Archive for the ‘America’s Future’ Category

Communist icon lets cat out of bag on U.S. ‘refugees’

Angela Davis
University professor and former Communist Party USA leader Angela Davis said in an interview that the refugee movement “is the movement of the 21st century” for radicals such as herself.

The 1960s’ queen of counter-culture activism was filmed walking through the streets of Berlin, Germany, during a May 14-15 visit listening to the problems encountered by African refugees living in the city. Many have been squatting in a former school since December 2012, but Davis was not allowed in, so she talked with refugee activists outside the front gate.

International Women Space, a left-of-center group, posted the video on Vimeo, showing the refugees voicing concerns about the German government with regard to their “demands for a school to be transformed into a community center for refugees,” Davis said.

The refugee activists told Davis of their demands for better health care, housing and food.

They complained of having to sleep 15 to a room in cramped quarters.

“Even German animals are living better than we refugees,” one man told Davis. “The dogs and cats that German people have, they have special food for them. They have …”

“Thank you so much, for telling us about your experiences here, and about the struggle around the school here,” Davis said.

“We know that the demands were to create a community center, a cultural center, that would be available to refugees, and of course the demands of the refugee movement are far vaster, because human beings deserve to be treated as human beings. All human beings deserve jobs, and housing and health care. So I want you to know that we are with you in your struggle,” David told the group. “And that we will take this information back to the United States and encourage people to support you as you move forward.

“As I was saying in the other meeting, the refugee movement is the movement of the 21st century. It’s the movement that is challenging the effects of global capitalism. It’s the movement that is calling for civil rights for all human beings, so thank you very much and good luck with your work.”

Watch video clip of Angela Davis speaking to African refugees in Berlin, Germany last week:

Davis, 71, headed the feminist studies program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, following her time as a leader in the Communist Party USA.

Davis, who came out as a lesbian in 1997, has also lectured as a visiting professor at Agnes Scott College in Atlanta, San Francisco State, Stanford University, Brown University and several other colleges. Earlier this year, she came to speak at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, a conservative suburban community just north of Atlanta. The university paid her $20,000 to speak and encountered a backlash from local Republicans.

Davis left the Communist Party in the 1990s to help found the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which broke from the Communist Party USA because of the latter’s support of the Soviet coup attempt of 1991, according to Amy Lind’s 2008 book, “Battleground: Women, Gender and Sexuality.”

Davis encouraged the refugees in Germany to cultivate “a culture of resistance” focused on community organizing.

Since the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi in Libya and the resulting struggle for power there, Muslim refugees have been flooding from north Africa into Europe. Recently they have been arriving in boats at a rate of several thousand per week, overwhelming Italy especially.

Italy has taken in the boat people, offering food and temporary shelter while aiming to get fellow European countries to help with placement into permanent communities. Native-born populations have been divided in how to deal with the explosion in migrants coming into Europe but, like in the United States, any movement to block the entry of the refugees is met with accusations of racism and bigotry.

The U.S. takes in more United Nations refugees than any other country at about 70,000 per year.

But refugees are increasingly becoming politically active, as evidenced by their meeting with a professional Marxist organizer like Davis.

And it’s not only happening in Germany. Similar demands have been made among Somali refugees in Minnesota, where late last year a group of Somali women demanded that the county commissioners of Hennepin County stock the local food pantry with halal meat in accordance with Islamic dietary laws. Somali refugees in Seattle demanded better access to government-subsidized housing.

Passing the torch to a new generation

“The movements get recreated every generation,” Davis told the refugees in Germany. “Those today, they are the grandchildren of the activists back then, through organization, through music, the desire to resist, to speak out against the racism. Also the organizers. The organizers like you.”

She then issued more advice: Be tolerant of differing opinions and priorities among activists and avoid in-fighting against each other.

“There are always going to be contradictions. You have to work with those contradictions. … You don’t want everyone to think the same. You figure out how to work with those contradictions and make them productive.”

Davis was arrested, charged, tried and acquitted of conspiracy in the 1970 armed take-over of a Marin County courtroom, in which four people died.

Davis was closely tied to the Black Panther Party through her involvement in the civil rights movement in the late 1960s. She visited Cuba after her release from prison in the early 1970s and declared it a racism-free society.

“Only under socialism could the fight against racism be successfully executed,” she said, according to Mark Sawyer’s 2006 book, “Racial Politics in Post-Revolutionary Cuba.”

Her interests have included prisoner rights, Palestinian rights and now refugee rights. She is a retired professor and distinguished professor emerita with the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She was a distinguished visiting professor at Syracuse University in spring of 1992 and again in October 2010.

‘Excited’ to be teaching Marxism to young minds

Her research interests are feminism, African-American studies, critical theory, Marxism, popular music, social consciousness and the philosophy and history of punishment and prisons. Her membership in the Communist Party led to Ronald Reagan’s request in 1969 to have her barred from teaching at any university in the state of California. She was twice a candidate for vice president on the Communist Party USA ticket during the 1980s.

In a 1989 interview recorded for Washington University Libraries, Davis talked about her early days as a community organizer with the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee in Los Angeles.

“And I was very excited about the work that we were able to do in the community,” she said. “Within a very short period of time we had hundreds of active members of the organization. I was the head of the Liberation School which I found extremely exciting, because I had always felt somewhat uncomfortable in the purely academic environment there I was able to teach Marx to community people, to young people.”


Obama Admin. Releases 2,300 Regs Before Memorial Day Weekend – That Kills more of Our Liberty

by Courtney Coren
The Obama administration released its spring regulatory agenda Friday, including its costliest regulation to date, just as Americans are getting ready to celebrate the long Memorial Day weekend.

The Spring 2015 Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan includes more than 2,300 regulations that are in a variety of phases and also includes the administration’s plans for implementing the various regulations going forward, The Daily Caller is reporting.

This is not the first time the Obama administration has released its regulatory agenda right before a major holiday, when such things might go unnoticed.

In 2014, the fall regulatory agenda was released right before Thanksgiving Day and the spring agenda was also released right before Memorial Day weekend.

While the number of regulations are down compared to the agenda released in the fall, The Daily Caller notes that the most recent edition contains what could be the most expensive regulation in U.S. history, which is a proposed change to the ozone pollution standards by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Under the EPA’s proposal, the national ambient ozone standard will be reduced from 75 parts per billion to 65 to 70 parts per billion.

This reduction, the EPA claims, will result in significantly fewer asthma attacks each year — from 320,000 to 960,000. It will also help prevent “more than 750 to 4,300 premature deaths; 1,400 to 4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits; and 65,000 to 180,000 missed workdays.”

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote in an opinion piece for CNN when the rule was first released in November 2014 that the reason for the proposed change is “to clean up our air, improve access to crucial air quality information, and protect those most at-risk — our children, our elderly, and people already suffering from lung diseases like asthma.”

“Bringing ozone pollution standards in line with the latest science is more than just a legal requirement; it empowers the American people,” McCarthy added.
Special: New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm
States will be given until 2020 to 2037 to make the necessary changes to meet the new air quality standards.

However, the American Action Forum issued a report in January saying that the rules are so extreme that even national parks would struggle to comply.

“Hardly transportation corridors and centers of heavy pollution, many observers would be surprised to know that Death Valley National Park, Sequoia National Park, and Cape Cod National Seashore have ozone readings of 71 to 87 ppb,” AAF wrote.

The National Association of Manufacturers issued a report predicting that the EPA’s proposed ozone pollution standard will reduce the GDP by $140 billion per year from 2017 to 2040 for a total of $1.7 trillion, making it the “costliest” regulation in U.S. history.

In addition, NAM says that the regulation will also “eliminate 1.4 million job equivalents per year.”

The group also argues that if the current rules on the books were just left the way they are, that alone would help improve air quality.

“Ozone-forming emissions have already been cut in half since 1980, and dozens of regulations already on the books will drive improvements to ozone levels over the next decade,” NAM wrote in its report.

“If the EPA simply let the current law be implemented, emissions would be cut by another 36 percent from current levels. In some parts of the country, air quality is already at or approaching background or natural levels.”
Special: What the Bible Says About Investing (Shocking)
According to The Daily Caller, the EPA has said that the cost of reaching the new air quality standards will only be $16.6 billion, but the health benefits will be worth $38 billion.

Read Latest Breaking News from

Dr. Ben Carson Wins Georgia Straw Poll for President in Stunning Landslide!

by Onan Coca

Where might you expect to find Dr. Ben Carson’s stronghold of support? Look no further than the deep south, where in my home state of Georgia, the GOP Presidential candidate scored a stunning victory in the 2015 Georgia State Convention Straw Poll. Dr. Carson won just over 76% of the convention vote easily dominating Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) who came in 2nd and 3rd with 7% and 6% of the vote respectively. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) rounded out the top 5 in support.

The poll results were reported on the Facebook page of the Georgia Association of Republican County Chairmen with a special editorial comment congratulating Dr. Carson’s supporters who spread the poll around on social media.

While the Carson campaign can take some comfort in the win, the straw poll is hardly scientific, and at the end of the day, Georgians are much more likely to support a known-quantity like Scott Walker or Marco Rubio or perhaps even Mike Huckabee. Dr. Carson is exactly the kind of candidate that Georgia Republicans like to vote for, but his recent slip ups make the odds of that far less likely.


Grassroots Movement in Alaska Kills Agenda 21

by Tim Brown
I recently reported on the Solutions Institute, which has developed a networking system for those who want to build a coalition of like-minded, grassroots activists to advance their cause. While this can work for the wrong reasons in some cases, if good people, who advance good ideas use the tool, much can be accomplished. For example, a recent victory occurred in Alaska involving Agenda 21 and the people involved stood together because one person took a stand.

The people of Borough of Kodiak, Alaska shot down a zoning bill, which would have greatly restricted their property rights and made a terrible transformation to their community.
According to the Solutions Institute issued a press release:
Many residents were deeply concerned, but a coalition did not exist. Activism brought these people together, and all who contributed to the bill’s defeat are to be commended for defending long-standing property rights. SI provided assistance, but the individuals who devoted their time and resources to the cause carried the day for Kodiak.
The following video was inspired by local activist Jamie Fagan’s own words about how the people shutdown Agenda 21 in their town.

Fagan had heard the founder of Solutions Institute, Dan Johnson, speak and began a local chapter to fight against the National Defense Authorization Act’s Indefinite Detention. Rosa Koire’s book Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21 also was being read by Fagan at the time.
Though Fagan was able to put an anti-NDAA resolution before the city council, it ultimately failed to pass by a vote of 3 to 4.
However, Fagan had Johnson and Koire come in and give presentations for both causes and it panned out that a network of supporters totaling just 150 were brought together via email.

After the defeat of the resolution, Fagan said that his core group, which amounted to around 6 to 8 people, would have to wait another year to present the resolution again to the city council, and so they didn’t know what else to do at the time. But that soon changed.
“It came to our attention in October that many sections of the proposed code revision were absolutely horrific,” Fagan wrote. “I also learned that Rosa Koire knew our Community Development Director, Bob Pederson, during his stint as CDD in Island County WA. She made no bones about how she felt about him. She feels he ought to be locked up for the horrible things he did as CDD in Island County. Many others in Island County feel the same way.”
“Some of the other people who had been loosely following Kodiak PANDA, whom I did not know at the time, got in touch with me about the code revision,” Fagan added. “Many people worked very hard reading and scrutinizing the 340 pages of bureaucrat-speak. It turns out that many people had been fighting this code for a few years, but they did not have the organization or numbers to make much of a difference. Thanks to a lot of hard work, we were able to put together a list of the worst parts of the proposed code revision and mail them out to all 5500 Kodiak addresses. Also, several people ran radio and newspaper ads pointing out the worst of the code. Many others were handing out flyers and collecting signatures on a petition to defeat this code. The combination of all of these things, plus the fact that many people in Kodiak has already been aware of the horrific nature of this new code, lit off an unbelievable and unprecedented firestorm of support to defeat it. People who have lived in Kodiak over 50 years and who are very politically active say they have never seen anything like it!”
From these small efforts, Fagan and his group grew to over 400 people! That’s roughly 3% of the population of the island, and between 20-30% of the voting population.
Though some members of the Borough Assembly spoke about resurrecting the code revisions, Fagan believes it will be all talk. On the other hand, I am not one that is so optimistic. However, the people do believe that those in office will not stay in office in the next election.
Here is a perfect example of what can be accomplished when the people put their feet to the ground and fight against the corruption in government. They not only take a stand, but they retain their freedoms in the midst of that stand and noticeably others join in.
Well done Kodiak!


GHETTOS AREN’T AN ACCIDENT: They Were Created By Liberals



I’m Standing With Pat


I am proud to say I have been a viewer, reader, and supporter of Pat Buchanan for decades.  I have watched all the different shows that he has either participated in or founded.  His career as a commentator has stretched from the 1970’s with his radio program the Buchanan – Barden Program and his commentaries for NBC.  His work in television has helped shape a whole industry of imitators.  He founded Crossfire on CNN and was a founding member of the McLaughlin Group.  He was also a founding member of the Capital Gang on PBS.

As a journalist he started at 23 as the youngest editorial writer on a major newspaper in America: The St. Louis Globe-Democrat.  He then became the first full-time staffer on Richard Nixon’s legendary comeback campaign in 1966.  He traveled with the future President in the campaigns of 1966 and 1968, served as special assistant through the final days of Watergate, and stayed on in the Ford White House until 1974.  He returned to the White House in the 1980’s as Communications Director for Ronald Reagan.

In his White House years, Mr. Buchanan wrote foreign policy speeches, and attended four summits, including Mr. Nixon’s historic opening to China in 1972, and Ronald Reagan’s Reykjavik summit in1986 with Mikhail Gorbachev.

In 1992 Pat made a heroic run for the presidency against President George H. W. Bush, seriously challenging Bush, and winning 38 percent of the votes in the New Hampshire primary garnering more than three million total votes in the primaries.  His speech, the Culture War speech, at the Republican Convention still stirs the hearts of Americans.

In 1996 he ran for the presidency again.  His opponents were Senator Bob Dole, Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, and publisher Steve Forbes.  Pat defeated Senator Bob Dole in the New Hampshire primary, he won three other states (Alaska, Missouri, and Louisiana), and finished only slightly behind Dole in the Iowa caucus.  He eventually bowed out of the race when it became apparent that Dole, the establishment candidate was going to win the nomination.

In 2000 Pat ran for President as the candidate of the Reform Party, which had been founded by Ross Perot in the 1990’s.  He lost this bid receiving 449,895 votes, 0.4% of the popular vote.

Pat has written ten books, including six straight New York Times best sellers A Republic, Not an Empire; The Death of the West; Where the Right Went Wrong; State of Emergency; Day of Reckoning and Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War.  All of which I have read and highly recommend.  His newest book is The Greatest Comeback.

He is the founder of The American Conservative the flagship magazine for paleoconservative thought and his editorials are found all over the web.

In other words Pat Buchanan, in my estimation, is a national treasure and the Godfather of the Paleoconservative.  As I said, I am proud to identify as a follower of Pat Buchanan, his politics, and his thoughts.

In its effort to mobilize support for the latest round of Free Trade giveaways that bastion of Neocon Globalization, the Wall Street Journal has tried to use Pat Buchanan as a whipping boy. They have tried to lay the blame for their own pet policies at the door of the one man who more than anyone else has tried to warn us about the very consequences that are dragging us from the first world to the third.

In an editorial dated May 10th 2015 the Journal said:

Here we go again. In the 1990s Pat Buchanan launched a civil war within the Republican Party on a platform targeting immigration and trade. Some claimed Pitchfork Pat was the future of the GOP, though in the end he mainly contributed to its presidential defeats.

In the waning days of the Obama Presidency the GOP’s Buchanan wing is making a comeback, and in ways that are revealing about its ultimate agenda. The leader of this movement in Congress is Jeff Sessions, who has long railed against illegal immigration but since becoming chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on immigration has taken a more public stance against legal immigration.

Now he’s opposing the bipartisan effort to pass trade promotion authority and in the process showing that his objections aren’t only about the law or immigrants. They’re rooted in the same hostility to markets and globalization that animates the slow-growth Democratic left.

This is like the man who convinced you to sell your house for a bag of magic beans blaming the man who told you a house is worth more than beans for you ending up with a bag of beans.

Pat warned us about NAFTA, GATT and MFN for China.  He told us these things would lead to the gutting of American manufacturing.  The Wall Street Journal and the Amen Choir over at the Chamber of Commerce cheered them on.  What has been the result?  Between 2000 and 2010, 55,000 U.S. factories closed and 5 million to 6 million manufacturing jobs disappeared along with the middle class lives they used to provide.

Since these Free Trade boondoggles have been shoved down our throats we have consistently run multibillion dollar trade deficits with China. Last year’s deficit was $325 billion, or twice China’s defense budget. It is all this money draining from our economy to China’s that allows them to build a world-class military that is poised to challenge America for supremacy in Asia.

The Journal accuses Pat of being anti-growth. However as Pat points out,  “as trade surpluses add to a nation’s GDP, trade deficits subtract from it. Does the Journal think our $11 trillion in trade deficits since 1992 represents a pro-growth policy?”

Back in 1992 when there were 3 or 4 million illegals in America. Pat campaigned to secure the borders.  That didn’t happen and now there are 11, 12, who knows how many million illegals and more pouring in every day.  Is this good for America or is it bad?  The Journal and the open borders crowd call Pat a xenophobe.  I call him a patriot.

Pat has also called for a moratorium on immigration as we had from 1924-1965 so that those who are here can be assimilated and become Americanized.  I believe that one reason America is great, one reason why we have developed the most vibrant and lively society in the History of the world is because we have subsumed the best people from everywhere.  All of us except the Native Americans are immigrants.  We have come from every country on the globe.  And together we have morphed into one people.  We used to brag about the great melting pot of American society.  This is what Pat is urging we once again use to incubate our newer arrivals as they become us.  Instead the Journal and the other hyphenated American cheerleaders urge us to become a smelting pot leading to what Teddy Roosevelt called, a “polyglot boarding-house”

Now that 100% of the job growth since 2000 has gone to immigrants.  Now that illegals feel secure enough to emerge from the shadows and hold public demonstrations outside the White House as well as in the middle of major cities.  Now that schools are forced to teach in dozens sometimes hundreds of different languages. Now that more than 60.6 million or 20.8 or 1/5 of American households do not speak English in their homes.  Now that this is the reality we all face who was right about the open borders?  Pat who wanted us to take a break and assimilate our new arrivals or those who wanted the cheap labor and the support of undocumented voters?

What about our rapidly deteriorating foreign policy?  Pat supported the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan but counseled a quick withdrawal once its objectives had been met.  He opposed the invasion of Iraq pointing out that this country had not attacked us and did not pose a threat to our vital interests.  The Neocon leadership still has us nation building in Afghanistan, and Iraq has become the quagmire Pat predicted.

If we had been following Pat’s advice on trade, immigration, and foreign policy we would be safer, richer, and more secure.

If the Neocons are going to use Pat Buchanan as a whipping boy they should know there are those who see him for what he really is: a visionary, a leader, a patriot, and a great American.  So when it comes to the current debate over who lost America I’m standing where I have for decades.  I’m standing with Pat.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ © 2015 Contact Dr. Owens Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens


a_75Debt-free-students_1By John F. Di Leo – Cheering graduates

Hillary Clinton, Marty O’Malley, Liz Warren, and other 2016 Democrat candidates for the presidency are apparently trying to differentiate themselves from the real-world economics of Republicans by returning to the tried-and-true method of promising to rob Peter to pay Paul, while giving the impression that YOU don’t have to worry, because, dear voter, YOU’LL never be Peter.

The latest method is in capitalizing on the headlines about crippling college debt by setting “debt free college” as their goal.

Now, as far as that goes, it’s a perfectly worthy goal. “Pay as you go” living has always been the responsible advice of our sage elders; youths are told not to charge clothing and restaurant dining to a charge card, and to reserve long-term loans to things that retain their value for years, like houses and cars. A good college education – the right college education, at least – would seemingly belong in that list.

But there is a problem: this college debt is crippling many of our college graduates, often exacting a far greater toll than the product may seem to be worth. That is indeed a problem worthy of consideration by government, if only to see whether existing government policies might be partially to blame, and might be worthy of adjustment in light of the facts.

The Democrat Approach

At this writing, the Clinton campaign is not yet spelling out exactly what The Unavoidable One’s proposals will be if she manages to successfully replace The Anointed One in 2017. Perhaps they have learned one lesson from the Obamacare fiasco: that you need to sell the plan first, and hold back the details until after passage, when it’s too late for the public to do anything about their buyers’ remorse.

To the extent that we can handicap it, though… judging from past history, what Democrats will propose is what they always propose: a combination of price controls and government money. Since the federal government’s support for massive unsecured loans has helped cause tuition prices to skyrocket in the first place, they will imagine, foolishly, that federal government support for more grants instead won’t produce the exact same result.

The federal government already plays quite a role in college pricing, because of the concept of the FAFSA, a mathematical calculation based on a combination of family income and net worth (excluding retirement accounts) and the number of children in college the same year. The government determines what they think the family should be able to scrape together each year, and then the college uses that figure to try to build a mixture of federal and state grants, loans, and the college’s own merit and aid contributions (from its endowment) to bring down the student’s actual cost.

The government approves unsecured loans for college students that no sane lender would approve without that government guarantee; the college views this as a license to raise tuition to whatever the loan, along with everything else, will cover. Can we blame the college? And does anyone objectively think this cornucopia of money has helped the situation?

If these Democrats are serious about wanting college to be debt-free, they’ll likely begin by moving the student loan portion over to the grant column, which will cost the taxpayers far more, without eliminating the root cause of the high price of education.

The fact is, any seller will charge what the market will bear, so, as long as the government is committed to making up the difference somehow, whether it’s in the form of loans or grants won’t change the fact that the market will bear it. So tuition will continue to increase, and the taxpayer burden will continue to rise unabated.

The Democrat approach will therefore have to eventually include price controls, declaring that unlimited tuition prices are inconsistent with the idea of every American’s right to a master’s degree in underwater basketweaving. Eventually – maybe by the general election, maybe by the end of the primaries, maybe even by the Iowa caucuses if The Unavoidable One is in trouble – they will have to declare tuition caps.

Since many colleges won’t be able to survive on such a one-size-fits-all approach, many will go under, and either close their doors or merge with other colleges or be taken over by the government. Everything that’s been happening to hospitals since the passage of Obamacare will now happen to colleges. Won’t that be lovely.

In the healthcare debate, we were reminded that after a certain age, the Left doesn’t think it’s worthwhile to keep spending money on operations for a patient, so the government should just focus on relieving the pain (the Resident of the White House said “Maybe you just take a pill for that” instead of getting cured, if memory serves).

And since the Left doesn’t think that some people are worth caring for in their youth either, every insurance program must allow for abortion, to hopefully discourage people from bringing children into the world who will someday need operations, or welfare, or other public costs. That’s just how they address these issues.

Eventually, therefore the Democratic approach will have to be to ration service here too. It’s fanciful to imagine that it wouldn’t be. It’s a lot easier to make the math work in this elusive goal of debt-free college if you just make sure that far fewer people go to college in the first place.

Don’t have money in the federal budget for two million college students? Okay, just cap it at one million. Or half a million. Or eventually, a quarter million. When faceless strangers’ lives are just a part of a bureaucracy’s budget, it’s easy for those bureaucrats to just remove them from the equation.

In the Democratic model, the only way to promise debt-free education is to limit who gets one. Whether they admit it or not, it’s the only way.

The Real Problem

In some ways, the college affordability crisis is even worse than the healthcare crisis, though the Left would never admit to the reasons why. There are many reasons, but they can be boiled down to these:

1) The government is even more in control of schools, so, like everything the government touches, the financing model is illogical. Most states operate huge state colleges that spend copious government dollars irresponsibly, allowing professors who could teach four or five courses to get away with just teaching three, or two, or one, while still drawing a full salary, incredible vacation time and other benefits, and often even free housing.

These huge state schools then set the bar, and wealthy premium private colleges match or exceed them.

And then even private colleges and states that would, if operating in a vacuum, be inclined to be more responsible, must offer similar deals to their own staff and administration. The government’s massive involvement in the higher education market is the cause, not the solution, for high higher education costs as well.

2) The current funding system rewards tuition increases. Since aid is pinned to the FAFSA’s “estimated family contribution” anyway, a higher tuition bill doesn’t mean that a college loses customers, it just means that the college gets more of its payment from government than it gets from parents. They’re fine with that. Government doesn’t lose its job in a recession and become unable to pay. Government doesn’t get a divorce that suddenly doubles the family’s housing costs, squeezing the ability to pay for expensive tuition for the eldest kids.

No, the colleges are happy to have the dependable checks of a government payer, rather than having to worry through the constant private sector reality of an Accounts Payable slate that’s often in arrears. Since the EFC stays flat, the more the college raises its price, the more of its balance sheet comes from the much more dependable government checkbook. So, to the extent that tuition is too high (and in many cases, it is, but not in all), the federal government funding system is the cause, not the solution, for high higher education pricing.

3) Like all numbers, such terms as “cost” and “price” and even “debt” are actually relative terms. A $35,000/year college price is an excellent deal if the graduate soon earns $100,000/year as a chemical engineer, or $150,000 or $200,000/year as a surgeon. The same $35,000/year college price, however, would be a terrible deal if the graduate earns $12,000/year as a part time burger-flipper, or nothing at all as an unpaid Clinton campaign intern.

The simple fact is, the cost of a college degree isn’t objectively affordable or unaffordable, just because a campaign speech can pass it off as such. It’s all subjective.

A college degree is objectively worth the price if the person obtaining it can use it to greatly enhance his future earnings. Right now, too many can not use it for that purpose… some, because they’re obtaining degrees undesired by the employment marketplace, but most, because the economy is just horrific.

With ninety million people outside the workforce – with established businesses closing at a faster clip than new business are starting up – with families burning through their retirement savings due to years of unemployment and underemployment, to such a level that no politician of either party even dares use the real numbers – is it any wonder that any high dollar expenditure is out of reach of ever more Americans?

Foreclosures are high because people can’t afford their homes; hospital bills go unpaid because people can’t afford to pay them; dental work is put off because people can’t afford the braces or crowns they need.

In the final analysis, college prices, and even college debts, are all relative. For the micro-economic level of the college student studying a major in demand, there’s no crisis in college pricing. For the micro-economic level of the college student studying a major that’s not in demand, just being a better shopper, a wiser consumer, might have gotten him the degree elsewhere for half the price.

It’s at the macro-economic level that the federal government should focus. It’s government policies, after all, that have so wrecked the economy that there are few jobs even for talented, intelligent, well-educated people. Once again, the federal government – due to its relentless assault on employers and employees, its policy of taxing and regulating the business community out of existence – is the cause, not the solution, for the inability of millions to afford their college educations.

Solving the Problem

But what, then, is the right solution? If we have as our goal an essentially affordable college education – just as we have always aimed for affordable housing, affordable dining, affordable entertainment, in short, the American Dream – then we must solve the problems of the economy.

Our colleges are not the problem, any more than houses and banks, automobiles and insurance, food and drink are problems. Our nation’s problem is that prosperity is in an eight-year retreat. Our problem is that the recession that began with the Pelosi takeover of the House in 2006 has only stabilized; it has never ended.

Just like anything else, college is affordable when parents earn enough to pay for it for their children, or when the students can earn enough to pay for it on their own. Government is largely responsible for this long and painful economic contraction; only a return to growth policies will put us back on the right road. For example:

1) Our effective corporate income tax rates are the highest in the industrialized world, at about 38%. Halving that number to an effective rate of 17%, or dropping it even more, would be revenue-neutral almost immediately, and would soon pay dividends in both revenue and greater employment as the change took hold.

2) Our regulatory burden has moved beyond crippling to lethal. With every passage of Clean Air Acts and Americans with Disabilities Acts, Obamacare, and every new air standard and energy restriction, the federal government has driven American manufacturing out of business and out of the country.

We need to rescind most of the new federal regulations of recent decades, from the Departments of Energy and Interior and Education and Labor and more. We need to draw down the charters of agencies like the FCC, FDA, ATF and OSHA. We need to close the ones that are utterly beyond reform, like the EPA.

3) In recent decades, our porous borders have introduced cheap labor, massive crime, an exploding welfare burden, a loss of what it was that made American workers and culture exceptional in the world, and a newly guaranteed voting base for the Democratic Party. All these have combined to result in ever-fewer promising job opportunities for our graduates.

We must close the borders and engage in policies that cause self-deportation of the illegals (the only kind of deportation that actually works), so that those immigrants who do remain have a chance to assimilate, and so the American worker is again in demand.

4) We must wean the higher education marketplace away from its addiction to the federal dollar. We can replace federal grants and loans with more generous income tax credits (no, not “refundable tax credits,” the current administration’s euphemism for handouts).

But most importantly, we can tie education more solidly to the employment sector, through tax policy that encourages employers to offer tuition benefits to their employees. This takes both focused tax policies (more tax credits for the businesses offering the benefit, making acceptance of the benefit tax free for the employee, etc.), and a booming economy in which companies can both afford to offer such generous benefits, and feel that they must do so, in order to win and keep good employees.

Like so much in public policy, everything is interconnected. Greater regulation results in economic pain and therefore greater need; lessened regulation results in an economic boom and therefore, less need.

This plain fact is counter-intuitive for the knee-jerk statists of the Democratic Party. To the modern Democrat, you show you care by writing a government check, and you close your eyes to the wanton destruction that inevitably results.

The idea that the right policy would involve terminating those government checks can never enter their minds; this is why no modern Democrat can be trusted with the reins of an economy. Their policies leave nothing but poverty and hopelessness in their wake.

But the conservatives understand. The conservatives know that lower taxes and lessened regulation will solve all the problems together, in a package. In an economic recovery, like that one that resulted from the Reagan administration policies in the 1980s, the private sector will again be able to afford college, solving that problem, while eliminating most other needs as well.

New businesses, new jobs, faster career trajectories. These are the solutions to our college debt crisis.

Oh, there’s more to it, yes. There are schools that aren’t as good as others, or aren’t as good fits for some students. There are students seeking foolish majors; there are students who aren’t as well prepared by their high schools as they should have been to ensure success at college.

But these issues will be manageable, in a booming growth economy. We just need to get there, and unfortunately, there’s only one party in our system that’s interested in doing so. Only one party that’s interested in ending the cycle of dependency, and interested in enabling Americans to stand proudly on their own two feet at last, free of the golden handcuffs of the Democratic plantation.

Oh, yes. November 2016 can’t come too soon.

Copyright 2015 John F. Di Leo

John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based international trade lecturer and Customs broker. His columns are regularly found in Illinois Review.

Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included. Follow John F. Di Leo on Facebook or LinkedIn, or on Twitter at @johnfdileo, or on his own website at

40 Volcanoes Are Erupting Right Now; 34 Of Them Are Along The Ring Of Fire

40 Volcanoes

by Michael Snyder

You may not have noticed, but our planet is becoming increasingly unstable. According to Volcano Discovery, 40 volcanoes around the globe are erupting right now, and only 6 of them are not along the Ring of Fire. If that sounds like a very high number to you, that is because it is a very high number. As I have written about previously, there were a total of 3,542 volcanic eruptions during the entire 20th century. When you divide that number by 100, that gives you an average of about 35 volcanic eruptions per year. So the number of volcanoes that are erupting right now is well above the 20th century’s average for an entire calendar year. And, of course, we are witnessing a tremendous amount of earthquake activity as well. Nepal was just hit by the worst earthquake that it had seen in 80 years, and scientists are telling us that the Himalayas actually dropped by an astounding 3 feet as a result of that one earthquake. How much more does our planet have to shake before people start paying attention?

Of course the things that we have been seeing lately are part of a much larger long-term trend. Seismic activity appears to have been getting stronger over the past few decades, and now things really seem to be accelerating. The following is how one news source recently summarized what we have been witnessing…
If it seems like earthquakes and erupting volcanoes are happening more frequently, that’s because they are. Looking at global magnitude six (M6) or greater from 1980 to 1989 there was an average of 108.5 earthquakes per year, from 2000 to 2009 the planet averaged 160.9 earthquakes per year: that is a 38.9% increase of M6+ earthquakes in recent years. Unrest also seems to be growing among the world’s super-volcanoes. Iceland (which is home to some of the most dangerous volcanoes on the planet), Santorini in Greece, Uturuncu in Bolivia, the Yellowstone and Long Valley calderas in the U.S., Laguna del Maule in Chile, Italy’s Campi Flegrei – almost all of the world’s active super-volcanic systems are now exhibiting some signs of inflation, an early indication that pressure is building in these volcanic systems.
But of course most Americans are never going to care about any of this until it starts affecting them personally.
Well, perhaps they should start paying attention to the warning signs. In recent weeks we have seen significant earthquakes in Michigan, Texas, Mississippi, California, Idaho And Washington. In addition, it is being reported that pressure is building in dormant volcanoes in Arizona and California. Just because we have not had a killer earthquake or a large volcanic eruption in the U.S. in recent years does not mean that it will always be that way. Right now the entire planet appears to be waking up, and this especially seems to be true of the Ring of Fire.
If you are not familiar with the Ring of Fire, just imagine a giant ring that runs around the outer perimeter of the Pacific Ocean. Approximately 90 percent of all earthquakes and approximately 75 percent of all volcanic eruptions occur within this area, and the entire west coast of North America is considered to be part of the Ring of Fire.
For so long, the west coast has been incredibly blessed not to have experienced a major seismic event. But scientists tell us that it is only a matter of time.
And right now, just about every other part of the Ring of Fire is shaking violently.
For example, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake just hit Japan on Wednesday…
A magnitude-6.8 earthquake that shook northeast Japan on Wednesday was an aftershock of the devastating 2011 quake that triggered a massive tsunami and nuclear power plant meltdown.
“We consider this morning’s earthquake to be an aftershock of the 2011 Northeastern Pacific Earthquake,” said Yohei Hasegawa, an official at the Japanese meteorological agency.
The temblor, which struck just after 6 a.m. local time (5 p.m. ET Tuesday), was sparked by the Pacific tectonic plate “subducting,” or moving under, the main land plate, he added.
Hasegawa warned that more tremors may be on the way.
One Japanese expert is warning that Japan “might have entered an era of great earthquakes and volcanic eruptions“, and considering the immense devastation that the great earthquake and tsunami of 2011 caused, that is a very sobering assessment.
Meanwhile, a series of very strong earthquakes have struck Papua New Guinea recently as well. The following comes from the Washington Post…
A powerful earthquake rattled Papua New Guinea on Thursday, the fourth strong quake to hit the South Pacific island nation in a week. The temblor prompted officials to issue a local tsunami warning, but it was lifted shortly afterward with no reports of damage.

The 7.1-magnitude quake struck about 150 kilometers (94 miles) southwest of the town of Panguna on Bougainville Island at a depth of 23 kilometers (14 miles), the U.S. Geological Survey reported.
Once again, just because things have always been a certain way does not mean that they will always be that way.
As Americans, we are not accustomed to being concerned about major earthquakes and massive volcanic eruptions, but that could soon change in a big way.
The truth is that our planet and our sun are changing in ways that are unpredictable and that our scientists don’t completely understand.
For example, a recent LiveScience article discussed the fact that scientists are deeply puzzled by the fact that the magnetic field of our planet is getting weaker 10 times faster than previously believed…
Scientists already know that magnetic north shifts. Once every few hundred thousand years the magnetic poles flip so that a compass would point south instead of north. While changes in magnetic field strength are part of this normal flipping cycle, data from Swarm have shown the field is starting to weaken faster than in the past. Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought. As such, rather than the full flip occurring in about 2,000 years, as was predicted, the new data suggest it could happen sooner.
And in a previous article, I discussed how one scientist has discovered that activity on the sun is declining at a faster pace “than at any time in the last 9300 years” right now.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers for why these things are happening, but clearly some very unusual things are taking place.
So what do you think?
Do you believe that you know why our planet and our sun are experiencing such dramatic changes?
Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…