Bernie Sanders: Fidel Castro Wasn’t So Bad…


Well, Bernie can write-off Florida; literally, write it off.   This is such a mega-mistake, it’s impossible to overestimate. Bernie Sanders doesn’t even need to bother campaigning in Florida… and I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t lose the Democrat primary to Bloomberg… that’s how big an effen’ deal this is.

The Latino, Cuba, Argentina and Venezuelan community in/around Miami-Dade is the central voting block for democrats; proud and loud.  However, there is one issue, one central issue so encompassing they will walk away.  The murderous bloodthirsty Cuban dictator Fidel Castro is hated with the blazing sun of a thousand supernovas…. This is a non-optional outlook.  Get on the wrong side of that position and there is NO recovery.

.

He’s done. Bernie Sanders looking for the not-so-bad side of Fidel Castro, or the current Castro regime, is a non-starter for Miami-Dade Latinos. Period. There is no national electoral issue equivalent for this position. It is intensely personal, and you can’t throw a rock without finding a family with a first-hand victim account from Castro’s brutality.

Thao Nguyen@helloitsthao

he’s not only going to lose florida by double digits but he could lose miami-dade county outright too

there is nothing that cuban-americans hate more than castro

this is electoral poison https://twitter.com/hotlinejosh/status/1231733462157099013 

Josh Kraushaar

@HotlineJosh

In “60 Minutes” interview, Sanders goes out of his way praise elements of Castro’s reign of Cuba.

“We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but it’s unfair to say everything’s bad. When Castro came into office you know what he did? He had a literacy program.”

204 people are talking about this

Donna E. Shalala

@DonnaShalala

Embedded video

Josh Kraushaar

@HotlineJosh

In “60 Minutes” interview, Sanders goes out of his way praise elements of Castro’s reign of Cuba.

“We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but it’s unfair to say everything’s bad. When Castro came into office you know what he did? He had a literacy program.”

1,476 people are talking about this

Tom Watson

@tomwatson

What a gaffe by Sanders on Fidel Castro. If he’s below 15 in Florida on Super Tuesday, he’ll relinquish leader status. So unnecessary.

393 people are talking about this

The Coming French Revolution


 

Ever since the civil unrest began on May 5, 2013, there has been escalating economic tension within France. A lack of economic growth has plagued France and Europe as a whole. The French share market peaked in 2000 and has been unable to elect ANY Yearly Bullish Reversals to date, and 2018 appears to be no different for this year’s closing. With the insane taxes of Hollande, the rich French invested outside the country. Without private investment, there is no job creation of any worthwhile level. This is what the Socialists refuse to consider.

This latest series of popular rebellions erupted on November 17, 2018, and has spread quickly via social media, with protesters blocking roads across France and impeding access to shopping malls, factories, and some fuel depots. They gather at the Arc de Triomphe, chanting “Macron Resign” and writing graffiti on the Arch itself: “The yellow vests will triumph.”

I previously warned: “We will see that risk erupt by 2020 or 51.6 years from the May 1968 cultural revolution.” The tensions have not subsided, but instead, they have begun to escalate.

DHS Whistleblower Philip Haney Dies of Gunshot Wound – Amador Sheriff Rules Suicide…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on  by 

Several new outlets have been reporting today on the death of Philip Haney, a DHS whistleblower who became well known for outlining how the Obama administration downplayed issues surrounding domestic radical Jihadist activity and Islamic terrorism.

It is being reported by Amador County, CA, sheriff’s office that Haney died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  However, many people are questioning the finding.

CALIFORNIA – Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower Philip Haney was found dead in Amador County, Calif., on Friday, according to local authorities.

Haney, 66, “appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound,” the Amador County Sheriff’s Office said in a release. Sheriff and coroner Martin A. Ryan shared the initial details of the case.

“On February 21, 2020 at approximately 1012 hours, deputies and detectives responded to the area of Highway 124 and Highway 16 in Plymouth to the report of a male subject on the ground with a gunshot wound,” the release read.

“Upon their arrival, they located and identified 66-year-old Philip Haney, who was deceased and appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound. A firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle. This investigation is active and ongoing. No further details will be released at this time,” the office added. (read more)

DocWashburn@DocWashburn

Phil Haney was murdered last night. When BHO became President, Phil’s work identifying those (who come here to kill us) was scrubbed from intelligence training manuals & hard drives. Here’s my interview w/Phil about his book, “See Something, Say Nothing”. https://soundcloud.com/docwashburnradio/phillip-haney-5-23-17-karn 

809 people are talking about this

Kevin Shipp@Kevin_Shipp

Whistleblower Phil Haney shot dead last night. I knew Phil. He was exposing the penetration of the US government by Islamic cultural jihadists. He was instrumental in exposing Keith Ellision and Obama’s concealment of radical Islam in America.

View image on Twitter
7,395 people are talking about this

Paul Sperry@paulsperry_

BREAKING: The late DHS whistleblower Philip Haney was owed tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid royalties for his bestselling book, “See Something, Say Nothing,” and at one point had sought a class-action lawsuit with other authors stiffed by the publisher

1,302 people are talking about this

Keynote Address: The Cost of America’s Cultural Revolution by Heather Mac Donald


Heather Mac Donald delivers the keynote address at the launch of the National Association of Scholars’ report, Social Justice Education in America.

How Communist Ideology Infiltrated America’s Security Agencies & Fueled Spygate—Diana West


Why does Diana West believe that communist ideology has infiltrated America’s intelligence agencies? After looking into key figures involved in the Spygate scandal, what information did Diana West uncover about their ideological beliefs? How is Donald Trump a “counter-revolutionary” president, in West’s view? This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek. In this episode, we’ll sit down with Diana West, a journalist and author of “The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy.”

Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford use their celebrity platform to trash President Trump — and thus half of their movie audience!


152K subscribers

When Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford use their celebrity platform to trash President Trump — and thus half of their movie audience — they spit in the face of the people gave them that platform. But times have changed since Jimmy Stewart graced us with his all-American characters and personal life to match, and it just doesn’t matter any more. So why do these hypocrites do it? Three celebrity regular guys will join you on a 3-night Caribbean cruise in May, if you sign up in time. Come with Bill, Scott and Steve, for a great time, live shows, lots of Q&A, casual conversation and laughter over great food and drinks. http://bit.ly/StratoCruise2020 Become a Member and help to produce these messages and spread them around the world. https://BillWhittle.com/register/

Ex Muslim Exposes The Reality of Islam In The West | Yasmine Mohammed | SPIRITUALITY | Rubin Report


1.14M subscribers
Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Yasmine Mohammed (Author and Activist) about how she became an ex Muslim and the untold reality of Islam in the West. Yasmine grew up in a fundamentalist Muslim home in Canada. Despite living in a western country her childhood more closely resembled living under Sharia law in Saudi Arabia. She was forced to wear a hijab starting at age 9 and was later put into an arranged marriage. She left her husband and tried to regain control over her life. Yasmine had her awakening when she saw Sam Harris’s famous appearance with Ben Affleck on Real Time With Bill Maher. It was then that she knew she had a duty to tell the world about her experiences growing up Muslim in Canada. She also discusses her book “UNVEILED: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam”. Yasmine shares stories about her young students of the Zoomer generation and how she sees them as potentially being the end of “woke culture”. She also reveals why she thinks people in the West are being sold a lie by fetishizing the hijab through burkinis in Sports Illustrated, and Nike swoosh hijabs. The lie being that these things empower women, when in fact they oppress them. Yasmine also shares her surprise at how afraid a lot of westerners are to speak up, despite having their speech protected. Watch Dave Rubin’s previous interview with Yasmine Mohammed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAqEv…

Bernie Sanders Claims He’s a Better Sort of Socialist than Donald Trump


152K subscribers

Bernie Sanders admits to Fox News’ Chris Wallace that he’s a socialist, but so is Donald Trump. However, Bernie’s socialism benefits the working man, and Trump’s socialism only helps billionaires. Are corporate tax breaks, corporate welfare, and legal tax-dodging deals just another way of redistributing the wealth — robbing the poor to give to the rich? Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members. https://BillWhittle.com/register/ On board the Royal Caribbean Navigator of the Seas for three nights in May, Bill Whittle, Scott Ott and Stephen Green will stage live versions of our shows, and hang out with Members and friends like you over great meals and drinks. You’re going to love meeting these people, and make some lifelong friends. Sign up now while you still can at http://bit.ly/StratoCruise2020

 

Widespread Poverty Stats Greatly Overstate the Number of Americans Who Are Destitute


By James D. Agresti, January 25, 2020

While pressing her agenda to expand means-tested welfare programs, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is claiming that the federal government’s poverty statistics vastly undercount the number of Americans who are “destitute.”

In reality, the exact opposite is true because those statistics omit a broad range of government benefits, charity, and unreported income. When these are counted, the poorest fifth of U.S. households consume five times more goods and services than the poverty stats reveal. These material resources amount to an average of more than $50,000 per household per year, making the poorest fifth of Americans richer than the averages for all people in most developed nations of the world.

AOC’s Claims

In a recent video, AOC alleges: “You would not know that our country is posting record profits because 40 million Americans are living in poverty right now, and if the poverty line was real—if it was around what some people think it should be—about $38,000 a year, we will be shocked at how much the richest society on the planet is allowing so much of its people to live in destitute [sic].”

Her number of 40 million is roughly equal to the Census Bureau’s figure of 38.1 million, or 11.8% of the U.S. population. This represents merely one of the widely different ways of measuring poverty, but it is the federal government’s official measure, and the media follows suit. As stated in a 2019 paper in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics: “The official poverty rate is also one of the most cited government statistics in the popular press.”

What’s Excluded

Without vital context—which AOC and most news reports fail to provide—the oft-cited Census poverty stats are highly misleading. For as the Census Bureau explains, they don’t “include the value of noncash benefits such as those provided by SNAP [Food Stamps], Medicare, Medicaid, public housing,” and a host of other goods and services that the poor receive from government and charities. More specifically:

  • Food Stamp beneficiaries received an average of $3,200 per household in Food Stamps during 2017.
  • Medicaid beneficiaries received an average of $7,794 per person in healthcare benefits during 2016.
  • Section 8 voucher beneficiaries received an average of $8,333 per household in rental assistance during 2016.
  • Head Start beneficiaries received an average of $9,871 per child in childcare and preschool benefits during 2017.
  • Other government programs provide noncash welfare benefits in the form of utility assistance, college grants, school lunch, school breakfast, community health centers, family planning services, prescription drugs, job training, legal services, cell phones, cell phone service, and internet service.
  • Federal law requires most hospitals with emergency departments to provide an “examination” and “stabilizing treatment” for anyone who comes to such a facility and requests care for an emergency medical condition or childbirth, regardless of their ability to pay and immigration status.
  • Private charities provide additional benefits to low-income people, such as food, clothing, housing, and healthcare.

Furthermore, Census income and poverty figures are obtained through household surveys, and low-income households don’t report much of their cash income in such surveys. Regarding this:

  • study published by the American Economic Journal in 2019 found that 63% of all New York State households who received benefits from two major cash welfare programs did not report any of this money to the Census Bureau.
  • The same study found that people who did report receiving cash welfare from these two programs received an average of 65% more money from the programs than they reported to the Census Bureau.
  • In 2013, the chief actuary of the U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that 3.9 million illegal immigrants worked “in the underground economy” during 2010.
  • In 2016, the IRS reported that 63% of income not reported to the IRS by third parties (like employers) is never reported to the IRS by the people who receive the money.

The Big Picture

An official federal measure that accounts for all of people’s material resources is called “consumption.” Recorded by the federal government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, it is a comprehensive measure of the goods and services consumed by households. It is also the World Bank’s “preferred welfare indicator, for practical reasons of reliability and because consumption is thought to better capture long-run welfare levels than current income.” Significantly, a 2003 paper in the Journal of Human Resources explains that “consumption standards were behind the original setting of the poverty line,” but government changed to the current method because of its “ease of reporting.”

The Bureau of Economic Analysis normally reports consumption for the entire nation and doesn’t break down the data to show how people at different levels fare. However, it published a report in 2012 that does that for 2010. Placed side-by-side with the Census Bureau income figures that underlie its poverty stats, the differences are striking—particularly for the poorest and richest U.S. households:

The federal data graphed above shows that the poorest 20% of U.S. households consumed an average of $57,049 of goods and services per household in 2010, while they reported an average of $11,034 in pre-tax money income to the Census Bureau. This means that widely reported federal poverty stats exclude about 80% of the material resources of low-income households. Put simply, the poorest fifth of U.S. households consume five times more goods and services than the poverty stats reveal.

AOC argues that the federal poverty line for “1 earner & a mother home full-time” should be $38,000/year, as compared to the current line of about $26,000 for a family of four. She attempts to justify this by saying that the current line “doesn’t include cost of childcare, geographic cost of living, or healthcare.” What she neglects to say is that low-income households typically receive such items and many others for free or greatly reduced prices.

In contrast, most U.S. households earn their healthcare, housing, food, childcare, phone service, and such for themselves, while also paying taxes that fund these items for others. As a result, U.S. middle-income households consume only 26% more goods and services than the poorest fifth.

The impacts of this wealth redistribution are even more drastic for the richest fifth of U.S. households, who forfeit a large portion of their income to taxes and receive few government benefits. They report 15 times more pre-tax money income than the poorest fifth of households, but they consume only twice as much goods and services as the poorest fifth.

Given that the available data treat the poorest 20% of households as a single group, while 11.8% of U.S. residents are officially in poverty, one might assume that poor households consume markedly less than the $57,049 average for the group. However, other government data suggests that is not the case. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics collects data on a subset of consumption called “consumer expenditures.” These show a mere $2,179 difference between the lowest 10% of U.S. households and the second lowest 10%. Since consumer expenditures exclude many forms of non-cash welfare, and eligibility for welfaredeclines as income rises, the poorest 10% may consume more goods and services than the second-poorest 10%.

Conclusion

Contrary to AOC, the facts are clear that frequently reported federal poverty stats vastly overstate the number of Americans who are destitute. Moreover, Just Facts’ recent study of data from the World Bank and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reveals that the poorest fifth of Americans consume more goods and services than the averages for all people in most developed nations of the world. In spite of these facts, AOC decries “economic injustice in America” and insists that the U.S. cannot “capitalism our way out of poverty.”

The School Funding Inequity Farce


By James D. Agresti
November 25, 2019

Leading presidential candidates and major media outlets are claiming that school districts with high concentrations of minorities and poor children generally receive less funding per student than other districts. That hasn’t been true for at least half a century, but people are spreading this myth through deceptive studies that exclude federal funds.

In reality, a broad range of credible studies that include all funding sources show that such school districts are as well-financed as others.

The Claims

According to Democrat presidential hopeful and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, “our current approach to school funding at the federal, state, and local level underfunds our schools and results in many students from low-income backgrounds receiving less funding than other students on a per-student basis.”

Along the same lines:

  • Sarah Mervosh of the New York Times reported in early 2019 that “on average, nonwhite districts received about $2,200 less per student than districts that were predominantly white….”
  • Maria Danilova of the Associated Press (AP) reported in 2018 that “the highest-poverty” school districts “receive an average of $1,200 less per child than the least-poor districts, while districts serving the largest numbers of minority students get about $2,000 less than those serving the fewest students of color….”
  • Democrat presidential contender and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders claims that “less is invested in the education of children from low-income families compared with their more affluent peers” because “school districts are funded out of local property taxes.”
  • Clare Lombardo of National Public Radio (NPR) reported in 2019 that “high-poverty districts serving mostly students of color receive about $1,600 less per student than the national average.”

With the exception of Sanders—who provides no evidence to support his claim—all of the others misrepresent their sources by failing to reveal that they ignore federal funds. Moreover, their sources obscure this fact in the following ways:

  • Warren cites a study by the Education Law Center, which refers to federal funding on page 2 but then never accounts for any of it. Instead, the study mentions on page 5 that it uses “actual state and local revenues” for its analysis.
  • The New York Times and NPR cite a report from EdBuild, which doesn’t say a word about the exclusion of federal revenues. Instead, it tacitly slips this into a separate webpage of “research methods“ that references “revenues from state and local sources” while ignoring federal revenues except when subtracting out charter school funding.
  • The AP cites a report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that repeatedly mentions federal funding, but when it presents the $1,200 and $2,000 underfunding figures quoted by the AP, it cites a study from the Education Trust that explicitly excludes “federal sources.” The Commission on Civil Rights doesn’t even allude to this fact—and to discover it, readers must go to the footnote and then locate the study from a citation with an unclickable link.

In short, these politicians and journalists never hint that their statistics exclude federal funds, and the sources they appeal to bury this crucial caveat. This ensures that only diligent readers with time to investigate will learn the truth.

Moreover, those who propagate this falsehood often call for more federal funds to fix this contrived disparity. But since they ignore federal funding, their proposals to increase it will not change the statistics they present.

Warren’s K–12 education plan, for instance, makes the false claim quoted above and then calls for “quadrupling Title I funding—an additional $450 billion over the next 10 years—to help ensure that all children get a high-quality public education.” Title I is the largest source of federal K–12 education funding, but because Warren doesn’t count this money in her statistics, her plan won’t affect her own measure of school funding.

The Reality

Wide-ranging studies that include all education funding—like those conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (1996), Ph.D. economist Derek Neal (2006), the left-leaning Urban Institute (2008), and the conservative Heritage Foundation (2011)—have all found that school districts with higher portions of minority students spend about the same amount per student as districts with smaller portions of minorities.

The Urban Institute study, which looks the furthest back in time, found that “differences in spending per pupil in districts serving nonwhite and white students are very small” since at least 1972.

Likewise, a study published by the journal Education Next in 2017 found that “per-student K–12 education funding from all sources (local, state, and federal) is similar, on average, at the districts attended by poor students ($12,961) and non-poor students ($12,640), a difference of 2.5 percent in favor of poor students.” The study also found that “this difference has not changed much since 1994–95,” the earliest data in the study.

Within school districts, research published by the Brookings Institution in 2017 found that “on average, poor and minority students receive between 1-2 percent more resources than non-poor or white students in their districts, equivalent to about $65 per pupil.”

The Property Tax Charade

Warren alleges that “school systems rely heavily on local property taxes, shortchanging students in low-income areas.” This was previously the case, but it hasn’t been so for decades. As explained by the Urban Institute:

In the past, because public schools were funded largely by local property taxes, property-rich and -poor school districts differed greatly in expenditures per pupil. Since the early 1970s, however, state legislatures have, on their own initiative or at the behest of state courts, implemented school finance equalization programs to reduce the disparity in within-state education spending.

Consequently, data from the U.S. Department of Education show that local revenues have declined from 83% of all school funding in 1920 to 45% in 2016:

Furthermore, the chart above only shows national averages. These don’t reveal the fact that school districts in low-income areas typically receive greater portions of their budgets from state and federal funds. For example, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2011 that some school districts receive no federal Title I education funding, while others receive as much as 36% of their budget from it.

Along with increasing shares of school funding paid by state and federal taxpayers, the inflation-adjusted average spending per student grew by 22 times in the same era:

False Justifications

Some people openly argue that federal funding should be ignored when comparing schools, because this money is meant to help disadvantaged students. However, federal law is at odds with such logic.

The Education Trust, for example, writes that it excludes such funds from its analysis because “federal dollars are intended—and targeted—to provide supplemental services to such specific groups of students as those in poverty, English learners, and students with disabilities.”

In accord with that view, the Obama administration published an issue paper stating that federal education funding “is intended to provide the extra help low-income students need to succeed, but it cannot do that if state and local funds are not evenly distributed to start with.” The administration also drafted regulations to impose this requirement on school districts.

In contrast, the applicable federal law explicitly states that “nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a state, local educational agency, or school.” Thus, the Congressional Research Service determined that the Obama administration’s proposed regulations “appear to directly conflict” with the law.

Federal law does require that states and localities not reduce their funding to schools when they receive federal funds. This provision says that states and localities can only use federal funds “to supplement the funds that would, in the absence of such federal funds, be made available from state and local sources,” “not to supplant such funds.” This does not require that funding be equal before or even after federal funding. It simply requires that states and localities don’t cut other funding just because they receive federal funds.

The law also requires that local school districts provide services that “are at least comparable” to all schools within their district before they receive federal funds. New York City, for example, cannot provide unequal services to schools and then use federal funds to equalize them. To meet this requirement, districts must provide similar staff-to-student ratios, “curriculum materials,” and “instructional supplies” to schools in their district in order to receive federal funds.

Nevertheless, politicians and unions sometimes create funding disparities within local school districts by agreeing to contracts that give senior teachers more pay and discretion to choose the schools where they work. These higher-paid teachers tend to avoid inner-city schools with high rates of crime and student discipline problems, resulting in lower spending-per student in poor neighborhoods. Federal law permits this practice by excluding “staff salary differentials for years of employment” from its compliance provisions.

Conclusion

Regardless of any rationale for excluding federal funds from school funding comparisons, it is deceitful to omit such money without even a hint. Yet, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, the New York Times, National Public Radio, and the Associated Press are doing just that.

Such disinformation is enabled by advocacy groups like EdBuild and the Education Law Center, which publish reports that exclude federal funds while burying this vital fact.

Warren takes the deception even further by leading people to believe that she actually accounts for federal funds. She does this by claiming that “the current investment in Title I—$15.8 billion—is not nearly enough to make up for state-level funding inequities,” but her supposed evidence for this is a study that excludes all of this money. This provides false grounds to continually demand more from taxpayers and to portray the U.S. education system as systemically racist.