US kills ISIS leaders

The United States announced last night that several high-ranking ISIS leaders were killed in airstrikes in Iraq. The attacks took place over the last several weeks and are known to have killed three of the top-ranking members of the terrorist group according to the Pentagon.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Wall St. Journal that U.S. airstrikes were having a heavy impact on ISIS. “It is disruptive to their planning and command and control,” said Gen. Dempsey. “These are high-value targets, senior leadership.”

Two of the strikes took place in early December killed Abd al Basit, the military commander of ISIS in Iraq, and Haji Mutazz, a right-hand man of ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. An earlier strike in November killed Radwin Talib, the ISIS governor of Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq. These killings bring the total number of high-value ISIS leaders killed to seven.

Another defense official told the Journal, “We’ve bombed their oil production, we struck the Humvees and MRAPs they stole from us and now we are targeting their leadership.”

Lt. Gen. James Terry, the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force, Operation Inherent Resolve, told ABC News that a total of 1,361 airstrikes have been conducted in Iraq and Syria. More than 50 airstrikes have been conducted since Tuesday in support of a counteroffensive by the Kurdish Peshmerga. The offensive has reclaimed more than 100 square kilometers of territory in northwestern Iraq from ISIS.

In all, the airstrikes have killed more than 1,000 ISIS fighters, but some analysts question the effectiveness of the strategy. Critics point out that ISIS, like other terrorist groups, can replace many leaders and soldiers killed in combat. ISIS is well known for recruiting fighters from around the world. Many have come from western countries, including the United States.

Nevertheless, Ahmed Ali, an analyst from the Institute of the Study of War, told the Journal that he believes the impact of the strikes has been significant. “These are big hits and eliminating these figures always temporarily disrupts the organization,” he said, but acknowledged that the losses were unlikely to cripple ISIS permanently.

“We will continue to be persistent in this regard and we will strike Daesh at every possible opportunity,” said Gen. Terry. According to ABC, Terry used the Arabic acronym for ISIS rather than the English one to avoid legitimizing the group’s claim to be a formal Islamic State, and because it sounds like another Arabic word “that means to crush underneath the foot.”

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Cromnibus compromise shows GOP is ready for primetime

Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Cromnibus

While some conservatives have denounced the passage of the “cromnibus,” a combination of the abbreviation for “continuing resolution” and omnibus, the passage of the annual appropriations bill is a good thing for the Republican Party and the country. It shows that most Republicans are serious about governing, and that they can work with Democrats to find common ground for the good of the country. Since the new Republican congressional class has not yet taken office, the cromnibus compromise should be viewed as the last hurrah of Harry Reid’s (D-NV) Democratic Senate rather than a bill that sets the tone on policy for the incoming Republican majority.

Déjà vu all over again

Many conservatives opposed the cromnibus because they saw it as an opportunity to defund President Obama’s executive amnesty. Others wanted to begin the process of cutting government spending after the huge success in this year’s elections. The problem with these strategies is the same problem that led to the defeat of the Obamacare defunding attempt; Harry Reid’s Senate will not pass such a bill.

A showdown over the cromnibus would have had the same result as the disastrous attempt to defund Obamacare last year. The government shutdown that resulted from the defunding attempt was overwhelmingly blamed on Republicans and it cost the party dearly in terms of approval ratings. The Republican success in November was not due to their role in the shutdown; it was in spite of it. The Democratic collapse on issues ranging from Obamacare to the economy to foreign policy was the driver for the midterm elections.

The fact that another government shutdown would have been a bad idea for Republicans is underscored by two facts. First, the combative Republican candidates who challenged GOP incumbents in primaries lost. In several cases, they lost by slim margins, but Republican voters clearly rejected the shut-it-down, take-no-prisoners mentality of the Senate Conservatives Fund. Second, a Gallup poll from just before the election confirms that American voters want their congressional representatives to get things done, not stand in the way. A McClatchy-Marist poll released December 16 found that 70 percent of voters want the parties to compromise. Only 26 percent favor a stand that might lead to a government shutdown.

Bitter pills for Democrats

The cromnibus may not have been popular with conservatives, but that doesn’t mean that the Republicans didn’t gain from it. The American Spectator noted that “Republicans came out on top” in the negotiations. Provisions in the bill that conservatives should applaud include:

· Higher limits on political donations, a roll back of campaign finance reform laws

· Repeal of some Dodd-Frank restrictions on banks

· Exemption of farm ponds and irrigation ditches from EPA regulation under the Clean Water Act

· Repeal of EPA regulations that count cattle farts as greenhouse gases

· Extension of the federal moratorium on internet taxes

· Delay of enforcement of federal light bulb restrictions

· Ban on use of tax money to bail out insurance companies for Obamacare losses

· A $346 million dollar cut to the IRS budget

· Relaxation of the school lunch standards favored by Michelle Obama

Laying groundwork for the amnesty battle

Some conservatives have complained about the fact that the cromnibus extends most of the government funding through the end of the fiscal year in September, but this criticism is misplaced as well. Federal budgets, normally an annual matter, have rarely been passed in the Obama era. Funding the government through the end of the year will give lawmakers time to properly address and negotiate the 2016 budget, rather than spending their first few months dealing with matters that should have been handled last year.
The budget for the Department of Homeland Security is the exception. The budget for the DHS, the agency tasked with implementing President Obama’s executive amnesty, is only funded through February according to Forbes’ analysis of the bill. The DHS budget will be where the battle over Obama’s actions takes place early next year. Republicans will have the advantage of a majority in both houses of Congress at that point.

No Cruz control

The cromnibus vote gives an indication of the ability of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to assemble a working bipartisan majority on at least some issues. This will allow some of the more independent Republicans to defect on certain issues - perhaps immigration, for instance – without killing the entire bill.

Cobbling together a majority will be even easier in the next term because the incoming GOP freshmen are unlikely to join the rogue faction led by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT). The Washington Examiner reported in November that the new senators had broad support from the various factions of the Republican Party and called them “political hybrids,” while Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the incoming majority leader, said, “The vast majority of them don’t feel they were sent to Washington to just fight all the time.” The Tea Party conservatives, most of who lost in the primaries, would have been much more likely to follow Cruz’s lead.

The cromnibus has also shown that when Cruz and company split from the rest of the Republicans, Democrats may be willing to cross the aisle. As Obama’s agenda becomes less popular, more and more Democrats may be willing to go their separate ways from the president. This was evident in the cromnibus votes as Elizabeth Warren, the progressive left’s new standard bearer, led a faction to oppose the compromise supported by President Obama.

Meeting in the middle

Even if Cruz and his allies stand with the rest of the GOP, it will be necessary to court disaffected and vulnerable Democrats. As the Republicans advance their agenda, it is likely that President Obama will veto much of their legislation. The new Republican caucus can pass bills, but falls short of the 67 votes needed to override a presidential veto. Compromise with Democrats will be necessary to enact many major reforms, including but not limited to repealing and replacing Obamacare.

The biggest boon to the Republican Party may be that the cromnibus shows that the party is mature enough to build a bipartisan majority that can get things done. In the House, a majority of Democrats opposed the bill although a many voted in favor. In the Senate, the bill passed with a majority of both parties. This was in spite of strong opposition from both the Cruz and Warren wings of their respective parties. In essence, the two parties met in the middle to form a workable consensus.

As long as the Republicans are able to work with moderate Democrats to find a consensus, they will be able to advance at least part of their agenda. While repealing Obamacare is probably not in the cards, repealing particularly odious part of it, such as the medical device tax and the individual mandate, might be. There are many examples of such low-hanging fruit where Republicans and Democrats can find common ground for the good of the country. Showing that Congress can function again will, in turn, help Republicans in 2016.

 

Read it on Examiner.com

Voters want Obama to work with Congress… and vice versa

Two new polls show that voters do not want the governmental gridlock to continue next year. The most recent poll, released on December 17 by Rasmussen, shows that an overwhelming majority of voters think that President Obama and Congress should work together to achieve what is best for the country. Eighty-two percent told Rasmussen that they would prefer that Democrats and Republicans work together rather than to stand firm on their principles.

The Rasmussen poll mirrors a McClatchy-Marist poll from earlier in the week that found similar results. The McClatchy poll, taken before negotiations on the cromnibus were completed, found that 70 percent favored compromise. As some members of both parties pushed for a government shutdown over the budget battle, only 26 percent of voters approved of shutting the government down over a stand on principle.

The new polling is substantially unchanged from a Gallup poll taken before the election and several polls that preceded the 2013 government shutdown. Voters have consistently valued functional government over strict principles.

This is contrary to the view of many partisans on both sides of the aisle. Most notably, conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh, said after the election, “You do not have election results like we had yesterday with the intent being that the voters intend the winners to work with the losers. This election was about stopping the losers, in this case the Democrats.”

While Limbaugh is correct that most voters (48 percent according to McClatchy) favor an agenda in Washington that is set by Republicans, they clearly reject obstructionism. The compromise on the cromnibus was a reflection of voter desires bypass partisan difference and repair dysfunctional government.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

The Myster of the Shemitah by Jonathan Cahn

What would you do if you knew that divine judgment on your country and the world was imminent? If you are Jonathan Cahn, you write two best-selling books that detail the revelations that you have received about how the United States is already undergoing judgment and has been for more than a decade. Like a latter day prophet of the Bible, Cahn is issuing his warning that September 13, 2015 might be the next key date in the ongoing series of judgments using a variety of mediums, from television to the internet, that were not available to the prophets of old.

  Cahn’s first book, “The Harbinger,” dealt with clues that linked the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis to the prophetic judgments found in the Book of Isaiah as well as to an ancient Jewish custom of forgiving all debts and letting fields lie fallow every seventh year. It is the story of this Sabbath year that Cahn expounds upon in his newest book, “The Mystery of the Shemitah,” the Jewish term for the Sabbath year.

Cahn’s analysis of the relationship between the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the 2008 economic collapse turned up the astounding fact that stock market collapses in both years, which currently rank as the two largest stock market point crashes in U.S. history, occurred on the same day of the Jewish calendar. Even more remarkable is the fact that the Jewish date on which the markets collapsed was the last day of the Shemitah year, the day in which all debts were wiped away. This action would result in a situation much like a modern recession as the accumulated wealth of seven years was blotted out and agricultural production plummeted.

When Cahn looked back at previous Shemitah years, he found that the pattern extended even farther back into U.S. history. The Shemitah of September 1993 through September 1994 (the Jewish New Year starts in September on the Gregorian calendar used by the U.S.) saw a selloff in the bond market that swept around the world. In 1987, a stock market crash occurred that held the record for largest point drop in a single day until the post-9/11 crash of 2001. In 1980, the U.S. suffered a severe recession that lasted until 1982. In 1973, an oil shock brought on by the Arab oil embargo sparked another recession. In 1966, the U.S. experienced a credit crisis. In 1958, the Eisenhower Recession was a sharp, worldwide downturn. For more than 50 years, every Shemitah year has seen the U.S. experience financial upheaval.

In addition, the Shemitah was linked to the Great Depression as well. Although the initial stock market crash of 1929 was not in a Shemitah year, the decade of the 1930s contained two Shemitahs, 1930-31 and 1937-38. As a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average of the 1930s shows, 1932 was the darkest year of the Great Depression. By 1937, the recovery had begun, but country experienced a second recession within the Depression.

As Cahn points out, the law of averages would dictate that there is only a one-in-seven chance, less than a 15 percent, of a recession or crash occurring within a Shemitah. When the statistics are examined, the relationship between financial upheaval and the Shemitah is far stronger than can be explained by random chance.

The Wall St. Journal’s list of the 20 largest one day stock market crashes includes 10 that are in a Shemitah year. Nine of these crashes were in Elul, the last month of the Shemitah, or Tishri, the first month of the year that follows the Shemitah (late September or October on our calendar). A further three crashes were in months that followed (November and December). The total of 13 crashes, more than half of the crashes, is far more than the 15 percent expected.

The same list also shows that many of the largest stock market gains come in the wake of the Shemitah. If the Shemitah culminates in a recession, the recovery would be expected to begin in the first months of the new Jewish year. In all, five of the largest 20 gains occurred during a Shemitah year, which is close to the random distribution. Seven of the largest gains occurred in the wake of the Shemitah. This may reflect the extreme volatility of the markets in the Shemitah. Many economists note that sudden, sharp crashes are often followed by equally quick recoveries.
Many stock market analysts have noted the tendency of the stock market to falter in the fall of the year. This correlation may be explained by the end of Shemitah, which occurs in September, and the recovery that follows.

Additionally, the National Bureau of Economic Analysis lists 33 business cycles that have impacted the U.S. economy. A comparison of the list of business cycles to Shemitah years shows that in four cases the cycle was entirely contained within a Shemitah. In 14 cases, the cycle was partly contained within the Shemitah including three cycles which completed before the culmination of the Shemitah. The 18 cycles which were linked to the Shemitah is more than half of the U.S. business cycles.
Cahn goes further. In “The Harbinger” Cahn discussed the link between the towers of the World Trade Center and an obscure Bible verse quoted by Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) on the Senate floor on September 12, 2001. The same verse, defiantly vowing to rebuild the towers, symbols of pride, was echoed repeatedly in the following years by other government officials.

Cahn relates that the World Trade Center was conceived in the Shemitah year of 1945 when it was proposed by developer David Scholz. Groundbreaking for the World Trade Center was in the Shemitah year of 1966. In the Shemitah year of 1973, the twin towers opened as the world’s tallest buildings. In the Shemitah year of 1993, terrorists exploded a car bomb in the basement garage of the north tower, killing six people and injuring more than a thousand. Seven years later, in the Shemitah year of 2001, another group of terrorists succeeded in destroying the World Trade Center. The new tower on the World Trade Center site, One World Trade Center, also called the Freedom Tower, opened six weeks into the current Shemitah on Nov. 3, 2014.

Cahn also discusses the seventh Shemitah, the Jubilee. The 50^th year, the year following the seventh Shemitah, was a “super Shemitah” that restored lands to their previous owners and set captives free. According to Cahn, no one today is sure when the Jubilee occurs, but there is another startling pattern. On November 2, 1917, British Foreign Secretary James Balfour signed the Balfour Declaration, which began the process of restoring a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This followed the 1916-17 Shemitah. Fast forward 50 years to June 7, 1967. This was the day that Israeli forces recaptured the city of Jerusalem in the Six Day War. This momentous event followed the Shemitah of 1965-66. This pattern suggests the possibility that these restorations both took place in Jubilee years.

If Cahn’s assumption is correct, the next Jubilee would follow the current Shemitah. The current Shemitah runs from September 25, 2014 through September 13, 2015 and the possible Jubilee would begin on September 14, 2015 through October 2, 2016.

Cahn points out the confluence of astronomical signs in the current Shemitah as well. The current Shemitah is associated with four blood moons, partial lunar eclipses, all of which fall on Jewish holidays. Additionally, there will be two solar eclipses. The first occurs exactly halfway through the Shemitah and the other on September 13, the last day of the Shemitah. Eclipses are often associated with judgment in the Bible.

Cahn makes no predictions about what to expect during the Shemitah and the possible Jubilee. As financial forecasts note, past performance is not indicative of future results. Nevertheless, the statistical correlation between the Shemitah and financial upheaval is a strong one. It may be worthy to note that shortly after the current Shemitah rang in, the stock market suffered a sharp downturn. At the same time, the US experienced a small panic over Ebola. What surprises does the rest of the Shemitah hold in store?


Read the full article on Examiner.com

Obama admits: “I changed the law”

When President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration before Thanksgiving, he claimed that his position on using presidential authority to change US immigration policy had not changed. The president had repeatedly denied that he had the authority to take such action in the past according to a Politifact analysis. Last week the president openly admitted that his executive actions changed US immigration law, a power that rests solely with Congress according to the Constitution.

The moment of clarity took place on Nov. 25 as the president spoke at an event in Chicago. As reported by NBC Chicago, three hecklers in the audience interrupted Mr. Obama’s speech to protest the deportation of immigrant families.

The president listened to the protesters for some time and then responded. The NBC video cuts short the president’s response, but a CSPAN video captures the Obama’s complete answer. After pleading for quiet, the president says:

I understand you may disagree, but we’ve got to be able to talk honestly about these issues. Now you are absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law. Now... so that’s point number one. Point number two, the way the change in the law works is that we are reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.

Where the defenders of the president’s actions justified them on the grounds of “prosecutorial discretion,” a decision not to prosecute offenders, the president openly acknowledged that he “changed the law.” Under the Constitution, “all legislative powers” are “vested in a Congress.” Since changing the law is a legislative function, the president’s statement is tantamount to an admission that he exceeded his authority.

Moreover, there are limits to prosecutorial discretion. A White House Office of Legal Counsel memo that was released to provide legal cover for Obama’s actions stipulates that the president “cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences.” The memo also states that to be lawful, non-enforcement decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis.

The president’s off-the-cuff comments in Chicago explicitly violate the parameters set by the White House memo. The president admits that he is changing immigration law “generally” in a manner that will affect “everyone.”

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

This obscure law may prevent a Rand Paul presidency

 

An accident of the calendar may prevent Rand from running in 2016

Election Day 2014 brought a lot of good news for Republicans, but for one Republican, it wasn’t quite good enough. Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, had to be disappointed that the Republican sweep didn’t extend to Kentucky’s House of Representatives. For Paul, this means more than partisan disappointment; it may well destroy any chance he has of becoming president.

Rand Paul, the son of libertarian and sometimes Republican, Ron Paul, was elected to the U.S. Senate in the Tea Party victories of 2010. Like his father, a perennial presidential candidate in his own right, the younger Paul seems to have had his eyes set on the White House from his first days in the Senate. He was a founder of the Senate Tea Party caucus and, perhaps following his father’s lead, has emerged as a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy. He emerged as a political star in March 2013 with a 12 hour filibuster of President Obama’s nomination of John Brennan as CIA director. The filibuster, inspired by Paul’s opposition to President Obama’s use of drones, lasted 12 hours and 52 minutes on a slow news day and catapulted Sen. Paul into the limelight.

The Kentucky problem

The problem for Rand Paul’s presidential aspirations is that he was elected to the Senate in 2010. That means that he will face reelection in 2016 as the country is choosing a successor to Barack Obama. In most states this would not present a problem. For example, 2012 saw sitting Congressman Michele Bachmann run for reelection at the same time that she ran for president while Paul Ryan was on the ballot as both a candidate for Congress and vice president. In 2008, Joe Biden won as a Senate and vice presidential candidate simultaneously. Kentucky is not most states however.

In 1990, Kentucky passed a statute that prohibits any candidate from appearing on the ballot twice. This means that, under current law, Rand Paul could not run for reelection as a senator while at the same time running for president. The only exception to the law is for a candidate in a special election to fill a vacancy:

118.405 Name of candidate to appear on ballot but once -- Exceptions for

filling of vacancy.

No candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more

than once, except that a candidate's name may appear twice if he is a candidate for

a primary or a regular election and also a candidate to fill a vacancy in the same

office required to be filled at a special election, when the special election to fill a

vacancy is scheduled for the regular election day.

Republican wave crashed on the Kentucky House

If the Republican victories had extended to the Kentucky House, Paul’s problem could have been easily solved. In March 2014, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the state senate had passed a bill that would allow Paul to run for the Senate and the presidency at the same time. The bill was passed with only two Democratic votes and foundered on the rocks of the Democrat-controlled House.

Greg Stumbo, Kentucky’s speaker of the house and a Democrat, is not eager to help Paul. Stumbo told NPR that changing a law to benefit one person is a violation of Kentucky’s constitution and “There's only one guy who's talking about holding onto his Senate seat and also running for United States president.”

Stumbo was even more blunt in the Wall St. Journal. “I’m not a fan of Sen. Paul,” Stumbo said, “and I’m not eager to see my country turned over to him.”

Rand Paul’s best hope for a simple solution was for Republicans to capture the Kentucky House this year. This was not to be, however. The Louisville Courier-Journal reported that, when the smoke cleared, the Democrats had retained a 54-46 majority in the chamber. Paul’s hope for amending the law died along with Republican hopes for a majority.

More than one path to the top of the mountain

If Paul truly wants to be president, he must find a way to run since missing the 2016 window might kill his chances permanently. A failure to run in 2016 might mean missing his moment. If a Republican wins that year, it might be eight years before Paul has another chance to run for an open Oval Office. Even if he mounted a losing campaign in 2016, he might position himself for a successful run later since Republicans often nominate the runners up from previous campaigns.

There might be other options that would allow Paul to run for president without giving up his Senate seat. First, if he has the backing of Kentucky Republicans, the party might change its nominating process from a primary to a caucus. This would render the statute meaningless since it doesn’t address caucuses. Kentucky Democrats would not be involved in changes to the party nominating process.

Another option would be for the Paul presidential campaign to choose to stay off the ballot in Kentucky. This way Paul could run for reelection in Kentucky as a senator without running afoul of the ballot law. Paul supporters could mount a write-in campaign in the state primary, but even if Paul conceded his home state, he would only lose 44 delegates according to the Green Papers. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1,205 delegates needed to nominate a candidate out of 2,409 total delegates.

Finally, Paul could “lawyer up.” It appears that Paul may take the position that the Kentucky law is unconstitutional. Doug Stafford, a senior advisor to Paul, told the Lexington Herald-Leader, “Federal law governs federal elections, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that states cannot impose additional qualifications beyond those in the Constitution.”

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that states could not impose additional qualifications on candidates for federal office that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The Court would have to determine whether Kentucky’s law is an additional qualification for federal office or a state issue dealing with ballots.

Et tu, Florida?

Ironically, the issue may affect another potential Republican candidate for 2016 as well. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, also a member of congressional class of 2010, is subject to a similar law that prohibits running for separate offices on the same ballot. Unlike Paul, who has said that he will definitely stand for reelection in the Senate, Rubio has made clear that if he decides to run for president, he won’t seek reelection as a Senator. Last April, Rubio told talk show host, Hugh Hewitt, that he thinks the Florida ballot law “is the right law.”

“I think, by and large," Rubio added, "when you choose to do something as big as [seeking the presidency], you've really got to be focused on that and not have an exit strategy.”

At this point, Rand Paul’s strategy for dealing with Kentucky’s ballot law is uncertain. What is certain, however, is that the 2016 race for the White House is already beginning. For Paul, the clock is ticking.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Conservative immigration reform is best answer to Obama

When President Obama announced his unilateral version of immigration reform last week, he had several goals. The most obvious goal was to divide and demoralize the Republican Party in the wake of its overwhelming victory in the midterm elections. Just as important and ambitious, Obama hoped to strike a stake through the heart of a burgeoning movement among minorities to vote for Republicans.

The effect of Obama’s first goal is plain to see. Republicans are angry, but split over how to respond to Obama’s amnesty. Some conservatives are calling for a repeat of the disastrous government shutdowns of the past while others are once again calling for the president’s impeachment. The Republican leadership will have a difficult time reigning in the various factions of the party and presenting a coordinated and effective response.

President Obama’s second goal is an attempt to shore up minority voting blocs, in particular Hispanics, which have traditionally supported Democrats. More than a third of Hispanic voters cast their ballots for Republicans according to an Examiner analysis of exit polls from the 2014 midterms. In an era where the country is evenly divided, such a defection makes it almost impossible for Democrats to win. The president hopes that the Latinos will be sufficiently grateful for the amnesty to vote Democrat in the future. An over-the-top Republican reaction that could be portrayed as racist would also benefit future Democratic candidates as well as put Republicans on the defensive before the new Congress is even seated.

The Republican response to the president’s gambit should be in two phases. First, the Republicans should take a strong, principled stand against Obama’s executive action and explain to the country why his action is unconstitutional. Second, rather than just saying no, Republicans must present the country with a viable alternative.

The first phase, Republican resistance, should point out that the president does not have the authority to legislate his own immigration laws. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is already doing this by publicizing the 22 times that President Obama denied that he had the authority take unilateral action on immigration.

A Fact Check analysis of polls, points out that most Americans support immigration reform, but oppose the president’s unilateral version of it. Unfortunately, during the current lame duck session of Congress in which Democrats still hold a Senate majority, there is little that they can do to resist. With another funding crisis for the federal government looming in December, President Obama’s obvious and transparent plan is to goad Republicans into a repeat of last year’s disastrous government shutdown. Rather than walking into the president’s trap, the GOP should wait until January when they will have the upper hand.

When the Republicans take control of the Senate in January, there will be many more tools at their disposal to combat President Obama’s executive overreach. First and most obvious, Republicans will control the budgeting process. The Republican House can pass a budget that does not fund the president’s amnesty programs, but which keeps other parts of the federal government operating. This would put President Obama in the position of having to veto the budget and risk a government shutdown or accepting a defeat. While the 2013 shutdown was blamed on Republicans, the blame in this case would rest solely with the president, who would also be defending an unpopular position.

Second, the Republicans could refuse to confirm any of President Obama’s appointees until the president backs down. Unlike a government shutdown, few Americans would feel any effects of a halt to Senate confirmations. There would be no stories of closed parks, halts to government checks, or layoffs of federal employees. The Obama Administration itself would bear the brunt of the confirmation boycott.

Third, the GOP can file another lawsuit against President Obama. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws while the president is tasked with enforcing the laws Congress passes. While the president does have some limited discretion in enforcing laws, he does not have the authority to “adopt a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities” according to a Justice Department memo cited by The Volokh Conspiracy. Congress could sue to have the president enforce the laws as they are written. The downside to this strategy is that unless the Supreme Court agrees to expedited handling of the case, President Obama might be out of office before it is resolved.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Republicans have to come up with an alternative to the president’s action. There is an old saying that the best revenge is living well, but, in this case, the best revenge may be passing a conservative immigration reform bill. This is especially true if the bill can garner enough Democratic support to override an Obama veto.

A majority of Americans realize that the current immigration system is broken and in need of overhaul. In addition to unprotected borders, there is no system to track immigrants or visitors who enter the country but overstay visas. There is also no reliable way for employers to verify immigration status of their employees, even though Pew Research estimates that more than five percent of American workers are illegal immigrants. The legal process can take decades for immigrants who follow the law. Highly skilled workers who could benefit the U.S. economy are turned away to work for foreign competitors while unskilled laborers stream across the border.

It will not be enough to simply roll back President Obama’s executive action. The immigration problem and Democratic attempts to use it to divide the country will persist until there is meaningful reform. The Republicans must put forth a reform of their own to fill the vacuum. In addition to the border security measures favored by conservatives, reform must include a fair method of dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country. Most polls indicate that a majority of Americans favor a path to legality, although not necessarily a path to citizenship or amnesty.

A major problem for Republican leaders is convincing the anti-immigration members of their own party to support reform ideas that are popular with the rest of the country. The far-right members of the GOP scuttled immigration reform under President Bush and last year under President Obama. In so doing, they set the stage for the president’s unilateral amnesty. To these Republicans, any immigration reform is seen as amnesty and any Republican advocates for such reforms are denounced as RINOs. Republican leaders will have to work with leaders of the anti-reform caucus, notably Ted Cruz, in order to pass such a bill. President Obama is undoubtedly counting on such opposition from the right to put the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.

To pacify the right, immigration reform should definitely include strong border security provisions, but it must address the other problems with the current system as well. The carrot for illegals should be a tough but fair way of handling those already in the country if they come out of the shadows. The stick would be strong workplace enforcement and stiffer penalties for future illegal aliens. The legal immigration system should be streamlined to encourage prospective Americans to follow the law.

President Obama’s executive strategy is a desperate attempt to divide Republicans while raising the morale of the Democratic base after a humiliating defeat. If Republicans can wait until January and rein in their anti-immigration reform faction, they have a good chance of beating the president at his own game. The stakes are high. President Obama’s actions are an unprecedented attempt to circumvent Congress and the democratic progress that do not bode well for the future of the United States if left unchecked.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

This mom went to court to kill her 12-year-old daughter

http://youtu.be/N_Pr-nbrc-w

In August, a court in the United Kingdom granted Charlotte Fitzmaurice the right to have her 12-year-old daughter, Nancy, killed. The landmark decision was the first time that a child that was not on life support or suffering a terminal illness has been euthanized in the UK according to the Mirror.

Nancy was born with hydrocephalus, meningitis and septicaemia. Also blind, she could not walk, talk, eat or drink and required constant hospital care. Nancy’s condition was painful and disabling, but not life-threatening. As Nancy’s health deteriorated and pain medications ceased to be effective, Charlotte Fitzmaurice appealed to a British court to allow Nancy to be euthanized.

In a letter to the court, quoted in the Mirror, Charlotte said, “My daughter is no longer my daughter; she is now merely just a shell.” She continued, “The light from her eyes is now gone and is replaced with fear and a longing to be at peace.”

Nancy was unable to communicate any desire to die, but Charlotte’s statement to the court said, “Today I am appealing to you for Nancy as I truly believe she has endured enough. For me to say that breaks my heart. But I have to say it.” Nancy’s father, David Wise, also supported the appeal to the court.

After a ruling in which Justice Eleanor King decided that it “is not the case now” that Nancy has any quality of life, doctors at London’s Great Ormond St. Hospital began to withhold food and water from Nancy. She died 14 days later. Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal under British law according to the National Health Service.

While Nancy’s life was filled with pain, so was her death. Charlotte told the Mirror, “Watching my daughter suffer for days while they cut off her fluids was unbearable. She went in pain. It will stay with me forever.”

Nancy’s father, David Wise, agreed. “It was heartbreaking to see my daughter like that,” he said. “It was the hardest decision we ever made.”

Advocates for life argue that such cases are a slippery slope and note that Nancy’s death was chosen by her parents and doctors, not by Nancy herself, and that Nancy was not terminally ill. “The judge's statement sets a precedent that quality of life now becomes a measuring rod as to whether or not a child with a disability should live or die. That's horrific. That's terrifying," Joni Eareckson Tada told The Christian Post. Eareckson Tada, a Christian activist for the disabled who is a quadriplegic, continued, “In the future, I wonder how many other subjective issues may sway another judge's opinion in the life of somebody like Nancy, or perhaps even less disabled physically and mentally than Nancy. This swings open a door to similar actions against other people with disabilities simply based on the fact of distress, the inconvenience, the cost, the discomfort, all of which are subjective issues."

The Autism Self Advocacy Network agreed. The group issued a statement, which read in part:

Euthanasia of people with disabilities is an extremely dangerous and wholly inappropriate solution to inadequate pain management. In cases where painkillers are insufficient, a number of alternatives for pain management exist. A policy of euthanasia targets vulnerable people, particularly when it is applied to children. People with disabilities who experience chronic pain should have same access as others to life-sustaining medical treatment.

There have been other cases of euthanasia in the UK. In 2009, in a case that pitted the mother against the father, a judge ruled that baby Ronnie Bickell’s “quality of life would not be good enough to justify the medical care needed to prolong it” according to the Daily Mail. In another case, Hannah Jones, then 13, refused a heart transplant that could have saved her life. Hannah’s heart had been damaged by treatment for leukemia that she had suffered as a child. A court upheld her right to refuse treatment, but, a year later, she changed her mind and had the surgery.

In Holland, euthanasia is legal. Officially, about three percent of Dutch deaths are attributed to euthanasia, a rate that would be equivalent to 75,000 people each year in the US according to National Review. Unofficially, the euthanasia rate in Holland may be as high as 10 percent acknowledges the Daily Caller. While euthanasia of children is technically illegal in Holland, Belgium removed all age restrictions from its euthanasia law earlier this year according to Time.

Last year, at 18, Hannah Jones told the Mirror that she was glad that she had undergone the operation rather than ending her life. “I’m so grateful for my transplant, and glad I decided to have it. It’s given me a life I didn’t expect, a chance to grow up, to follow ambitions, maybe even get married and have a family.” An actress and dancer at her college, Hannah said, “I never thought I’d be dancing on stage, I love it.”

In August, a court in the United Kingdom granted Charlotte Fitzmaurice the right to have her 12-year-old daughter, Nancy, killed. The landmark decision was the first time that a child that was not on life support or suffering a terminal illness has been euthanized in the UK according to the Mirror.

Nancy was born with hydrocephalus, meningitis and septicaemia. Also blind, she could not walk, talk, eat or drink and required constant hospital care. Nancy’s condition was painful and disabling, but not life-threatening. As Nancy’s health deteriorated and pain medications ceased to be effective, Charlotte Fitzmaurice appealed to a British court to allow Nancy to be euthanized.

In a letter to the court, quoted in the Mirror, Charlotte said, “My daughter is no longer my daughter; she is now merely just a shell.” She continued, “The light from her eyes is now gone and is replaced with fear and a longing to be at peace.”

Nancy was unable to communicate any desire to die, but Charlotte’s statement to the court said, “Today I am appealing to you for Nancy as I truly believe she has endured enough. For me to say that breaks my heart. But I have to say it.” Nancy’s father, David Wise, also supported the appeal to the court.

After a ruling in which Justice Eleanor King decided that it “is not the case now” that Nancy has any quality of life, doctors at London’s Great Ormond St. Hospital began to withhold food and water from Nancy. She died 14 days later. Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal under British law according to the National Health Service.

While Nancy’s life was filled with pain, so was her death. Charlotte told the Mirror, “Watching my daughter suffer for days while they cut off her fluids was unbearable. She went in pain. It will stay with me forever.”

Nancy’s father, David Wise, agreed. “It was heartbreaking to see my daughter like that,” he said. “It was the hardest decision we ever made.”

Advocates for life argue that such cases are a slippery slope and note that Nancy’s death was chosen by her parents and doctors, not by Nancy herself, and that Nancy was not terminally ill. “The judge's statement sets a precedent that quality of life now becomes a measuring rod as to whether or not a child with a disability should live or die. That's horrific. That's terrifying," Joni Eareckson Tada told The Christian Post. Eareckson Tada, a Christian activist for the disabled who is a quadriplegic, continued, “In the future, I wonder how many other subjective issues may sway another judge's opinion in the life of somebody like Nancy, or perhaps even less disabled physically and mentally than Nancy. This swings open a door to similar actions against other people with disabilities simply based on the fact of distress, the inconvenience, the cost, the discomfort, all of which are subjective issues."

The Autism Self Advocacy Network agreed. The group issued a statement, which read in part:

Euthanasia of people with disabilities is an extremely dangerous and wholly inappropriate solution to inadequate pain management. In cases where painkillers are insufficient, a number of alternatives for pain management exist. A policy of euthanasia targets vulnerable people, particularly when it is applied to children. People with disabilities who experience chronic pain should have same access as others to life-sustaining medical treatment.

There have been other cases of euthanasia in the UK. In 2009, in a case that pitted the mother against the father, a judge ruled that baby Ronnie Bickell’s “quality of life would not be good enough to justify the medical care needed to prolong it” according to the Daily Mail. In another case, Hannah Jones, then 13, refused a heart transplant that could have saved her life. Hannah’s heart had been damaged by treatment for leukemia that she had suffered as a child. A court upheld her right to refuse treatment, but, a year later, she changed her mind and had the surgery.

In Holland, euthanasia is legal. Officially, about three percent of Dutch deaths are attributed to euthanasia, a rate that would be equivalent to 75,000 people each year in the US according to National Review. Unofficially, the euthanasia rate in Holland may be as high as 10 percent acknowledges the Daily Caller. While euthanasia of children is technically illegal in Holland, Belgium removed all age restrictions from its euthanasia law earlier this year according to Time.

Last year, at 18, Hannah Jones told the Mirror that she was glad that she had undergone the operation rather than ending her life. “I’m so grateful for my transplant, and glad I decided to have it. It’s given me a life I didn’t expect, a chance to grow up, to follow ambitions, maybe even get married and have a family.” An actress and dancer at her college, “I never thought I’d be dancing on stage,” Hannah said, “ I love it.”

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Minority voters put GOP over the top

Exit polls reveal the surprising statistic that shows the source of the Republican surge.

The Republican sweep of the battleground Senate seats left conservatives both elated and shocked. No one had predicted the enormity of the Democratic rout that left pundits and politicians scrambling for explanations. An analysis of exit polls from around the country reveals the answer.

Practical Politicking compared CNN exit polls from 2014 to three previous elections, the 2008 and 2012 presidential races as well as the 2010 midterm elections in which the Tea Party revolution reached its zenith as the GOP captured the House, but fell short of taking control of the Senate. The result shows why the Republican Party performed so well this year when compared to previous elections and also provides clues about the upcoming presidential election of 2016.

“Older, whiter and richer” is true… as far as it goes

It has been said that the 2014 electorate was “older, whiter and richer” than the 2012 electorate that returned President Obama to the White House for a second term. This explanation, often made by liberal pundits such as those at Think Progress, ignores the fact that President Obama almost split the vote of people who earned more than $100,000 with Mitt Romney (44-54 percent). In 2008, Obama tied this segment 49-49 with John McCain. Democrats have done well with the wealthy in the recent past. This year the Democrats lost this group by 16 points, which was less than their 18 point deficit from 2010.

Voting statistics show that the old stereotype about young people trending liberal and becoming more conservative as they grow older is true. Nevertheless, President Obama did well among older voters, losing the demographic by only eight points in both 2008 and 2012. The Republicans did better among older voters in 2010 when they won seniors by 21 points as opposed to this year’s 16 points.

Likewise, Obama lost white voters by 12 points in 2008 and 20 points in 2012. This year’s margin (22 points) was not markedly different from 2012 and was almost identical to 2010 (23 points). It is also interesting to note that the share of white voters actually declined this year from 2010 by two points.

The “older, whiter and richer” explanation is true as far as it goes. While it underscores the well-established fact that the electorate in a midterm election is almost totally different from the voters who come out to vote for a president in the highest profile election, it falls short of convincingly explaining this year’s Democratic debacle. Nevertheless, this myth, like that of 2012’s “missing Republicans” seems destined to live as a salve to soothe liberal disappointment and channel anger toward whites and rich people, two common Democratic bogeymen.

No gender bender

There was also no appreciable shift in gender voting patterns. Women traditionally favor the Democrats and that was true this year as well. Democrats won 51 percent of the female vote, less than the 55 percent of 2012, but more than 2010 when Republicans won women by one point. The peak was in 2008 when 56 percent of women voted for Barack Obama.

Obama won men in 2008 by one point, but the Democrats lost the male vote in the other three elections. Fifty-five percent of men voted Republican in 2010 and 52 percent in 2012. The male vote peaked this year with a whopping 57 percent of men voting GOP and only 41 percent voting Democrat. While men seemed to be responding to a Democratic “war on men,” the bottom line is very similar to 2010 and is not enough to explain this year’s landslide.

“Look to the cookie.”

The key to understanding the shift in the electorate from 2010 to 2014 is with the racial demographics of voters. It is true that the electorate was whiter than 2012, but that is only part of the story. As Jerry Seinfeld said, we must “look to the cookie” of race relations for the true answer.

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group voting Republican:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	55	4	31	35
2010	60	9	38	40
2012	59	6	27	26
2014	60	10	36	50

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group as a percentage of the electorate:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	74	13	9	2
2010	77	11	8	2
2012	72	13	10	3
2014	75	12	8	3

The nearby charts show the percentage of each ethnic group voting Republican in each election along with each group's share of the electorate. When all the information is examined, we find that the “white” part of the “old, white and rich” explanation is not true in several important ways. There were more white voters than in 2012, but, as noted earlier, the share of white voters declined from 2010 to 2014. The share of black voters increased one point between the midterm elections, but was one point lower than in 2012 and 2008. Black voters didn’t stay home, but came out as a greater share of the electorate than in the previous midterm election.

The liberal pundits totally fail to take into account that this year saw Republicans do much better among minority voters than in any election of the Obama era. Republican candidates faired marginally better this year than four years ago in the last midterm and dramatically better than the pathetic performances of both John McCain and Mitt Romney. It was this improved performance with nonwhite voters that put the GOP contenders over the top.

What does this mean for 2016?

The lesson for 2016 is that the coalition of minorities, women, and young people that elected Obama both times won’t necessarily turn out to elect other Democrats. While these groups all voted Democrat this year, the margins were far narrower than in 2008 when Obama was seen as a hip, new, “post-partisan” politician and hope was in the air. Six years later, many minorities and young people are still jobless and the “war on women” has worn thin.

This year also saw the election of several new minority Republicans. Tim Scott is the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction. Mia Love is the first ever black Republican woman in the House. As more and more minorities “come out” as conservatives, it will be easier for others to do so in the future.

Likely Democratic contenders for 2016 such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren lack Barack Obama’s minority connections as well as his hipness and charisma. If Republican solutions resonate with voters over the next two years, the next wave of candidates may find that even more minority members are willing to pull the lever for a Republican.

Originally published on Examiner.com

Dems seek senate salvation with pseudo independents

Around the country, Democrats in close Senate races are suddenly deciding that the Democratic Party is not for them. Some Democrats have jettisoned the national Democrats entirely in order to run as independents, while others are avoiding any association with Obama like he has the Ebola virus.

The allergy to President Obama began in Kansas with billionaire Greg Orman. Orman announced his candidacy in June, running as an independent challenging Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. Three months later, according to the Washington Post, the failing Democratic candidate Chad Taylor withdrew from the race at the behest of national Democrats like Claire McCaskill (D-MO). McCaskill hoped to encourage state Democrats to rally behind Orman, whose background if far from “independent.”

Orman is no independent.

There is a wealth of evidence contradicting Orman’s claims of “independence.” The Washington Post noted that he refuses to say which party he would caucus with if it turns out he’s the deciding vote in the Senate, and Byron York, points out that Orman actually ran as a Democrat as recently as 2008. More damaging than that, York notes that Orman has made campaign contributions to such partisan political lightning rods as Al Franken, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and, of course, the president himself, Barack Obama. But worst of all, perhaps, York provides evidence that contributions are flowing in both directions, with major Democratic donors bankrolling Orman’s current campaign. In fact, the Democrats are so invested in an Orman victory, theyfought all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court to have Taylor’s name removed from the ballot.

Milton Wolf endorses Pat Roberts for Kansas.

Currently, most pundits consider the Kansas race to be a toss-up, but the Practical Politicking Report gives Roberts a slight edge. The GOP incumbent’s primary opponent, Tea Party favorite Milton Wolf, endorsed Roberts late last week saying:

Whatever your opinion of Pat Roberts, his re-election to the United States Senate may be the deciding factor that dethrones Harry Reid and elevates solid constitutional conservatives like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul…

Whether the Democratic strategy prevails in Kansas remains to be seen, but clearly Wolf isn’t buying it. His endorsement sends a clear signal to all voters, independent and Republican, that Orman is a presumptive Democrat, and they would do well to consider their votes carefully with that in mind.

Larry Pressler is playing the independent card in South Dakota too.

In South Dakota, where former Governor Mike Rounds (R) was expected to cruise to victory in the race for the seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Sen. Tim Johnson, Larry Pressler–another pseudo-independent–has upended the race. Pressler, who announced his candidacy in the Huffington Post in February, has been both a Democrat and Republican. He was a registered Democrat in the early 1970s according to the Sioux Falls, SD Argus Leader, who switched his party affiliation to become a Republican member of both the U.S. House of Representatives (1975-79) and Senate (1979-97). Democrat Tim Johnson, the current occupant of the seat, defeated Pressler in 1996.

Pressler seems to have little in common with the party he once represented in Congress. National Review points out that Pressler supports higher taxes, stricter gun control, citizenship for illegal immigrants, and ObamaCare. He also opposes bans on late term abortions. But most important of all, Pressler supported Barack Obama for president in both 2008 and 2012. Even as the campaign moved into October, Pressler claimed to be a “friend of Obama.”

Unlike Taylor in Kansas, the South Dakota Democratic nominee, Rick Weiland, has refused to drop out of the race. In early October, Survey USA found that in a two-way race, Pressler would lead Republican Mike Rounds by 15 points, but Rounds looks certain to come out on top in the three-way race.

Grimes, Nunn, Begich, Shaheen, and Landrieu are also looking to hide from the president.

Obama seems to have few other friends among Democratic candidates in red and purple states this year. First to break ranks was Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic challenger to Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. In an October interview, Grimes refused to say whether she had voted for Obama, whose “war on coal” is particularly unpopular in Kentucky. The Washington Post called the video of Grimes’ evasions “40 painful seconds.” Even earlier, Grimes had declared “I’m not Barack Obama” in an ad that was reminiscent of Christine O’Donnell’s “I’m not a witch” ad from 2010.

The ensuing brouhaha compelled the Wall St. Journal’s James Taranto to pen a limerick for the occasion:

Alison Lundergan Grimes

Is going through difficult times
But in her defense
If she has 10 cents
Per Obama vote, that’s just two dimes

In spite of her denials, Grimes’ loyalties are clear. She is a lifelong Democrat who, as pointed out by The Hill, actually served as an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2012.

The Democratic denials spread from Kentucky to other tossup states. In Georgia, visitors to the website of Michelle Nunn (D) could be excused for thinking Nunn is an independent. There is no mention of her party affiliation on the site. Nunn likewise refused to answer when a conservative camera crew asked about her votes in 2008 and 2012. The video, posted on Youtube, shows Ms. Nunn’s non-reaction to the question. Perhaps she didn’t hear it? She did, however, air an ad responding to the David Perdue (R) campaign ad showing her posing with President Obama. In it, she attempts to distract voters from the picture with Obama by linking her record to Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush.

For his part, the former president has endorsed Nunn’s Republican opponent, David Perdue, and his spokespeople have also issued a statement denouncing Nunn’s ad:

Michelle and her team have been clearly, repeatedly and consistently told that President Bush did not want them to use his photo as part of this campaign. Apparently, the Nunn team feels they can repeatedly disregard the former president’s wishes, which is very disappointing because it’s so disrespectful.

After initially suffering from the same selective hearing loss as Nunn, Alaska’s Mark Begich finally admitted to voting for President Obama, but according to the Washington Examiner, called the vote – and the president – “irrelevant.” In a televised debate with challenger Scott Brown in New Hampshire, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) said, when asked whether she approved of Obama “in some ways I approve and in some things I don’t approve. In North Carolina, Sen. Kay Hagan (D), who is feeling pressure from Republican Thom Tillis, dodged the question of whether Obama is a strong leader during an interview with MSNBC.

And in Louisiana, embattled incumbent Mary Landrieu (D) took a different tack. In a state that depends on oil and gas production, Landrieu took the Obama Administration to task for its offshore drilling moratorium. In an ad, she can be heard saying, “The Administration’s policies are just wrong….” Still, when asked in a debate, Landrieu gave Obama a passing grade. She trails Republican Bill Cassidy in a race that seems destined for a runoff due to the presence of a third Tea Party-backed candidate, Rob Maness.

Don’t take our word for it; even President Obama says they’re still true-blue.

President Obama’s comments on Al Sharpton’s radio show this week should eliminate any doubt that these so-called “independent,” or at least independent-minded (despite the ‘D’ after most of their names) candidates are still loyal to their party, and to him.

“The bottom line,” the president said, “is these are all folks who vote with me, they have supported my agenda in Congress…This isn’t about my feelings being hurt. These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me and I tell them, you do what you need to win.”

From the looks of it, they’re hoping most voters in their states haven’t heard Sharpton’s show, or read about it here, because they obviously think what they need to win is to convince voters the President is an even bigger liar than they are.

Originally published on Practical Politicking

The lost of generation of pilots

A friend and former coworker recently remarked to me that, as professional pilots who were starting our careers in the late 1990s and early 2000s, we were part of a lost generation of pilots. We began our flight training with the plan to move quickly from the regional airlines to the cockpit of “heavy iron” at the majors. Everything changed after September 11, 2001.

Aviation’s lost decade started with the terrorist attacks of September 11. Almost immediately, airlines stopped hiring and started furloughing pilots. Less than a year after the attacks, the airline bankruptcies started with a filing by US Airways in August 2002. Many airlines were only beginning to recover when the second half of the one-two punch, the 2008 recession, landed. Before the wave of bankruptcies was over, almost every major airline would be affected.

The airlines used the bankruptcies to negotiate with unions for reductions in employee pay and work rules. Pay rates were decreased at most companies. For some pilots who were downgraded from captain to first officer, the cut in pay approached 50 percent according to the N.Y. Times. Changes to union contracts meant that pilots worked more for less pay. Generous pension plans were dissolved and replaced with 401(k) plans.

The economic crisis also set off a wave of airline mergers as companies sought strength in combining operations. Amid falling ticket prices, companies merged to strengthen their route structures and reduce the number of seats available in hopes of driving up prices. The smaller number of airlines also meant that fewer pilots were needed.

Pay cuts and loss of pensions may have contributed to the decision to change the “Age 60 Rule” as well. This controversial rule, first established by the FAA in the 1950s, required that airline pilots retire when they turned 60. In 2007, President Bush signed a bill into law that changed the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots to age 65. Overnight, the airline hiring outlook changed drastically as thousands of senior airline pilots nearing retirement found their careers extended by five years. This meant that, with little growth in the industry, airlines could put off hiring new pilots for another five years. For first officers already flying with the airlines, it also meant that their upgrades to captain would take years longer than expected.

By 2012, when senior airline captains began turning 65, a career at a major airline wasn’t as attractive as it had been. Pilots who now had stable corporate flying jobs or who were senior at regional airlines often did not want to take the cut in pay or to lose their good schedules to start over at a major airline.

Airline Pilot Central reports that the current first year pay for a United Airlines pilot is $66 per hour. This sounds like a lot at first, but the pay is for flight hours only. The United contract specifies a minimum pay of 70 hours per month. This works out to about $55,000 per year. For most pilots, it would take years return to their old pay rates.

Airline Pilot Central also reports that the most junior captain at United was hired in 1996. As retirements increase, future new hires might upgrade quicker, but most can expect to spend a long time in the right seat. The numbers for other major airlines are similar to those of United. For companies like Southwest, Spirit, and JetBlue, the upgrade might be quicker but starting pay is lower.

In addition to the pay cuts and quality of life issues, many pilots of the Lost Generation are skeptical of the stability of the airlines. After having seen two horrific cycles of long-term furloughs, few are willing to risk a stable corporate or charter flying job to go to the bottom of an airline seniority list. Airline seniority means “last hired, first fired.”

Returning to the airlines would also likely mean the loss of precious free time to pilots of the Lost Generation. Airline pilots can live anywhere, but they must commute on their own time. For many, this would mean spending days off commuting on airliners. With the high passenger loads common in today’s airline industry, commuting as a standby passenger would be an uncertain and frustrating way to get to work. The alternative would be to move to a lower paying job.

Along with good salaries and quality of life, many of the pilots of the Lost Generation have found that our priorities have changed. As we have aged, flying heavy airliners to the far corners of the world is less important than being home to watch our children grow up and making a life with our spouse. Flying is not as important as it was when we were 20 years younger and our logbooks were several thousand hours lighter. It has become a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

For pilots who give up their current jobs, willingly or not, the airlines still provide an attractive career path. For those who take this path, the rewards can be attractive. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that airline pilots and flight engineers (themselves an endangered species) earn a median income of $114,200 annually. For those at the top of the profession, captains of large jets, Salary.com shows a median income of $122,014. As airline pilots gain seniority, they typically work less as well. A crewmember on a heavy airliner on transoceanic trips might reach his maximum monthly flight time in two or three trips.

As more and more airline captains reach the cutoff age of 65, the airlines will have to look harder and harder to qualified pilots to fill their cockpit seats. Recent rule changes that require more flight experience and a reduction in flight training since 2001 mean that those seats will soon be hard to fill. The shortage of qualified pilots may exert some upward pressure on pilot salaries.

Nevertheless, for many pilots of the Lost Generation, an airline career is not in our future. It simply wouldn’t be worth the reduction in pay and the upheaval in our lives. After more than decade of watching our industry undergo gut wrenching change – and finding ourselves changed in the process – we’re okay with that.

Are you a pilot of the Lost Generation with a story to tell? Comment below. I will tell my story next week.

This article is dedicated to my friends and former coworkers at Independence Air and CitationAir, many of whom are part of the Lost Generation.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Independent and third party candidates may spoil Senate races

With control of the Senate coming down to a few seats that are too close to call, independent and third party candidates are positioned to play the spoiler in a number of races. In an unusual development, two independent candidates are making strong campaigns in two states. In several other states, Libertarian candidates are gaining just enough traction to affect the outcome of a close race. One three-way race pits a Tea Party favorite against another Republican and a Democrat.

The biggest outside threat to a race comes in Kansas, where independent Greg Orman is in a statistical tie with Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. The Democratic candidate, Chad Taylor, dropped out under pressure from national Democrats to step aside for Orman, a longtime Democrat supporter according to the Washington Examiner. Orman refuses say which party he would caucus with if he becomes the deciding vote in the Senate.

Another independent candidate is South Dakota’s Larry Pressler. Pressler is a former Republican congressman and Senator who supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Pressler, whose policy agenda closely aligns with Democratic positions these days, polled almost even with Mike Rounds (R), a former governor and the favorite to win the seat in early October. The poll, from Survey USA, also found that Pressler voters preferred Rick Weiland, the Democratic candidate, over Mike Rounds by almost a two-to-one margin.

The Libertarian Party is also positioned to spoil a number of races. The Libertarian website notes that there are Libertarian candidates on the ballot in nearly every battleground Senate race. These include Mark Fish in Alaska, Nathan LaFrane in Arkansas, Gaylon Kent in Colorado, Amanda Swafford in Georgia, Doug Butzier in Iowa, Randall Batson in Kansas, David Patterson in Kentucky, Roger Roots in Montana, and Sean Hough in North Carolina.

These Libertarian candidates have no chance of winning. Most don’t even show up in the polls, but they do have the potential to throw close races to the Democrats. Libertarian candidates often draw support disproportionately from voters who would otherwise support the Republican candidate.  This was the case last year in the Virginia gubernatorial election where a Libertarian candidate helped Democrat Terry McAuliffe eke out a three point victory over Ken Cuccinelli. In the Virginia race, and likely in others as well, Democratic fundraisers bankrolled the Libertarian candidate in order to dilute conservative votes according to campaign finance filings published by The Blaze.

In Georgia and Louisiana, candidates are required to get over 50 percent of the vote to win. If no candidate gets 50 percent, the top two finishers will compete in a runoff election. At this point, no candidate in either state is polling at more than 50 percent.

In Georgia, the most recent poll, by Landmark Communications, shows David Perdue (R) and Michelle Nunn (D) in a dead heat with 47 percent each. Amanda Swafford, the Libertarian candidate is at three percent and two percent are undecided. With Swafford in the race, it is likely that Perdue and Nunn will face each other in a runoff in January.

In Lousiana, incumbent Mary Landrieu (D) faces two Republicans. The Real Clear Politics average shows Landrieu with a slight lead over her two opponents, but falling far short of the necessary 50 percent. The leading Republican, Bill Cassidy, trails Landrieu by three points while Rob Maness, the Tea Party favorite, is a distant third with eight percent. Polling shows that Cassidy leads Landrieu in a two-way race and should and should have an edge in the runoff in December.

In both cases, a runoff would favor Republicans says analyst Dick Morris. Republican voters tend to be more motivated to vote in runoff elections and the absence of the third candidate would likely shift more votes to the GOP candidates. Additionally, Morris speculates that momentum after the Nov. 4 general election will likely favor Republicans, especially if the party captures the necessary six seats to control the Senate in the first round of elections.

In every race, with the sole exception of Kansas, the final victor is certain to be either a Democrat or a Republican. The question is whether enough voters will vote for independent and third party candidates to affect the outcome of the other races and perhaps the balance of the Senate.

Read the full article on Examiner.com