Coexist with that. What better way to show one’s horror at the Manchester jihad massacre than to wear a shirt showing the word “love” spelled out using various weapons as letters?
Is this niqabbed Muslima a moderate? Is her shirt moderate, or extremist? Was she radicalized on the Internet (where, presumably, she bought the shirt, since no one would sell such a thing among the peaceful and benign Muslim community in Britain, right?)? Did anyone in Britain notice or care about her shirt, which, given the context, seems unwise to ignore?
Channel 4 has pulled this segment, which is full of the usual finger-pointing and blaming of others by the Muslims who are interviewed, but the Internet remembers.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/muslim-shirt-guns.png370640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2017-05-26 05:41:222017-05-26 05:41:22Manchester Muslima wears shirt with LOVE spelled out with guns, knives and grenades
After the deletion gained a large amount of attention on social media, reaching the front page of the donald subreddit, the republished article is back up on the site with a disclosure saying: “This three-year-old post about a reported Ariana Grande quote went viral following a suicide bombing at her concert on Monday in Manchester, England. The remarks are unrelated to the incident.”
“Overnight, the post went viral, as many people shared it without knowing that it was published in 2014,” a BuzzFeed spokesperson said. “This morning we updated the post to add context and make clear that the post is three years old; while it was being updated, the article was temporarily removed, and is now back up.”
Media Matters provides a list at the bottom of this article of companies that advertise and companies that stopped advertising.
USAA is one of seven companies and the largest company that has stopped advertising on Sean Hannity. USAA tweeted the following:
“As a forty-one year member of USAA and proud member of a military family I am shocked that USAA would bow to the pressures of the extreme left.” Proclaims David Caton, President of Florida Family Association.
USAA provides insurance and financial services to millions of active and retired military personnel as well as their families.
There is no doubt that the super majority of the millions of military families USAA serves believes in the public policies and social morals espoused by Sean Hannity.
USAA tweeted “Advertising on opinion shows is not in accordance with our policy and we’ve since corrected that.” USAA must have just adopted that policy because USAA ads have appeared on Sean Hannity and numerous other opinion shows for years.
The fact is USAA caved to leftists who do not represent the values of the super majority of their members. USAA’s decision goes against the core values of their membership base.
If USAA truly has a policy not to advertise on “opinion shows” then USAA must stop ALL advertising on CNN and MSNBC because their entire programming including news is opinion based and loaded with fake news.
Unlike many cable news programs, Sean Hannity routinely gives honor to military leaders, fallen heroes and military families in need.
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge USAA officials to continue advertising with Sean Hannity.
A quick search of our recent recordings shows that USAA advertised routinely on cable news channels, so then you can wonder what their “policy” is? Do they somehow think Hardball is not an “opinion show”? Is Chris Cuomo yelling at Republicans on New Day a “news program”? Advertisers can’t just claim they’re not supporting wild partisan opinions and hope no one notices that their claims of a “policy” aren’t true when you watch TV.
Here’s video of a USAA ad on MSNBC’s Hardball With Chris Matthews on May 24.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/media-matters-usaa.jpg361640Florida Family Associationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFlorida Family Association2017-05-26 04:55:572017-05-27 18:32:19TAKE ACTION: Media Matters attacks Hannity advertiser USAA whose base is military members
James Comey’s stunning televised judgment against prosecuting Hillary Clinton was not a decision to protect the Clinton crime family or Comey’s personal and family involvement with the Clintons over decades. It was a battle tactic designed to protect Barack Hussein Obama – the globalist elite’s presidential puppet on a string.
Barack Obama is not the prime mover of anything – he is a malignant narcissist pawn whose easy smile and sophisticated multi-cultural appearance made him the perfect candidate to dupe America into following him down the path of cultural suicide toward socialism and ultimately the imposition of globalist elite one-world government. Obama is a media construct mentored by his radical Muslim father, radical socialist teacher Saul Alinsky, radical preacher Jeremiah Wright, and black separatist friend Louis Farrakhan. Barack Obama is a pawn of the globalist elites – the perfect con man.
Barack Obama was groomed for his mission to bring “hope and change” to America but it was not the hope or change that most Americans understood those words to mean. Barack Obama became president with the specific task of transforming America from a strong democracy to a weak socialist state. Socialism with its cradle-to-grave government control is the necessary stage before imposition of one-world government.
One must never underestimate the influence of a community organizer. Puppet-in-chief Barack Obama is first and foremost a community organizer. He started in Chicago, moved on to the White House, and now leads a shadow government of Leftist anarchists determined to delegitimize and destroy Trump’s presidency with a “resistance” movement. WHY?
Obama’s motives are ideological – he is an anti-American pro-Muslim son of a radical anti-American Muslim Kenyan. Barack Obama spent eight years fulfilling the dreams of his father to weaken/destroy America by weakening the American military, perverting American education toward socialism, de-industrializing America, collapsing the American economy, and seeding the US government with Muslim Brotherhood members/sympathizers whose mission is to destroy America from within. Obama followed Saul Alkinsky’s playbook Rules For Radicals explicitly. Joining him was Hillary Clinton, also a globalist student of Saul Alinsky, but greedy crooked Hillary’s motives were monetary – she and Bill enriched themselves enormously during her tenure as secretary of state with her pay-to-play sale of influence, the Clinton Foundation, and with their obscene money laundering pay-to-payoff speaking fees.
Barack Obama was the most lawless president in US history – his stunning executive overreach was rivaled only by his greater crime of corrupting the impartiality of the US government by politicizing its agencies and using them to advance his personal political goals to weaken America. Obama also seeded his administration with left-wing liberal operatives determined to help him “transform” America. His lawless administration embraced an “ends justifies the means” philosophy that is the infrastructure of tyranny.
Beginning with Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, Samantha Power, John Kerry, Ben Rhodes, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Podesta – the list goes on and on and on – their crimes and the coverup makes Watergate look like a kindergarten play. To stop the investigation into their crimes the Trump’s presidency is being deliberately stalled by activist judges in the courts and hysterical calls for his impeachment. The fake news, fake accusations, fake allegations echoing ad nauseum by the colluding mainstream media are all coordinated battle tactics to destabilize and discredit Trump and remove him from office to end the investigations and protect Obama so that he can complete his mission to destroy America.
Barack Obama’s crimes were designed and facilitated by the globalist elites who required the divisiveness and social chaos that Obama’s anti-American policies created in preparation for full transformation by legacy candidate Hillary Clinton. Crooked Hillary was already a pawn of the globalist elites fully complicit in their goals to socialize America. Disingenuously billed as altruism with the promise of social justice and equality the Obama/Clinton collectivist policies were actually designed to de-industrialize America, collapse the American economy with untenable trade deficits, and indoctrinate American students with Common Core disinformation, political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism. Their policies were designed for the destruction of American democracy and transformation into socialism – the necessary step before internationalizing American interests and imposing one-world government. Being with HER was supposed to clinch the globalist deal.
But then the unthinkable happened – Hillary lost – and the entire globalist elite plan fell apart. First came the shock, then came the hysteria, and then the coordinated deliberate ongoing effort to overthrow Donald Trump’s government. Obama’s “resistance” movement is two-tiered. The top and obvious purpose being to topple America-first nationalist Donald Trump but underneath is the coverup of the multiple crimes of the Obama administration. Jeff Sessions has begun the arduous task of exposing the criminals in the swamp and it is extremely dangerous for the Left but far more dangerous for those who pull their strings – the globalist elites.
The globalist elites simply cannot allow their most potent weapon, Barack Hussein Obama, to be exposed for the criminal that he is because then he would be immobilized and unable to lead their phony “resistance” movement to overthrow the government. Bringing down constitutionally elected President Donald Trump brings down America because it delegitimizes our constitutional elections – it is anarchy.
President Donald Trump is the symbol of American sovereignty and America-first policies – the greatest obstacle to one-world government. Trump is peeling back the multiple layers of Obama’s lawless anti-American presidency. The coordinated effort to destroy Donald Trump is a giant cover-up to protect the secrets of Obama’s criminal administration. The globalist elite are desperate to stop Trump because if Obama is exposed it leaves them without their popular prime puppet to continue marching America toward anarchy and social chaos.
The clock is ticking. If Donald Trump is successful in making America safe and great again by restoring law and order and re-industrializing America with jobs jobs jobs – he will be unbeatable which means that the globalist effort to destroy America begun after WWII has finally failed. The globalist elites are running out of time because Jeff Sessions is onto them and will not stop until their sinister plan to destroy America is exposed and they are defeated.
LOCK THEM ALL UP!
RELATED VIDEO: Obama NSA used for domestic political intelligence and violated Constitution
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-obama-mess.jpg300600Linda Goudsmithttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLinda Goudsmit2017-05-25 20:04:162017-05-26 04:45:50Barack Hussein Obama: Puppet on a String
The First Lady of the United States and the First Daughter of the United States bravely displayed, by their dress, the clear difference between respect and submission during the President’s first trip overseas to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Vatican. Women deserve respect and these two women bravely showed they are true feminists, by how they dressed.
Fashion has become a weapon in the global war against women.
The First Lady of the United States in Saudi Arabia.
The Westerners under Islam were shocked to see First Lady Melania Trump and President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, with their heads uncovered and their hair in the wind before King Salman and throughout their presence in Saudi Arabia.
But when they saw them veiled before the Pope, they were choked.
On Twitter, a Muslim has tried to say that the Pope demanded that they be veiled, unlike King Salman. This is of course inaccurate, and anyone who follows Pope Francis knows that he has instead relaxed the protocol – for example, he has refrained from wearing traditional red shoes.
The First Lady greeting Pope Frances at the Vatican.
David Martosko, U.S. Political Editor for the Dailymail.com in Brussels reports:
When Melania Trump recited The Lord’s Prayer before a Melbourne, Florida presidential rally in February, the Internet went hog wild.
Now we know one reason why the first lady began with ‘Let us pray’ and ‘Our Father who art in heaven’ when she introduced the president that evening: She’s a practicing Roman Catholic.
Her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham confirmed that to DailyMail.com on Wednesday, hours after Pope Francis blessed a rosary for her at the Vatican.
The last Catholics to live in the White House were John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie. Melania and her son Barron will move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over the summer.
Mrs. Trump did more than just show up for a Papal audience.
She spent time in prayer at the Vatican-affiliated Bambino Gesù (Baby Jesus) Hospital, and laid flowers at the feet of a statue of the Madonna.
Respect and submission cannot coexist. Respect is the enemy of submission. As Malcolm X said, “I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he’s wrong, than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil.”
These two women showed, by the subtleness of their dress, what it means to respect one another. They showed their freedom and liberty to address as they wish, as their faith tells them to dress.
The core issue facing women in the world is the ongoing struggle between respect and submission. Women deserve respect. The First Lady and First Daughter are fighting for respect for all women.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/melania-in-veil-rome.png433640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-05-25 08:07:002017-05-25 10:22:01Melania and Ivanka Trump display the clear difference between respect and submission
President Trump’s mega-trip to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Rome, Belgium, and Sicily is presenting the American public with a fascinating insight — not into Trump but into Washington, D.C. and the American media.
The Trump at home is beset by the triumvirate of what is now referred to as the Deep State’s daily leaks, a virulently dishonest media and the weak but wildly flailing Democratic Party. These three work in a common direction to undermine the Trump presidency and have been doing so since before inauguration day.
Trump abroad is presidential, courageous, respected and making progress in the impossible quagmire of the Middle East of all places. The Trump at home is under a barrage of embarrassing stories about his corruption or incompetence or collusion from “anonymous” sources.
The two Trumps could hardly be more opposite.
But is Trump really that different on the road, or is there another difference going on here?
The Deep State revelation
One of the early revelations in the Trump administration is that there actually is a vast Deep State apparatus that wields enormous power of the most unaccountable kind.
The Deep State refers to long-time entrenched bureaucrats who oppose Trump and have the power and apparent freedom to seek and send classified material to journalists. Journalists are joined at the hip with the Deep State as the anonymous leaks are what drive a lot of news cycles now.
Many of the leaks are illegal and could and should be investigated and prosecuted. That the FBI seemingly has no interest in doing so suggests that it is probably rife with a type of Deep State also.
Now to be clear, this is not likely to be any sort of broadly coordinated conspiracy.
Like the media, it is made up of hundreds, maybe thousands, of fellow travelers who share a worldview ideology that is distinctly left of the American center. As such, they reactively oppose Republicans and conservatives and are somewhat amoral regarding the means to accomplishing the ends.
So as they come across information that could be damaging to Trump, or are simply sitting on a pile of documents, they share it with journalists who they trust to not “out” them.
The leakers are not heroes. They are cowards and criminals. Cowards for demanding anonymity. Criminals for violating federal law on classified documents.
The Deep State Nuclearized
What’s important to remember about the Deep State is that the Obama administration, spearheaded by Susan Rice, armed them by unmasking an enormous number of Americans caught up in NSA intercepts. These were apparently fishing expeditions for Trump associates who were talking to Russians in order to create as many opportunities as possible to give the appearance of shadiness, without any actual evidence. Of course, it is common for presidential campaigns to communicate with foreign leaders to gather campaign information and prepare for being in office.
Those names and files were then disseminated through several branches of the federal government — nuclearizing the Deep State. The detonations are set off daily, providing regular damage to Trump, but in turn making the media and government radioactive to a large number of Americans.
Is there an investigation of this unmasking and dissemination of state secrets? Not that we are aware of. (See reason listed above for why no serious investigation of the leaks.)
It is entirely possible that this leaking from the Susan Rice unmaskings and the Obama dissemination could go on for a long time. But we also see it continuing after the Trump inauguration, and Rice and Obama were out of office. At least three personal phone calls between Trump and heads of state of other nations have been leaked in hopes of embarrassing the president.
That never happens to other presidents.
The trip’s solid successes
Because Trump’s trip has been largely a success, and better than most any presidents do on their first trip, that doesn’t mean the triumvirate does not try to undermine him back home.
When Trump got to Israel, several good things had already happened:
In Saudi Arabia, Trump called out the Islamists and spoke the truth in the heart of Islam, speaking of “honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamists and Islamic terror of all kinds.” (Particularly timely as the next day an Islamic extremist in Manchester, England, slaughtered more than 20 people at an Ariana Grande concert.)
Egypt’s president told Trump publicly: “Let me say that you have a unique personality that is capable of doing the impossible.” Naturally, Trump agreed with this. But what you have here is a president speaking the truth, acting with strength, but willing to talk.
In Jerusalem, Trump got the Israelis to make changes that could improve the Palestinian economy and expand the border crossings to improve the climate for finding peace. He met with the heads of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. (Of course, the Palestinians don’t want peace with Israel, they want Israel exterminated. It’s literally written in their laws. But he’s getting some movement.)
Trump kept relentless pressure on Iran, which is obviously the biggest problem in the region, and has been. He vowed to never let them get nuclear weapons. And he and his team may be able to create a new alignment of several Muslim nations and Israel against Iran — which of course Obama put on a path to nuclearization and helped further destabilize the region.
Trump became the first sitting president to visit the Western Wall, and did so with the solemnity the occasion required.
At the halfway mark, the trip has been successful when the naysayers said he should just visit Canada on his first trip.
The Triumvirate strikes back
But the triumvirate of Trump opposition will have none of it, and continues its relentless drumbeat of negativism.
The front-page reporting of the successful trip to Israel that followed the successful trip to Saudi Arabia outlined above was predictably jaundiced, and had to rely on the home team of underminers to get the narrative out. Headlines generally fell along the lines of “Accusations dog Trump’s trip” and “Questions follow Trump to Israel.” (These were followed by obligatory reporting of the actual trip.)
The media even went so far as to seek out and highlight any missteps — no matter how minor — and report on the apparent awkwardness between Trump and his wife. Because those are the things Americans care about.
And of course, it is all about the Russia investigation, the collusion accusations, and the idea that many or most Washington journalists have that Trump was in bed with the Kremlin to get elected.
But our story from nearly three months ago remains exactly true. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Trump. There is no crime. There is no collusion. Months more of daily hyperventilating stories by the media and now a special counsel, and we still have nothing.
Perhaps it’s because there is nothing and despite all of his personality foibles and Twitter nonsense, Trump can be a very effective President and leader — when it does not go through the media filter.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-on-phond-e1495707285699.jpg384640Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2017-05-25 06:07:062017-05-29 05:51:24A Tale of Two Trumps: One with Anonymous Leaks, One Without
It’s clear that many big government policies are creating winners and losers in America.
The story has been the same for decades. Government makes friends with a company or an industry, blocks out the competition with regulation, and in some cases gives the company subsidies.
Such cronyism is bad for innovators and for consumers. But fewer people realize that it’s also bad for the poor. A recent report from The Heritage Foundation detailed 23 of these big government policies that hurt the poor, and provided concrete ways to address them.
Winners and losers from big government policies are not always clear. And yet for some crony policies, the winners and losers are very clear. The winners are a small group of identifiable government cronies, while the losers include people of little or no influence with the government.
Here is a look at eight big government policies from the report that benefit government cronies at the expense of other groups of people, including the poor.
1. Renewable Fuel Standard
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated that renewable fuels be mixed into America’s gasoline supply, primarily by using corn-based ethanol. Then, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Acts significantly increased the amount that must be mixed in.
This mandate is known as the Renewable Fuel Standard. It forces the use of higher levels of biofuels than the market would otherwise bear. The result has been higher food and fuel prices.
Who Wins: Corn farmers, soybean farmers, and biofuel companies.
Who Loses: Consumers of gasoline, consumers of food, and farmers that rely on feedstock and restaurants.
2. Federal Sugar Program
The federal government tries to limit the supply of sugar that is sold in the United States.
This federal sugar program uses a combination of price supports, marketing allotments that limit how much sugar processors can sell each year, and import restrictions that reduce the amount of imports.
As a result, the price of American sugar is consistently higher than world prices.
Who Wins: Sugar growers and sugar harvesters.
Who Loses: Workers in sugar-using industries, and consumers of food (including bread) that contains sugar.
3. Catfish Inspection Program
As a result of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s catfish inspection program, the USDA inspects catfish while the Food and Drug Administration inspects all other seafood.
This creates duplication because seafood processing facilities that produce both catfish and any other seafood will have to deal with two different types of seafood regulatory schemes instead of just one.
This program also creates a non-tariff trade barrier that will make it extremely difficult for foreign catfish exporters to export to the U.S., likely reducing competition for the domestic catfish industry.
Who Wins: Domestic catfish producers.
Who Loses: Domestic catfish consumers.
4. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the Jones Act)
The Merchant Marine Act – nicknamed after Sen. Wesley Jones, R-Wash. – requires the use of domestically built ships when transporting goods between U.S. ports. The ships must also be U.S.-owned, and mostly U.S.-crewed.
Who Wins: The U.S. domestic shipping industry.
Who Loses: The U.S. military, automobile drivers, users of propane and heating oil, and anyone benefitting from the trade and transportation of goods between U.S. ports.
5. Occupational Licensure
Licensure laws create government requirements for being allowed to practice a profession. These requirements exist even though the market would produce certification options if consumers desired such information.
Who Wins: Workers who have already obtained licenses.
Who Loses: People wanting to work who can’t because they don’t have a license, and consumers who have to pay higher prices for services.
6. Economic Development Takings
On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that the government can seize private property and transfer it to another private party for economic development.
This type of taking was deemed to be for “public use” and ruled a proper use of the government’s eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Who Wins: People who successfully lobby the government to seize other people’s property for financial gain.
Who Loses: Property owners who have their property seized.
7. Home-Sharing Regulations
Local governments sometimes ban or excessively regulate home-sharing – that is, renting out one’s home to accommodate travelers, such as through Airbnb.
When this happens, consumers have less choices of where to stay when traveling, hotels can charge higher prices, and homeowners and renters can’t make full use of their legally possessed homes to earn income for themselves.
Who Wins: Hotel employee union lobbies, and the hotel industry.
Who Loses: Homeowners and renters.
8. Ride-Sharing Regulations
In some state and local jurisdictions (such as outside Portland, Oregon; Alaska; and Austin, Texas), the government bans or heavily regulates ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft.
These companies are popping up all over because they meet consumers’ needs, but they are being held down in certain cities where the government backs the establishment industry.
Who Wins: Traditional taxicab companies.
Who Loses: Uber, Lyft, and drivers looking for low barriers to entry; taxicab customers; customers who want to go in or out of certain neighborhoods that traditional taxi drivers avoid; and users of public transportation seeking to complete the “last mile” of their trips.
When industries or groups win special favors from politicians at the expense of ordinary Americans and the poor, it is an affront to freedom – especially to the economic freedom of the poor.
Policies that drive up prices – especially of commodities – are harder to absorb if you are poor.
The policies listed above can block off the only escape route that poor people have from poverty, preventing them from doing what they are good at for a living, for example, or from renting out their home or other property.
All Americans should have the same opportunities open to them. But when government cronyism rears its ugly head, they don’t.
Those who fall on the losing side of cronyism are more likely to agree with President Ronald Reagan when he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_303194204_mini-e1495706452159.jpg374640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2017-05-25 06:01:012017-05-25 06:01:018 Big-Government Policies that Hurt the Poor by Patrick Tyrrell
There is a moment I found a bit startling in the new Anne of Green Gables series on Netflix. The farm is in trouble and the bank is talking foreclosure. The family starts to panic. Anne suggests that many people will chip in and help the family through these hard times.
The mother reacts with firmness and conviction: “Absolutely not. We do not accept charity.”How old fashioned! The statement alone reveals we are talking about the past here. I vaguely recall people in my own extended family – at family reunions in West Texas, sitting around shelling peas – saying something similar. It was a matter of pride, even morality.
When was the last time you have heard that assertion? I personally can’t remember hearing that in many years.
Maybe it is time to bring back that ethos and ethic.
What we have here is a principle at work, a matter of character. Don’t live at other’s expense. Make your own way in this world. Keep your independence and retain your dignity.
Is there any virtue here? I would suggest so. It is a forgotten virtue, to be sure, but a virtue nonetheless.
Charity with Dignity
The family in the story truly needed help. Rather than beg, they gathered up many of their possessions and took them to town to sell them. Merchants had heard about the family’s need, so some actually overpaid as a way of helping without letting the family know what was going on.
This is a great way to be charitable without letting the person know about it, which is yet another expression of virtue. The Bible tells people to give unto others without letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing – which is to say, don’t congratulate yourself and likewise expect others to praise you for your generosity. This is what the neighbors did.
By the same token, the shame associated with begging is ever-present in the Bible. In the parable of the unrighteous steward, the guy complains that he is been released from his master, but he is too weak to dig and “too ashamed to beg.”
Ashamed! Can you imagine? Social welfare professionals have been trying to remove the stigma of welfare for a century. But let’s face: it will never entirely go away. That might even be a good thing.
Don’t Be a Beggar
The story of Anne is set in Canada, but the attitude behind it feels quintessentially American. It is fundamentally a character trait forged in a setting of freedom. You encounter this often in the Little House books too, this attitude that it represents something of a humiliation to accept charity from others.
Even when the opportunity is there, there once seemed to be a cultural commitment against dependency, against living off others. Think of the old term hobo. The hobo ethic was never to beg – that’s what bums do – but rather to completely avoid all forms of dependency, even the need for a comfortable bed and nice clothes, and to travel and work small jobs to get enough to live and then move on. The hobos believed that this was the only way to stay free.In the American spirit, the hobo was making a dignified choice. The bum? Never.
Even when the redistributionist state came along, the American spirit of individualism rebelled.
Rose Wilder Lane, the daughter of the author of those books, writing at the height of the New Deal, put it like this:
The spirit of individualism is still here. The number of us who have been out of work and facing actual hunger is not known; the largest estimate has been twelve million. Of this number, barely a third appeared on the reported relief rolls. Somewhere those millions in need of help, who were not helped, are still fighting through this depression on their own. Millions of farmers are still lords on their own land; they are not receiving checks from the public funds to which they contribute their increasing taxes.
Millions of men and women have quietly been paying debts from which they asked no release; millions have cut expenses to the barest necessities, spending every dime in fear that soon they will have nothing, and somehow being cheerful in the daytime and finding God knows what strength or weakness in themselves during the black nights.
Americans are still paying the price of individual liberty, which is individual responsibility and insecurity.
This view is of course routinely lampooned in the progressive press, overtly by socialists like Elizabeth Warren but implicitly in venues like the New York Times and National Public Radio. Their voices drip with disdain for what they say is the myth of “rugged individualism,” a phrase popularized at the end of the 19th century. It is the supposedly cruel and unrealistic idea that people should get by on their own wherewithal.
The idea behind this phrase is to celebrate individual achievement and to suggest that it is a compromise of your potential as a human being to expect others to care for you if it is not necessary.Too often the idea has been caricatured, at least since the New Deal sought to break down the social stigma of dependency on government. For example, maybe people associate this with selfishness. It’s not true. There is a paradox that the more independent you are, the more you are willing to step up and help others. As Lane says: “We are the kindest people on earth; kind every day to one another and sympathetically responsive to every rumor of distress. It is only in America that a passing car will stop to lend a stranded stranger a tire-tool.”
This is not living off others. This is benefitting from the kindness of others when it is necessary and helpful. You accept it because you would certainly do the same for them. And you don’t expect it from others. And you certainly don’t craft your life around the idea that everyone or anyone is morally obligated to help you when you encounter misfortune.
Help Yes, Dependency No
It’s not complicated: you accept help when necessary but don’t make a habit of it. My own mother, who comes from the stock and heritage that celebrated self-reliance, used to say to me, very simply: “never be beholden.” If you owe others, you have given up that most precious thing, your independence, which means giving up some of your freedom.
Private creditors are bad enough. It is surely worse to be beholden to government. Right now 43 million Americans are on food stamps. That is not a mark of national pride. And this is true even in times when groceries are absurdly cheap and available by any historical standard.
Once you accept the largesse, you have a political investment in continuing it. Your loyalties gradually change.
People justify this based on observing how much they are paying into the system. It pillages them with every paycheck, so they might as well get something back. No matter how much welfare they pay in, they can never take enough out to make the bargain work out equally. For most people, this is surely true.Once you accept the largesse, you have a political investment in continuing it. Your loyalties gradually change. The state becomes your benefactor. Your sense of self reliance is compromised.
Do you see the vicious cycle? You are forced to pay in, so you have no moral resistance about taking out when the time arises. Pretty soon you find yourself part of the Bastiatian calculus: the state becomes the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at everyone else’s expense.
In service of people’s dignity, programs like food stamps ought to be abolished, as much as that would upset the corporate agricultural interests that are forever lobbying for this racket to continue.
It seems that government does everything possible to rope people into the role of dependent these days. Whether it is student loans, Obamacare, or just guilt tripping us all to love the highways and glorious national defense we get for our tax dollars, we are supposed to feel forever on the hook, forever beholden. Forever indentured.
This is not the attitude of a free people.
A Word for Individualism
To hear about “rugged individualism” is a bit strange for us today. We have a vague sense that people used to believe this. We feel mischievous even to sense that there might be a grain of truth in it. The attitude built the world’s most prosperous economy. It gave us new inventions. It created the most dynamic, thriving, progressing society in history, and this became a model for the world.
To be sure, there is often a confusion over the phrase self-reliance. It does not mean to grow your own food, make your own furniture, and walk instead of drive. It has nothing to do with the technology you use, and there is a sense in which the market and the division of labor it creates makes us all deeply dependent on each other. That is a beautiful thing.
The point is that market dependency is rooted in exchange and mutual benefit. We go into every exchange with the freedom to change our minds, and we benefit from exchange as much as the other party. We aren’t doing favors for each other. We cooperate together in our own interest.Self-reliance really means something else. It means not being on the hook for a favor someone else did you or being expected to live in a constant state of owing others for some act of benevolence on their part. It certainly rejects forcing others through the state to be productive so that you can get a free ride.
Pay Your Debts
My mother is right. It’s not good to be beholden to others. This idea was once baked into our institutions. Government had no charity to offer anyone. Your debts had to be paid. Americans didn’t rush to create the cradle-to-grave welfare state. The thing existed in Europe long before it came to our shores. Even when we created the institutions, people were reluctant to use them.
And it’s not just about the compromise of your individualism that you make when you accept welfare. It is also about the annoyance others feel when forced to pay for it. Both sides are degraded in this forced wealth transfer.
For our ancestors, it was a matter of personal character.
This is the underlying thinking behind the quote that Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged worked to forge into a life doctrine: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”It’s best to think of that line, not as a hard religious doctrine but just very solid life advice, a good bedrock practice for how to think of yourself in relation to others. With that idea in place, all the rest of the virtues fall into place.
What Can We Do About It
The idea of rejecting charity means that you should take charge of your own life, regardless of pressures around you to do otherwise. This is possible even today. It’s true that you are forced to pay into the system. But no one is forcing anyone to take food stamps, to live on handouts, to be dependent on government programs. It’s not so easy to refuse them anymore. The struggle is real. Still, this is something you can control – unlike national politics.For our ancestors, it was a matter of personal character. It is always easier to take the more temporarily lucrative path and the safer route. Maybe you feel like a chump for turning down government money when it is so easily available. But if you relent, what are you giving up in the exchange?
We don’t need to bring back the shame that comes with living off others. Anyone who does that when it is not absolutely necessary knows in his or her heart that there is a better way. If we can choose the better path, we should.
If everyone did this, the welfare state would be de facto abolished overnight.
Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/pioneers-catching-fish-lawlor-276501-print-e1495705485517.jpg379640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2017-05-25 05:50:132017-05-25 05:50:13Yes, it is a Virtue to Reject Charity by Jeffrey A. Tucker
Once again the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has proven why it is the Hillary Clinton of the Civil Rights Movement.
The NAACP used to be a storied organization, that was a major player in the historic fight for full equality for Blacks in America; that was before they got bought out by the Democratic Party in the early 1970s; before they bowed downed to the alter of the homosexual community; and before they sold themselves to the likes of radical liberal, George Soros and his open borders crowd who believe everyone has a right to be in the U.S., whether legally or illegally.
The equality that the NAACP once sought was not predicated on some “special” rights or entitlements that some groups wanted the courts to create out of thin air (gay rights). The NAACP and Blacks wanted the rights that the U.S. Constitution already said we were entitled to. In other words, the NAACP simply wanted the government to enforce the laws on the books, not create new ones.
Like Clinton, the NAACP can never seem to bring itself to accept responsibility for any of their own actions; and the plight of the Black community can always be blamed on others.
This Clintonian tick led them last Friday to fire their latest president and CEO, Cornell William Brooks.
Brooks should have never been hired for this post; the national board selected him three years ago, because they wanted someone that was easy to control.
Brooks was a horrible speaker and wasn’t as charismatic as some of their past leaders, but he was easily controlled.
Since the 1970s, the NAACP has only had two heads, who made any difference in America and the organization; those two people were Benjamin Hooks and Bruce Gordon.
Hooks was an icon of the Civil Rights Movement and a staunch Republican. Richard Nixon appointed him to serve on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the early seventies. He was the first Black to ever serve on this commission and is singularly responsible for the diversity in media ownership that we see today. Without Hooks, networks like BET and TV One never would have existed.
But somehow, the NAACP rarely mentions Hooks’ Republican ties in any of the group’s written literature, but I digress.
Maybe Hook’s speech at the NAACP’s 1990 convention is why they sanitized his Republican linage.
During the speech, Hooks said that,
“It’s time today… to bring it out of the closet: No longer can we proffer polite, explicable, reasons why Black America cannot do more for itself…I’m calling for a moratorium on excuses. I challenge black America today—all of us—to set aside our alibis.”
Bruce Gordon came from a family with deeps roots in the Civil Rights Movement, but he chose to make his mark on America by working his way up the ladder in corporate America. He became a high-ranking executive with telecom giant Verizon.
So, his appointment to lead the NAACP in 2005 shocked everyone, because they typically hired preachers or politicians. President George W. Bush had rightfully ignored the group and refused to attend their national convention until Gordon came on board. Gordon’s business background helped him to navigate the political battlefield and he was able to build a personal relationship with President Bush, to the dismay of his group’s board.
This friction led to his abrupt resignation in 2007. Gordon stated: “I did not step into the role to be a caretaker, to be dictated to…I stepped into the role to understand as best I could the needs of the African American community and then to propose strategies and policies and programs and practices that could improve conditions for African Americans…The things I had in mind were not consistent with what some—unfortunately, too many—on the board had in mind.”
The national board of the NAACP demands undying fealty and they love to micromanage their presidents; any attemps to cut their puppet strings and you become useless to them. God forbid a president makes a decision on his own or attempts to make the group more relevant to the 21st century.
I know many of their leaders from across the country and the tragedy is that most of them don’t even believe in the issues the national board has made a priority. Publically, many state NAACP leaders say one thing and privately they believe another.
How can the NAACP claim to represent the Black community when they are out of sync with what the Black community believes and wants?
Black community is very conservative. Blacks don’t support amnesty for illegals. Blacks are the largest voting block that supports school choice and vouchers! This, despite the NAACP passing a resolution last year at their national convention opposing school choice. And they wonder why they are no longer relevant to the Black community?
I dare the NAACP national board to choose someone like Condoleezza Rice, Shannon Reeves, or Jennifer Carroll as their next leader; if they are truly interested in regaining relevancy, that’s exactly what they’ll do.
Unfortunately, the NAACP national board is totally incapable of thinking outside the box or giving up control. The NAACP has become the retirement village for the Black bourgeoisie.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Cornell-William-Brooks.jpg340615Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2017-05-25 05:24:042017-05-25 05:28:22Brooks’ Firing Shows that the NAACP Doesn’t Have a Clue
The emerging profile of 22 year Salman Abedi, the home grown suicide bomber or shahid (martyr) who perpetrated the Manchester Arena massacre, whose family were Libyan refugees, raises questions about the political future of UK Prime Minister Theresa May in the looming June 10, snap elections called over the Brexit impasse. Abedi was claimed by ISIS as one of their own, “a solider of the Caliphate.” With arrests of four suspects, following the Manchester Arena massacre, police are now saying “we may be dealing with a network.” The Manchester Arena attack triggered UK PM May ordering the deployment of thousands of soldiers to prevent an imminent attack after raising the threat level to the highest level, “critical.”
In the wake of the dastardly Manchester Arena bombing that killed 22 people, especially young girls, injuring 59, many with life threatening wounds, questions abound about the policies May implemented as former UK Home Minister. May had been the long term Home Minister in the former Cameron Conservative governments. Her track record on lax immigration controls and surveillance of radical Muslim communities ironically may have contributed to the massive terror explosion at 10:30 PM at the close of U.S. pop star Ariane Grande’s concert that shredded the lives of those killed and injured with a bomb loaded with deadly shrapnel of nuts and bolts.
Here’s what we know about Abedi, the perpetrator of this heinous attack on the 20,000 attendees at Ms. Grande’s Manchester Arena concert. Police obtained a photo ID card from his remains identifying him as the suspected bomber. They stormed his residence in South Manchester seeking information about both him and possible jihadist network connections. He was born in the UK to Libyan refugee parents who lived in a tight émigré community. He prayed at a Mosque with known Al Qaeda connections to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. A number of worshipers who left to join ISIS as foreign fighters.
Abedi had made numerous trips to Libya following the fall of the Gadaffi regime and may have received training in bomb making with powerful ingredients. His travels to and from Libya must have put him on the Mi-5 watch list. Abedi had enrolled at a local university studying business management. He appears to have enrolled for the 2016 academic year but not attended classes. More concerning was he had outward vestiges of becoming radical such as wearing a long Islamic Islamic gabilla gown, Kufi skull cap and growing a beard.
Salman Abedi, 22, who was reportedly known to the security services, is thought to have returned from Libya as recently as this week.
A school friend told The Times: “He went to Libya three weeks ago and came back recently, like days ago.”
He had become radicalized recently – it is not entirely clear when – and had worshipped at a local mosque that has, in the past, been accused of fundraising for jihadists.
Abedi’s older brother Ismail had been a tutor at Didsbury mosque’s Koran school. The imam last night said that Salman Abedi, who wore Islamic dress, had shown him “the face of hate” when he gave a talk warning on the dangers of so-called Islamic State.
His mother, Samia Tabbal, 50, and father, Ramadan Abedi, a security officer, were both born in Tripoli but appear to have emigrated to London before moving to the Whalley Range area of south Manchester where they have lived for at least a decade.
Abedi went to school locally and then on to Salford University in 2014 where he studied business management before dropping out. His trips to Libya, where it is thought his parents returned in 2011 following Gaddafi’s overthrow, are now subject to scrutiny including links to jihadists.
A group of Gaddafi dissidents, who were members of the outlawed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), lived within close proximity to Abedi in Whalley Range.
Among them was Abd al-Baset Azzouz, a father-of-four from Manchester, who left Britain to run a terrorist network in Libya overseen by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as leader of al-Qaeda.
Azzouz, 48, an expert bomb-maker, was accused of running an al-Qaeda network in eastern Libya. The Telegraph reported in 2014 that Azzouz had 200 to 300 militants under his control and was an expert in bomb-making.
Another member of the Libyan community in Manchester, Salah Aboaoba told Channel 4 news in 2011 that he had been fund raising for LIFG while in the city. Aboaoba had claimed he had raised funds at Didsbury mosque, the same mosque attended by Abedi. The mosque at the time vehemently denied the claim. “This is the first time I’ve heard of the LIFG. I do not know Salah,” a mosque spokesman said at the time.
At the Abedi family home in Elsmore Road, a non-descript red-brick terrace, neighbors told how Abedi had become increasingly devout and withdrawn.
Lina Ahmed, 21, said: “They are a Libyan family and they have been acting strangely. A couple of months ago he [Salman] was chanting the first kalma [Islamic prayer] really loudly in the street. He was chanting in Arabic.
“He was saying ‘There is only one God and the prophet Mohammed is his messenger’.’
A family friend, who described the Abedis as “very religious”, said most of the family had returned to Libya, leaving only Salman and his older brother Ismail behind.
UK PM Theresa May. Source: The Independent
As to why UK PM Theresa May is partly to blame for the lax surveillance of radicals like suicide bomber Abedi, we turn to a UK Spectator article in July 2016 by Jonathan Foreman about May’s track record as Home Secretary under former Conservative PM David Cameron, “Theresa May’s record as Home Secretary is alarming, not reassuring.”
Despite her carefully fostered reputation for toughness, Mrs. May’s record on extremism is perhaps the least impressive aspect of her checkered tenure at the Home Office. Any public official who seriously addresses radicalization, ghettoization and extremism risks being labeled an Islamophobe or worse. It takes a brave politician, one more committed to doing the right thing than to securing a glorious political future, to take on this hornets’ nest; Mrs. May was not such a politician. This began to be clear during the Trojan Horse affair, when official reluctance to confront radicalization in Birmingham schools prompted a concerned Education Secretary to venture onto the Home Secretary’s turf. (Her characteristic fury at this trespass was damaging to both departments at the time, and may well wreak havoc into the new government. Certainly her firing of Michael Gove’s as Justice Minister, despite the fact that his incomplete prison reforms have been universally lauded, looks like a destructive act of petty vengeance and personal spite.)
It became more apparent when Mrs. May, having delivered some appropriate sound-bites, avoided potential career-inhibiting controversy by ensuring that the Home Office’s efforts to deal with tricky issues like female genital mutilation, honor killings and forced marriage remained as low key – and low impact – as possible. But it is even more obvious in the investigation Mrs. May eventually set up into whether Britain’s Sharia courts, some legal, some not, might possibly discriminate against women in matters of divorce, domestic violence and child custody, as a result of a ‘misuse’ of Sharia teaching. (In the past the Home Secretary has implicitly claimed a surprising intimacy with Islamic law and political thought, asserting in 2014 that the actions of Isis ‘have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Koran.’)
Then there was the cynical political correctness. Mrs. May talked about coming down hard on hate crimes and lambasted the police about a lack of diversity. But she abjectly failed to identify the child rape rings of Rotherham, Rochdale, Sheffield, Bradford and Oxford as the racially and ethnically motivated hate crimes that they were. [SEE: Peter McLoughlin, Easy Meat: inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal, New English Review Press, 2016.]
May has also done little to reverse various policing trends that have alienated the public from the police, including the abandonment of neighborhood policing, the substitution of decoy-like PCSOs and CCTV for beat patrols, and the massaging of crime statistics, At the same time Mrs. May has given the nod to massive, transformative budget cuts that may genuinely make Britain’s police forces unfit for purpose.
As the then shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper pointed out, three years after May took over the ministry, the number of people refused entry had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up, the number of foreign prisoners removed had gone down, and the number of illegal immigrants deported had also gone down. Tens of thousands of international students kicked out of the country by the Home Office – in a panicked response to a TV documentary about a test cheating scam – then turned out to have been wrongly deported.
UK PM Theresa May’s track record as Home Secretary may now been thrust into the public limelight as a result of the Manchester Arena massacre by UK born Jihadist, the late Salman Abedi. The prior neglect by Mi-5 and UK security services monitoring jihadists in the country’s midst may impact on the looming snap election originally called to empower her to resolve the Brexit impasse. With her raising the terror threat to its highest level in the UK following the Manchester Arena attack, perhaps Conservative backbenchers might question her policies and performance.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/manchester-isis.jpg382640Jerry Gordonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Gordon2017-05-24 17:12:422017-05-24 20:33:24Who shares responsibility for the Suicide Bombing at the Manchester Arena?
President Trump did not shy away from calling an Islamist terrorist by his real name when he addressed the heads of state of some fifty Muslim countries over the weekend in Riyadh.
His language and his message were clear: the United States needs the leaders of Arab Islamic nations as partners. As non-Muslims, we can not eradicate the scourge of a terrorism that draws its source from authentic Islamic texts, nor can we cast out terrorist leaders who model themselves on Mohammad, the prophet of Islam.
Indeed, that is what the Manchester bomber did, blowing himself up in order to kill the children of the Unbelievers. (Quran 3:151: “Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.”)
ISIS proudly draws on the Quran, and the Sura – the Life of the Prophet Mohammad – to justify its actions and its manner of imposing Sharia law over territory it controls.
In its training manuals and propaganda videos, ISIS regularly calls on young Muslims to join the ranks of the jihad, because it is their duty as good Muslims. How can they say this? Because Mohammad himself told them.
Indeed, there are 164 well-known versus in the Quran where Mohammad calls on Muslims to fight the Unbelievers and carry out jihad.
“I hear so many people say ISIS has nothing to do with Islam – of course it has. They are not preaching Judaism,” says Aaqil Ahmed, a Muslim who is the religion and ethics editor at the BBC.
“It might be wrong, but what they are saying is an ideology based on some form of Islamic doctrine. They are Muslims. That is a fact and we have to get our head around some very uncomfortable things,” Mr. Ahmed went on.
King Salman of Saudi Arabia knows this. Prime Minister Abadi of Iraq knows this. Egyptian president al-Sissi knows this. So does King Abdallah II of Jordan and all the other leaders President Trump met at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh.
None of them blushed when the President spoke these “very uncomfortable things” in his speech on Sunday. They know that it is up to them to lead the fight against the jihadis and “drive them out,” as the President said – not because the jihadis represent the true face of Islam, but because they are the forces of Evil in today’s Muslim world, whose first victims tend to be Muslims.
Enter Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.
In a five minute interview with FoxNews host Bret Beier in Riyadh, Gen. McMaster swept away all the gains the President had just made.
He acknowledged that the President had used the term “Islamic terrorism” in his speech, then immediately tried to back away from it.
“These are not Islamic people. These are not religious people. These are people who use a perverted interpretation of religion to advance their criminality. It’s a political agenda,” McMaster said of ISIS. “And you saw great agreement on that in all the speeches yesterday. King Salman used almost the same language.”
But King Salman did not use almost the same language. Instead, he acknowledged that ISIS terrorists “consider themselves as Muslims” and that they drew their inspiration from periods of Islamic history outside the “bright eras… of mercy, tolerance and coexistence.”
Gen. McMaster returned to the Obama-era white-washing of Islam and denial of Islamic doctrine, bending over backwards out of fear of offending Muslim leaders whose support we need to fight ISIS.
While one can hope that the damage he did to the budding anti-jihadi alliance will be transitory, and that wiser officials with a more sophisticated knowledge of Islamic doctrine will be put in the forefront of our cooperation with potential Muslim allies, ISIS leaders must be laughing at the foolishness of McMaster’s words.
Of course their allure draws its source from Islam’s earliest days, when Mohammad and his armies put their enemies to the sword, pillaged their cities, raped their wives, enslaved any survivors, and plundered their crops.
ISIS has already claimed responsibility for the Manchester bombing. We will learn soon enough whether Salman Abedi, the suicide bomber who murdered so many innocents, acted alone or was part of a larger cell.
But what we know for sure is that the ideology motivating him to mayhem wasn’t Judaisim or Christianity or some “perverted interpretation” of them. That ideology was Islam as practiced by Mohammad and his followers.
Sugar-coating Islam’s blood-soaked history will not end terrorism. It will not convince young wannabe jihadis to put down the sword of Islam.
Instead, we need serious, effective programs that attack the causes of radicalization, programs devised by Muslims that speak to Muslims, programs that convincingly reject the jihadi doctrines on which ISIS is based.
The newly-created Center for Combating Extremism established by the Saudi government may be a step in the right direction. But as the President said, we also need the Saudis and other Arab Muslim leaders to drive the jihadis and the preachers who inspire them “out of the mosques” and out of the public square.
We cannot succeed in this monumental task when the National Security Advisor turns the President’s steely injunctions against Islamist terrorism into mush.
We are fighting an ideological enemy. We will never defeat him if we refuse to name the ideology that inspires him.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/mcmaster-e1495658583295.jpg360640Kenneth R. Timmermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKenneth R. Timmerman2017-05-24 16:43:192017-05-24 16:45:37Gen. McMaster squanders tremendous capital Trump earns in Saudi Arabia
Yesterday a coalition of consumer and anti-trafficking advocates released a report documenting that Google has financially backed the efforts of digital rights groups to defend Backpage.com—a website notorious for facilitating prostitution and sex trafficking—from numerous legal challenges. The report cited evidence that Google and the groups it financially supports have filed a series of amicus briefs on Backpage.com’s behalf, distorting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to defend the company’s actions. The report further documents that Google has deployed a band of lobbyists to stymie efforts to amend the CDA. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) applauds this report for revealing mainstream supporters of sex trafficking.
“There can be no doubt that Backpage’s entire business model is built on sexual exploitation, and that as such, Backpage’s CEO and founders represent America’s top pimps,” said Dawn Hawkins, Executive Director of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. “What will come as a shock to many is that Google—a company with the motto ‘Don’t be evil’—has aggressively buttressed the legal defense of Backpage.com in an effort to protect its own corporate interests, according to the report.”
“In a series of court cases favoring Backpage.com, the courts have interpreted Section 230 of the CDA to give third-party hosting sites carte blanche immunity for everything and anything that occurs online. To help ensure Backpage’s legal defense was successful,” Hawkins added,
“Google has financed powerful digital rights groups to bolster Backpage’s legal arguments, according to the report. The report also indicates that Google has taken its campaign to Capitol Hill where it has unleashed a cadre of lobbyists to oppose efforts to amend the CDA.”
“While the law is important in protecting Internet companies from frivolous lawsuits for content posted by users of those websites, we believe that the Backpage.com case is fundamentally different as evidence suggests that the company proactively coaches sex traffickers about how to post ads for underage victims in order to avoid detection by legal authorities.”
“We believe that reasonable reforms to Section 230 are essential to ensure that companies like Backpage.com can no longer hide behind the safe harbor provisions of the law when they knowingly and with reckless disregard allow sex-trafficking ads to be posted on their site. We call on Google and all Internet companies to recognize that people are not objects to be sold online and to support reasonable reform of Section 230 of the CDA.”
Backpage.com is a member of the 2017 Dirty Dozen List due to its history of facilitating, and profiting from, sexual exploitation. Google’s Youtube is also a member of the 2017 Dirty Dozen list for its failure to address the volumes of sexually explicit videos available on its site.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/google-sex-trafficking.jpg329640National Center on Sexual Exploitationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNational Center on Sexual Exploitation2017-05-24 09:47:242017-05-24 09:47:24Google is a mainstream supporter of Sex Traffickers
The latest Energy Law Journal features my response to Harvard Law Professor (and ConocoPhillips Board member) Jody Freeman, the first high-stature intellectual to attempt a rigorous criticism of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
I think it’s worth reading in part because in the beginning I give maybe my best quick summary to date of the moral case for fossil fuels.
Synopsis: This article provides a reply to Harvard law professor Jody Freeman’s contribution to this journal, “A Critical Look at The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” a critique of my 2014 book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (MCFF). MCFF argues that the way we have been taught to think about and discuss energy issues is wrong, and that if we follow a better method of thinking, we will conclude that the proper energy policy for the foreseeable future requires increasing our use of fossil fuels—not dramatically and coercively restricting our fossil fuel use. Unfortunately, instead of engaging the book’s method and attempting to refute its evaluations, Freeman’s article ignores the book’s method and significantly misrepresents its major arguments. This response gives a proof that Freeman’s portrayal of MCFF’s method and content is a straw man, and summarizes the actual arguments of the book. It does so primarily through repeated, side-by-side comparisons of unaltered passages by Freeman purporting to describe MCFF’s viewpoint and unaltered passages from MCFF clearly stating its actual viewpoint. In doing this, this article elucidates some of the book’s actual points that readers might benefit from and perhaps be convinced to explore in more detail—and encourages us to increase the level of intellectual precision in our debate so that we can have a constructive conversation about today’s vital energy and environmental issues.
In 2007, as a philosopher analyzing popular thinking on numerous cultural, industrial, and political issues, I concluded that popular thinking and discussion about energy and its associated environmental issues was severely flawed. For example, logic dictates that when analyzing any course of action we carefully consider both the positives and negatives of all our alternatives. Yet in popular discussion only the negatives of fossil fuels were considered, while the negatives of “green” sources of energy were all but ignored.
For example, there was a widespread focus on the dangers of coal mining but almost none on the far greater dangers of rare-earth mining required to produce vital components of wind turbines. There was a widespread focus on the alleged wonders of solar and wind but almost none on the unique positives of hydrocarbon (fossil) fuels, such as the unique energy density of liquid hydrocarbon (oil) fuels.
Just as problematically, the consideration of positives and negatives was not careful. Vague, equivocal claims, such as “climate change is real,” obscured the vital issue of magnitude; whether temperature is increasing geometrically or logarithmically, whether sea levels can be expected to rise twenty feet in several decades (Al Gore’s claim) or two feet in a century makes all the difference in our moral calculations.1
Without far clearer, more precise thinking, our energy choices were destined to be severely wrong. To make the wrong choices about energy, the technology that powers every other technology, is to make every area of life worse. I decided to undertake a study of our energy choices using critical thinking methods that were not being deployed in the existing discussions. My approach method led me to conclude that the proper energy policy for the foreseeable future requires increasing our use of fossil fuels—not dramatically and coercively restricting our fossil fuel use.
I presented my findings in my book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (MCFF), both to offer new, and I believe far more accurate, assessments of the benefits and costs of using rather than restricting fossil fuels, as well as to encourage a far greater degree of precision in the broader debate, turning acrimony into constructive conversation. Thus, even if I was wrong about the magnitudes of the benefits and costs, or those magnitudes changed, we would have a method for decision-making.
That has never been more necessary than at this political moment, when a new administration has promised to dramatically reshape energy policy and many new proposals will be on the table for discussion.
The book has been covered extensively by well-known conservative and libertarian thinkers, who tend to be skeptical of the establishment position that fossil fuels are a self-destructive addiction that we need to rapidly restrict.2
Those commentators have both praised the book and offered interesting challenges of particular assessments or policy prescriptions.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Moral-Case-for-Fossil-Fuels.png279600Alex Epsteinhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAlex Epstein2017-05-24 05:38:292017-05-24 05:56:45My response to a Harvard professor on the 'Moral Case for Fossil Fuels'
President Trump’s first proposed budget shows respect for the people who pay the bills. The administration’s proposal reverses the damaging trends from previous administrations by putting our nation’s budget back into balance and reducing our debt through fiscally conservative principles, all the while delivering on President Trump’s campaign promise not to cut Social Security retirement or Medicare. The budget’s combination of regulatory, tax, and welfare reforms will provide opportunities for economic growth and creation. Get the facts about President Trump’s budget.
BALANCE & CUTTING SPENDING
Unlike any budget proposed by the previous administration, the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget achieves balance within the 10-year budget window and begins to reduce the national debt within that same window.
The policies in this Budget will drive down spending and grow the economy. By 2027, when the budget reaches balance, publicly held debt will be reduced to less than 60 percent of GDP, the lowest level since 2010.
NO CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY
The President’s Budget does not cut core Social Security benefits. And the President is fulfilling his presidential campaign promise not to cut Medicare benefits.
SAVING TAXPAYERS MONEY
President Trump’s budget saves the American people billions of dollars through welfare, tax, and regulatory reform.
SUPPORTING OUR MILITARY
The President is requesting $54 billion, or 10 percent, more than the defense level President Obama signed into law for both the 2017 CR and the 2018 budget cap. This increase balances the need to rebuild the military with the need for disciplined, strategy-driven, executable growth.
KEEPING AMERICANS SAFE
The Budget includes over $2.6 billion in new infrastructure and technology investments in 2018 to give CBP frontline law enforcement officers the tools and technologies they need to deter, deny, identify, track, and resolve illegal activity along the border.
PUTTING AMERICAN FAMILIES FIRST
President Trump’s budget provides national paid family leave for the first time in the history of this country.
The ongoing character assassination of President Trump in the American fake news media is a political massacre the likes of which we have never witnessed before in history. There is a coordinated media effort to crucify Trump on the basis of fake accusations based on non-existent evidence and spread through a network of anti-American propaganda outlets called news rooms.
NOTICE: Before you discount this report just because it was issued by known left-wing Harvard, realize that the mere fact that even Harvard arrived at these findings means the findings are inescapable. If I were quoting Fox News in this piece, people would easily claim Fox News is in the bag for Trump. No such claim can be made against Harvard.
News time spent on President Trump, his administration and the FBI – 77%
In recent days, the White House has even mentioned that they may stop White House briefings altogether due to the total lack of any journalistic standard governing the unprofessional behavior of reporters assigned to the White House.
It would be a mistake for the White House to stop all briefings just because of the unprofessional behavior of current White House reporters. It would only fuel their narrative that Trump has something to hide.
A better solution
However, there is no reason for the White House to continue extending press credentials to individuals who consistently turn every briefing into a fake news circus. Trump does not need to ban certain papers (Washington Post, New York Times) or networks (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS) to solve the problem.
Don’t stop the briefings and don’t ban any news (propaganda) outlet from the briefings. Instead, the White House should simply make a statement concerning the protocol for White House briefings including a Code of Journalistic Conduct that everyone must abide by to keep their press credentials.
The minute a reporter breaks protocol, strip them of their White House press credentials and have them physically removed from the briefing and White House property by Secret Service. Let the entire world watch as the fake news agent is walked out and permanently stripped of their press credentials.
Notify their employer that they will need to clear a new reporter for the White House and will not have representation in the briefings unless and until they send a real journalist able to follow journalistic standards and White House protocol.
In a previous column, I expose the whole truth behind the WaPo propaganda machine owned by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos. Left-wing globalists control 100% of the U.S. media and that’s why they are engaged in a coordinated assault on Trump, who threatens their efforts meld America into the global commune with his make America great again agenda.
But Trump won’t have to remove too many before they all get the message loud and clear. If you agree, forward, text, post and tweet this column to @POTUS right away!
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/fakestream-media-e1481896139347.jpg349640J.B. Williamshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJ.B. Williams2017-05-23 16:46:492017-05-24 09:59:31How Trump should solve the Fake News problem