substantiated scientifically.

“There has been no warming over 18 years,” Coleman said.

Coleman said he bases his conclusions on the very Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that climate change believers say proves their case.


A recent article in The New York Post pointed out that last year’s hurricane season was one of the quietest years since 1960, despite global warming advocates insisting that every manner of weather event is supposed to be increasing beyond normal rates.

Read More: Breitbart

Valerie Jarrett vs Hillary Clinton the Ugly and the Angry

President Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.

But she did so through people outside the ­administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.

In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been ­going on at the State Department. I’m told that the email scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come.

Members of Bill Clinton’s camp say the former president suspects the White House is the source of the leak and is furious.

“My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us,” one of Bill’s friends quotes him as saying. “The Obamas are behind the email story, and they’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department who’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up diplomatic messes Hillary left behind.”

Then, according to this source, Bill added: “The Obamas are out to get us any way they can.”

The sabotage is part of an ­ongoing feud between the two Democrat powerhouses.

Last fall, during the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, Jarrett was heard to complain bitterly that the Clintons were turning congressmen, senators, governors and grassroots party members against Obama by portraying him as an unpopular president who was an albatross around the neck of the party.

Jarrett was said to be livid that most Democrats running for election refused to be seen campaigning with the president. She blamed the Clintons for marginalizing the president and for trying to wrest control of the Democratic Party away from Obama.

And she vowed payback.

My sources say Jarrett saw an opportunity to hit back hard when Monica Lewinsky suddenly resurfaced after years of living in obscurity. Jarrett discreetly put out word to some friendly members of the press that the White House would look with favor if they gave Monica some ink and airtime.

Relations have gotten even frostier in the past few months.

After the Democrats took a shellacking in the midterms, the White House scheduled a meeting with Hillary Clinton. When she showed up in the Oval Office, she was greeted by three people — the president, Jarrett and Michelle Obama.

With his wife and Jarrett looking on, Obama made it clear that he intended to stay neutral in the presidential primary process — a clear signal that he wouldn’t mind if someone challenged Hillary for the nomination.

“Obama and Valerie Jarrett will go to any lengths to prevent Hillary from becoming president,” a source close to the White House told me. “They believe that Hillary, like her husband, is left of center, not a true-blue liberal.”

via: The New York Post

Mother of the Year catches her son Rioting in Baltimore

The Race Hustling MSNBC Tax Cheats are just the Tip of the Liberal Hypocrisy Iceberg

The fact that four MSNBC stars, all of whom must earn a pretty sweet 1% living, do not pay their taxes, should surprise no one. The Left is now officially the Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do Party on all issues, not just taxes, but also feminism, the environment, political contributions, and corporate windfalls.

As long as your politics are correct, if you are a Leftist-in-good-standing, no one in the media or on the Left cares about your hypocrisy. NRO’s Victor Davis Hanson laid this out brilliantly Monday:

Frequent White House guest Al Sharpton is a tax cheat, a homophobe, and an inciter of riot and mayhem, with a long history of racial disparagement. But he knows that all that private sin is contextualized by his loud sermonizing on the supposed racism of white America. Eric Holder can fly his daughters and their boyfriends to the Belmont Stakes on a government jet — but only because he is Eric Holder, who periodically blasts America’s supposed ethical reactionaries. …

Al Gore is so worried about how corporate culture promotes damage to the planet that he was forced to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars for his own green corporations to warn us about other such cynics. He is so shocked about CO2 emissions and the global petroleum culture that he unloaded his underperforming and overpriced cable channel to a carbon-exporting, anti-Jewish autocratic sheikhdom that paid him handsomely with its petrodollars. …

Michelle and Barack Obama are so concerned about global warming that not long ago they left two huge carbon footprints, when simultaneously they took separate government jumbo jets to fly out to Los Angeles to appear on separate talk shows. This was worthy of Leonardo DiCaprio, who on his private jet flew to conferences on the carbon excesses of hoi polloi. Elizabeth Warren is so committed to a fair and just society where egalitarianism is the shared goal, and where we assume that no one creates anything without the government, that she and her husband often augmented the generous incomes from their Harvard law professorships with lucrative corporate consulting to achieve 1 percenter status, with nearly $1 million in annual income.

Out of one side of her mouth, Hillary Clinton blasts money in politics while planning on raising a record $2.5 billion to become president. And how about the fact that her husband, a Neanderthal when it comes to women, passes muster with feminists.

via: Breitbart

Some of the Fantastic Predictions from Earth Day 1970

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 45th anniversary of  Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 15 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

Read More: The American Enterprise Institute

VIDEO College students give their best reasons for electing Hillary

Hillary's Campaign just might be built on Quicksand

If Hillary intends to build her campaign around an appeal to women, her campaign theme is on quicksand. But for Hillary to be defeated, Republicans must attack this perceived strength by educating the public to the plain truth: Hillary is a life-time abuser of women and her advocacy on women issues rings hollow. While core Democratic women will not be weaned from the former First Lady, a large percentage of younger independent women can be persuaded against her by the truth.

For instance, while Hillary gives lip service to pay equality, her Senate office paid women 72 cents on the dollar compared to men. Even worse, the median salary for women was less than $15,000 of the median salary for men.

The Clinton Foundation’s record is even worse. In 2013, eight of the top eleven most highly compensated individuals were men. The gender pay gap also widened every year during the period of 2011-2013; in 2011 women earned 77 percent of men’s income, in 2012 women earned 71 percent of men’s income and in 2013 women earned less than 65 percent of their male counterparts. Hillary often forgets that hypocrisy is not a virtue.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation has pocketed millions of dollars from foreign Muslim regimes that oppress women. Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar and the Arab Emirates have funneled millions to the Clintons.

These countries all deny women the most basic of human rights: the right to an education, the right to drive a car, the right to choose her own husband – even the right to show her face. They condone caning and stoning women accused of adultery. Their cash is tainted with the blood of women abused, but Hillary’s foundation still accepts it. Hypocrisy anyone?

Then there is Hillary’s role in denigrating victims of Bill Clinton’s serial sexual abuse and authorizing heavy handed  tactics to silence the victims of Bill’s assaults. Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathy Willey all alleged they were assaulted by Bill Clinton. Sometimes he just exposed himself and demanded oral sex.

Hillary “is the war on women, as far as I’m concerned, because with every woman that she’s found out about—and she made it a point to find out who every woman had been that’s crossed his path over the years—she’s orchestrated a terror campaign against every one of these women, including me,” said Willey.

Instead of outrage against her husband for being a sexual predator, Hillary repeatedly smeared and attacked Bill’s victims. Hillary called Monica Lewinsky, a “narcissistic looney toon” in private conversations with confidante Diane Blair. She called Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash.” Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick said Hillary Clinton threatened her in person only two weeks after she was violated by Bill Clinton.

Hillary’s strong handed tactics against abused women were not just used for Bill. When Sen. Bob Packwood was accused of sexual harassment by a group of women in 1993, Clinton told Blair she was “tired of all those whiney women and she needs (Packwood) on health care.” So much for sisterhood.

Read the rest of the story on: Breitbart

Ted Cruz on the Larry Kudlow Show April 11 2015

Video JC Watts on what makes Rand Paul Unique

FUNNY but TRUE VIDEO Ordering a Gay Cake at a Muslin Bakery

How to Create a Socialist State by Hillary's Hero Saul Alinsky

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky: There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important. 1) Healthcare  Control healthcare and you control the people 2) Poverty   Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live. 3) Debt   Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty. 4) Gun Control  Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state. 5) Welfare   Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income) 6) Education   Take control of what people read and listen to  take control of what children learn in school. 7) Religion   Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools 8) Class Warfare   Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor. Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States ? Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots."  The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.  If  people  can read this and still say everything is just fine they are useful idiots. "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

Historically Black Colleges and Universities say Obama has Fallen Short

The country’s first African American president is finding himself increasingly at odds with a cornerstone of the African American community: historically black colleges and universities.
Leaders at these schools and some black lawmakers say the Obama administration has been pushing policies for years that hurt students at a time when historically black colleges are already cash-strapped and seeing a drop in enrollment.

Tensions spilled over after a recent Congressional Black Caucus meeting with Obama and Vice President Biden in which the president said that historically black schools, also known as HBCUs, needed to do a better job graduating students and not saddling them with debt, according to several people at the meeting. Some Black Caucus members bristled at those remarks since they say the president didn’t acknowledge that his own administration was also pursuing policies that advocates say are hurting the schools.

“The president thinks that HBCUs — and there may in fact be some — are failing our students,” said Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio), who was in attendance. “But there needs to be an open dialogue about higher education and why HBCUs have historically gotten short shrift when it comes to resources and recognition.”

On Friday, President Obama visited Benedict College, a historically black, liberal arts college in Columbia, S.C., as part of a push for his initiative called “My Brother’s Keeper” aimed at helping young black men.

But he did not mention historically black schools that have been hailed for their work educating young African Americans. Many of the schools are strapped for cash after years of financial mismanagement, poor alumni giving and fluctuating levels of government support. They are seeing a drop in enrollment, and many are struggling to graduate students on time.


Critics of the administration say that rather than help these schools at a time of acute need, the president keeps ignoring them or enacting policies that hurt them.

Read More: The Washington Post

EPA Chief Gina McCarthy is another Clueless Left Wing Idiot

Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, can't answer basic questions about global temperatures, climate models or numbers of hurricanes. She didn't know being a global warming zealot requires knowledge of math.

If the science of climate change was "settled," you'd think one of the generals in the war on global warming would have memorized the numbers that point to our planetary doom from a menace the administration says is a greater threat than terrorism.

But McCarthy was asked some pretty simple questions Wednesday at a Senate hearing Wednesday on her request for $8.6 billion to help fight the claimed imminent doom of climate change, and her performance didn't help her case.

One of the questions involved droughts and the claim that their frequency has increased due to warming that is said to be caused by mankind's increased production of greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, the basis for all life on Earth but judged by the EPA to be a pollutant.

"Let me ask you this," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., inquired of McCarthy. "There was an article from Mr. (Bjorn) Lomborg ... from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. (Roger) Pielke from Colorado, that we've had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?"

The seemingly clueless McCarthy pathetically responded that she didn't "know in what context he's making statements like that." Context? Truth has its own context, and the inconvenient truth that McCarthy wasn't aware of, or didn't want to face, is that Pielke and Lomborg are right.

Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado, told the Senate environment and public works subcommittee in July 2013 that droughts have "for the most part become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century." Globally, he said, "there has been little change in drought over the last 60 years."

Sessions also asked McCarthy if we've had more or fewer hurricanes in the last decade. It was another question she said she couldn't answer because "it's a very complicated issue." Well, no, not unless basic math is a complicated issue. Sessions noted that we have in fact gone nearly a decade without a Category 3 storm or higher making landfall in the U.S.

The last hurricane to hit America as a Category 3 or higher was Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. Superstorm Sandy had wind speeds barely reaching Category 1 status when it slammed into New Jersey in 2012 and wreaked havoc.

Sessions inquired of the global temperatures that have virtually flatlined for two decades:

"Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years, that the increase in temperatures has been very little, matter of fact 90% below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?"

McCarthy replied that she didn't know "what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to."

Sessions called her ignorance and inability to outline the danger we supposedly face from climate change, as well as her failure to justify the EPA's funding request, a "stunning development." So do we.

The science is indeed settled, but not the way climate zealots think. McCarthy's lack of knowledge and facts on her side only underscores the fact we have wasted billions on fighting a nonexistent threat and shackled our economy with lower growth and higher job loss.

Thank You: Investors Business Daily