hijab woman orange eye

What Is Canada Doing Celebrating Hijab Day?

  • The outrage is that Hijab Solidarity Day will be taking place under the auspices of the City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada. It is not the role of a democratic government to celebrate religious symbols or to help religions proselytize.
  • The government’s acceptance of an Ottawa Hijab Solidarity Day amounts to accepting a radical legal system that is completely contrary to Canada’s democratic values, and crosses the line that separates Church and State. Endorsing the hijab is endorsing the first step of an extremist ideology that leads to and condones honor killings, female genital mutilation (FGM) and the oppression of women.
  • In 2007, Aqsa Parvez, a 16-year-old Pakistani Muslim living in Toronto, was strangled to death by her father. Her crime was that, as a free woman in Canada, she chose not to wear a hijab. In another case in Canada, in 2012, four Muslim women were murdered by their own family for refusing to wear a hijab and preferring Western clothing.

On, February 1, 2017, Canada held public events celebrating the hijab, Islam’s physical repression of women.

The City for All Women Initiative (CAWI) organization, backed by the City Council of Ottawa, is hosting the Ottawa Hijab Solidarity Day celebration, also called “Walking with Our Muslims Sisters,” at City Hall. According to CAWI, the main purpose of this event is to encourage non-Muslim women to wear a hijab to understand life as a Muslim woman.

The outrage is that such an event will be taking place under the auspices of the City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada. Under Islamic Shari’a law, the hijab is an expression of the suppression of women and is used as a tool to persecute women by their male counterparts.

For many secular and former Muslim women, the hijab is anything but a symbol of freedom. The hijab serves as a physical daily reminder that they, women, are second-class citizens in the eyes of Islam.

Proponents of the hijab threw me into an Iranian prison for 18 months when I was 16, for protesting Islamic extremism. My family and I were forced to flee; we finally found refuge in Canada.

I have since worked to expose the truth about the Shari’a-guided regime of Iran, as well as advocating for the emancipation of minorities and women.

While critics of CAWI’s event, including myself, have been wrongfully characterized as “Islamophobes,” this could not be further from the truth. A woman in Canada has the right to wear what she chooses — but why celebrate the hijab, any more than the crucifix or a skullcap? It is not the place of government to do that.

In Iran, where I was born, women are slowly beginning to stand up against the regime’s Shari’a-minded repression. One group, My Stealthy Freedom, describes itself as “an online social movement where Iranian women share photos of themselves without wearing the hijab.”

The fact that Muslim women in Iran go to such dangerous lengths, risking arrest and even death, to take a stand against their own religion’s oppression is in itself a significant act.

Forcing women to wear a hijab is not unique to Iran. In Afghanistan and some parts of Saudi Arabia, women face beatings, fines and even worse outcomes for showing their hair. In 2002, in Saudi Arabia, “religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress… the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Islam.” Fifteen girls died in the fire and more than 50 others were injured.

In a practice inaugurated by Muslims, purdah, women are shut away from society, literally imprisoned by their own families.

While one may assume that the persecution of Muslim women by Muslims does not take place within Canada’s borders, facts state otherwise. In 2007, Aqsa Parvez, a 16-year-old Pakistani Muslim living in Toronto, was strangled to death by her father. Her crime was that, as a free woman in Canada, she chose not to wear a hijab.

In another case in Canada, in 2012, Afghan-born Mohammad Shafia, his wife and their son were found guilty for the honor killing of the Shafia’s three daughters – Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13 — as well as Mohammad’s second wife, Rona Mohammad Amir, 50. All four women were murdered by their own family for refusing to wear a hijab and preferring Western clothing.

In 2007, Aqsa Parvez, a 16-year-old Pakistani Muslim living in Toronto, was strangled to death by her father. Her crime was that, as a free woman in Canada, she chose not to wear a hijab.

The municipal government’s acceptance of an Ottawa Hijab Day amounts to accepting a radical legal system that is completely contrary to Canada’s democratic values, and crosses the line that separates Church and State. Endorsing the wearing of the hijab is endorsing the first step of an extremist ideology that leads to and condones honor killings, female genital mutilation (FGM) and the oppression of women.

When this author wrote an open letter written to Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson, by way of response, his spokesman told the Ottawa Sun that the mayor will not intervene “in this difference of opinion between this individual and the event organizers” since the event “conforms with relevant policies… It is not my role to tell people what they should wear.” And it is not the role of a democratic government to celebrate religious symbols or to help religions proselytize.

Perhaps the Ottawa government would like to hold celebrations for “Ottawa Crucifix Solidarity Day,” “Ottawa Kippah Day” and “Ottawa Parsi Turban Day”?

The City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, seriously needs to reconsider its support for CAWI’s event.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama Adviser on Iran Worked for Pro-Regime Lobby

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Gatestone Institute website and has been updated. Please follow Shabnam Assadollahi on Twitter© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

children without a father

Fatherhood in America — How to truly make America great, again

fatherhood in america book coverMichael D.  Juzwick has written a new eBook titled Fatherhood in the United States of America: An Historical, Prophetic, & Practical Guide for Biblical Male Leadership in Family Development.

Ezra Taft Benson, America farmer and Secretary of Agriculture in the cabinet of U. S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, wrote,

“Fatherhood is not a matter of station or wealth. It is a matter of desire, diligence and determination to see one’s family exalted in the celestial kingdom. If that prize is lost, nothing else really matters.”

Juzwick in his book helps us understand why fatherhood is essential to our culture, society and is the building block principle upon which these United States of America was founded. A primary goal of Juzwick’s book is to expose the unrelenting attacks on the biological family. “Much of the problem is centered in the overthrow, and attack, now being leveled at parental leadership and authority. Our evolution as a nation has created an ungodly, and disparaging disposition of men, who are responsible for fathering the children of this nation,” warns Juzwick.

Juzwick writes:

The Great Seal of the United States of America reflects the founding and history of our American Republic. The eagle was chosen to be our National symbol because of its characteristics. Biblical accounts like in Isaiah chapter 40 verse 31 teaches us that – “… they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.”

But, this is not the main reference we can look at in learning God Almighty’s purpose for this land. [Emphasis added]

What is God Almighty’s purpose for this land?

Liberty! Liberty is the hallmark of this Constitutional Republican form of government. But as Juzwick notes, “Liberty as any other freedom granted by our Maker, can be profaned and squandered.”

“America has been under an evil spiritual attack since its inception,” according to Juzwick.

Pennsylvania State University is perhaps the latest example of liberty “profaned and squandered.” In the column Penn State Scandal: When Child Sex Abuse is ‘Harmless’, Dr. Judith Reisman, PhD writes:

On Monday, March 20, 2017, Graham Spanier, past president of Penn State University, is scheduled to go to trial on charges of criminal child endangerment and conspiracy related to former football coach Jerry Sandusky’s rapes of little boys. At issue is whether Spanier, who was president of Penn State at the time, failed to investigate or covered up Sandusky’s crimes.

[ … ]

In fact, Spanier’s story exemplifies the consequences of sexual liberalism in academia. During his 16 years at Penn State, Spanier oversaw a number of questionable sexually charged activities. For example, Spanier apparently had no problem with Patrick Califia-Rice, a transgender sadomasochism and pedophilia advocate who keynoted a speech at Penn State in 2002. The president likewise supported an on-campus Sex Faire sporting fun for all such as “orgasm bingo” and “the tent of consent.” When asked if the fair was morally wrong, Spanier said, “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.” Given his moral confusion, would reports of Sandusky’s child rapes have elicited concern?

Juzwick writes in the books Preface, “Though the content of this book may offend certain interest groups that have been assimilated into our American culture at large, we will speak to those that are revealed in God’s Word to be an abomination in His sight… Our efforts in this treatment of the subject of – Fatherhood in the United States of America – is to grant us greater capacity to carry out the great purposes ordained by our Lord God from the beginning of time.”

This book is long overdue in America and across the globe. Let His truth go marching on.

Here is a video of Elvis Presley singing Glory Glory Hallelujah, an American Trilogy:

RELATED ARTICLE: Justice Alito says country increasingly ‘hostile’ to ‘traditional moral beliefs’ – Chicago Tribune

penn-state-university-logo

Penn State Scandal: When Child Sex Abuse is ‘Harmless’

Graham Spanier

Graham Spanier

On Monday, March 20, 2017, Graham Spanier, past president of Penn State University, is scheduled to go to trial on charges of criminal child endangerment and conspiracy related to former football coach Jerry Sandusky’s rapes of little boys. At issue is whether Spanier, who was president of Penn State at the time, failed to investigate or covered up Sandusky’s crimes.

Unfortunately, there has been of late a spate of highly educated authorities, from the Pentagon to other government workers, teachers, doctors, etc., who have been arrested and even convicted for child sexual abuse, including possession of child pornography. Dr. Lori Handrahan’s publication of “Professors & Staff Arrested for Trading in Child Rape,” has sparked public outrage as the report has been shared more than 390,000 times in a few weeks. People are asking, how is this happening?

Spanier is academia sexual liberalism writ large

In fact, Spanier’s story exemplifies the consequences of sexual liberalism in academia. During his 16 years at Penn State, Spanier oversaw a number of questionable sexually charged activities. For example, Spanier apparently had no problem with Patrick Califia-Rice, a transgender sadomasochism and pedophilia advocate who keynoted a speech at Penn State in 2002. The president likewise supported an on-campus Sex Faire sporting fun for all such as “orgasm bingo” and “the tent of consent.” When asked if the fair was morally wrong, Spanier said, “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.” Given his moral confusion, would reports of Sandusky’s child rapes have elicited concern?

That was one of the questions I was asked to answer in 2014, when an investigator for Pennsylvania’s attorney general asked me to study Spainer’s scientific writings to determine whether there was a factual trail pointing to his not taking child sexual abuse allegations seriously.

My investigation first confirmed that Dr. Spanier held himself out as a sexuality expert. His 1973 doctoral dissertation was titled “Sexual Socialization.” It focused on adult sex with small children. His most important foundational work – his Ph.D. thesis – opens the door to his pedagogical philosophy, which is currently shared by a multitude of similarly educated and credentialed men and women.

From page 3 of Spanier’s dissertation:

To study this relationship, data collected by the Institute for Sex Research will be used. … To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to investigate empirically how the sexual socializing experiences of childhood and adolescence influence the nature and extent of subsequent sexual behavior during high school and college.

Spanier covers up Kinsey’s timed child ‘orgasms’

Spanier’s “objective” research was guided by Kinsey Institute/Playboy magazine writer, Dr. William Simon. Similar to the current charges of a cover-up of Sandusky’s child sex crimes, Spanier’s dissertation covered-up Alfred C. Kinsey’s criminal child sex abuse atrocities, instead skimming over Kinsey’s “data” of timed child “orgasms” for his doctoral thesis. He writes, “we” think:

… before age 12 or 13, the [sex assaults] experiences in question would not be interpreted as sexual. … [S]exual assault before ages 12 or 13 was not related to sexual behavior …. whereas sexual assault after ages 12 or 13 was. … [A] child’s sex education, sex knowledge, sexual values, and sexual behavior from adolescence onward will not be influenced by childhood [sex abuse] experiences since as a child he or she is not capable of interpreting sexual information and experiences in the same way an adult would. (:373)

It is likely that Spanier would not “label” Sandusky’s rapes as deviant, but rather as simple sex socialization of boys. That is illustrated further in a later article in which he found sex acts “deviant” only if we “labeled” them so. The observation below from his paper on one type of sexual deviance, “mate swapping,” could apply equally to child sex abuse.

We choose to view deviant behavior simply as behavior that some value and others consider wrong. An individual’s behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as deviant. Much of an individual’s behavior can be viewed as a response to this “labeling.” (:145)

According to that logic, Sandusky’s violent oral and anal sodomy of 10- and 11-year-old boys would not be viewed as “deviant” in and of itself.

Shortly after receiving his Ph.D., Spanier landed a Penn State professorship in 1977 and later served as vice provost at State University of New York at Stony Brook, provost at Oregon State University and chancellor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 1991.

Spanier is representative of almost three generations of leaders who have embraced the mantra of Kinsey (a sadomasochistic, pornographic producing, pedophile professor), that “children are sexual from birth and unharmed by sex with adults.” Between justification by “science” and rampant pornographic stimuli, is it any wonder that so many of our leaders have succumbed to sadomasochistic pedophilia documented by Dr. Handrahan?

Spanier is credited with making Penn State “an internationally recognized institution.” The same claim was made for American University’s past president Richard Berendzen – until he was caught seeking sex with children, even telling Susan Allen, a day care owner, he had a 4-year-old “sex slave” imprisoned in his basement. Spanier, like others, is still a tenured professor at $600,000 a year.

So again, the question is what/when did Dr. Spanier know of Sandusky’s child sex assaults? And, how many other high-level authorities were trained by a similar sexual worldview as the football coach and the president?

Ladies and gentlemen, an investigation of Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute waits in the wings. It almost happened under President Reagan in 1995 with H.R. 2749, “The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act.” With President Trump, that window into child sex crimes as the basis of false and damaging research and education can be opened once again. Let those who believe that the truth must be revealed and all children protected gather together to join in the demand to revisit H.R. 2749!

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may see all of Dr. Reisman’s books on sexual fraud at the WND Superstore. This column originally appeared on World Net Daily.

target facts

Snopes.com Ignores Fact Checking on Target Boycott Success

Somebody needs to tell this to Snopes.com, the fact-checking site so many people depend on for honesty. The site’s appraisal of the Target boycott is well off the mark. Snopes.com is simply repeating Target’s false claims that the boycott is having no effect on the company.

The Snopes.com story includes a quote from Target’s public relations manager Erika Winkels saying the boycott has had no effect on them: “We have made it clear over time that we’ve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We don’t have anything new or different to share.”

I think we can translate this as – Target not only does not care about the safety of their customers, but they do not miss the 1.4 million families who are boycotting them and it seems they simply do not care enough to invite the boycotters back to Target.

FACT: Despite Target’s denial, the boycott is dealing a crippling financial blow to the company. Since it was launched in April 2016, Target has seen a significant drop in foot traffic to their stores. Effects of the boycott are also clear in Target’s financial report released February 28. The report reflected a dramatic drop in Target’s sales and earnings during October, November, and December.

FACT: Snopes.com ignores the assessment of others outside the corporation. Here are some recent news headlines…

FACT: Target Stock Price
First day of boycott (4-21-16) – $83.98
This week (3-14-17) – $54.73 Stock has lost 35%

Together we are making an unprecedented financial impact on a corporation whose policy is to allow men to use women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. Target’s decision is unacceptable for families, and their dangerous and misguided policy continues to put women and children in harm’s way.

It is urgent the Target boycott reach 1.5 million signers by the end of April. At that point, I will personally return to Minneapolis with an additional 500,000 names. I will then discuss how Target can invite 1.5 million AFA supporters back to their store by having a common sense bathroom and dressing room policy that links use of these rooms to a person’s biological sex.

Help us reach the 1.5 million signature mark.

If you haven’t signed the boycott pledge, please sign it today!

If you have signed the pledge, please forward this email to your family and friends.

Most important: Share this information with your Sunday School class and encourage them to sign the pledge at www.afa.net/target.

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

AFA adds TEXTING component to receive Action Alerts

I am excited to announce a new AFA Action Alert TEXTING service and urge you to subscribe today.  AFA is always exploring the most effective way to communicate with you in order to make a difference. Today we are inundated with messages from all different forms of communication, including email, messaging apps, snail mail, social media, telemarketing and more. The benefits of text messaging are hard to ignore, and today I am pleased to offer you this service from AFA. I will TEXT you on the average of one text per week on the most important issues. To join, text MYAFA to 41411. You will receive a prompt reply requesting your name so it will be associated with your phone number. As always, you can trust that we will never, rent, sell or give away your information.

maga flag

What American Populism Really Means by David Smith

The people had finally found their leader, a champion for those who had built the country with their hard work and yet now believed themselves to be silenced and ignored—left behind by the artificial currents of contemporary life. He would make their voices heard again. They didn’t think of themselves as angry—at least not without a good cause—but they were no longer going to go gently into that political good night.

The year was 1896, and a new century loomed just four years away. They believed they had one last chance to change the errant course on which the country was set, and William Jennings Bryan was ready to lead them.

Man the Barricades

With the triumph of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, magazines from Vanity Fair to The Economist suddenly began writing about populism and trying to analyze that amorphous identity that periodically returns to American politics. Far less defined than a political movement or agenda, American populism is an impulse, rooted in Jeffersonian individualism and animated by a conviction that something essential in our culture is under siege by powerful currents in the wider world.

While politicians may choose to use populist rhetoric to rally their voters, it’s not an identity that many would choose on their own because it’s borne of crisis, understood by those who take it up as being nothing less than a state of emergency. Populism amounts to a last desperate manning of the barricades, when all others have decided to jettison something that, in a significant number of hearts, is still worth fighting for.

The populism of the 1890s came at a crucial moment of transition from one economic framework to the next, as an America of farmers and craftsmen was giving way to an America of industrial workers, leviathan corporations, and new immigrants.

Today, the country faces another transition to a more interconnected and, some say, post-national world, and populists have again reappeared, fearful of rocky shoals along the passage. The impulse is no longer tied to the agrarian identity and way of life that was so tenaciously defended by populists at the close of the 19th century, but it is now expressed by those for whom something just as sacred is at stake.

Cultural Power

More than economic or political power, cultural power—the power to define what ought to be the true iconic representation of America, from which comes ideas of right and wrong—has always lain at the heart of populism, even if more specific economic concerns are easier to identify. This is why the emergence of a multi-billionaire as populist champion isn’t as baffling as it would be if the primary engine was class-based resentment of the wealthy (and it’s why Bernie Sanders is actually less of a populist than Trump).

As historian Alan Brinkley showed in his book Voices of Protest, despite the ways that the populist impulse has varied among its adherents throughout the decades, its “central, animating spirit” remained the determination to restore “to the individual the control of his life and livelihood.” Brinkley notes that Depression-era rousers like Huey Long and Charles Coughlin connected “their messages so clearly with the residual appeal of the populist tradition,” and future historians will undoubtedly note the same about Donald Trump.

But his current success shows that its appeal is not merely residual but continues to animate millions of people. The lesson of Trump’s surprise victory is that populism remains at its core an evergreen cultural force that is as intertwined with our ideas about democracy as notions about voting, representation, civil rights, or economic fairness.

Today’s drive toward populism is not primarily because of big business or big banking, but because of a perceived threat of similar size and danger to the concept of Jeffersonian individualism. Now it is the cultural triumph of identity politics that’s pushing people toward populism, as surely as monopoly and industrialization did 120 years ago. Ascendant globalism is another: just as the farmers of the 1890s felt displaced from what they considered their time-honored position within the country’s culture and economy, those who recently rallied to the populist tone of the current president felt much the same.

In his 1955 Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Age of Reform, Richard Hofstadter mused that,

While its special association with agrarian reforms has now become attenuated, I believe that populist thinking has survived in our own time, partly as an undercurrent of provincial resentments, popular and ‘democratic’ rebelliousness and suspiciousness, and nativism.”

Indeed, Hofstadter’s account of those who flocked to William Jennings Bryan in 1896 is a caustic one and caused an outcry among historians who had long looked upon the populists as virtuous Jeffersonian Democrats. But Hofstadter substantially changed the way the mainstream thinks about our periodic outbursts of populism, and today, charges of nativism, provincialism, and intolerance are even more commonly attributed to Trump’s supporters than to Bryan’s.

Canary in the Coal Mine

I don’t believe populism is inevitably as xenophobic as that, but I do believe the impulse is inherently defensive. The Economist recently reported that populism in Alabama “has not always been driven by prejudice, as might be supposed.” Rather, explained the former director of the Alabama state archives, populism is always and everywhere fired by fears of “the rise of a new aristocracy,” and Alabamans who turned to populism were “not simply emotional victims of demagogues.”

Contemporary ideologies that divide people into grievance groups are a cultural echo of the process of industrialization that once divided people into competing economic classes. In both, the deck is stacked against the individual.

The proper response to populism isn’t to dismiss it as fringe, bigoted, or anti-intellectual, but to remember that threats to individualism come from every angle, sometimes in unexpected ways. Populism is the canary in our political coal mine—a warning that individual liberty may be having its oxygen drained away. Those who are concerned about freedom should pay attention to it.

Reprinted from Learn Liberty.

David Smith

David Smith

Dr. David A. Smith is a senior lecturer in American history at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. He received his undergraduate degree from what is now Texas State University in San Marcos, and his Ph.D. in modern American history from the University of Missouri.

ACA-Health-Care-Reform

HEALTHCARE REFORM: Freedom Is Its Own Indispensable Goal

The healthcare debate in D.C. is following predictable form: Miles off track with the media hyperfocused on the politics, rather than the substance. The coverage focuses heavily on the daily ins and outs of the political struggle, the D.C. winners and losers.

Will Republicans be able to placate the Freedom Caucus and still keep moderates? Will they put together something that can get through the House and have any life in the Senate? Is Ryan back-peddling? Is Trump? Will McConnell detonate the nuclear option? Is it Trumpcare or Ryancare?

The thing is, most Americans outside of political junkies don’t really care about that.

They do care about whether they will be able to afford health insurance. They do care about whether our country will drowned itself in unsustainable debt. They do care about their children’s future. But those are rarely the story. Because the truth is that in Washington, D.C., Americans are basically pawns to be played in the furtherance of personal agendas.

On the rare occasions when the substance of the proposal is actually explored, it is mostly along the lines of how many people are covered, will be covered, won’t be covered, how much it will cost, how the changes will play out politically for each party, etc. Those are fine in their place, and should be regularly reported on. They are not.

What Washington and the media never, ever talk about is the principle of American freedoms, which is at the heart of this. Virtually no one wants to talk about it.

So, status quo in the swamp. And for Americans.

The Old Liberties for Security Trade

But here is the whittled down nub of the issue: How much personal freedom are we willing to give away to get a little healthcare security? Because the reality of the human condition always and forever is that some people will be irresponsible with their life decisions — from relationships to finances to health.

So there will always be a percentage of Americans who do not want to purchase, or simply will not purchase, health insurance. Here’s the thing: They should be free to not and that point of freedom should be argued strenuously.

Because the only way to stop that dynamic is to give government total authority to force every single person to have health insurance. That was what Obamacare attempted to do, require every American to either buy a product — health insurance — or be fined increasing amounts by the government to financially force them to to buy it.

In an enormously tragic precedence, the Supreme Court made a political calculation and approved the forcible purchase requirements under Obamacare by calling it what it was not, what is authors including President Obama argued it was not, so as the court could rule it “constitutional.” Truly, a constitutional travesty.

Among the many things wrong with Obamacare, this was perhaps the most egregious because it went to undermining fundamental freedoms. It wasn’t just bad policy, or inefficient, or expensive — which are all true. It was a denial of basic liberty, the concept upon which our nation was founded and thrived to be what she is today.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Franklin was looking at the real physical and economic threat of a distant tyrant.

And so are we, though not so distant.

The Real Cost

Obamacare undoubtedly reduced the percentage of uninsured Americans, or more accurately, uncovered Americans. This was accomplished by expanding Medicaid — direct welfare — subsidizing plans in the state exchanges — indirect welfare — and forcing every American to participate — coercion. Even then, the total number of Americans not covered in some fashion, only declined a few percentage points.

Trillions of dollars, catastrophic rises in premiums and deductibles, loss of health care insurance options — often down to one in an entire state — all to pick up a few percentage points. About 9 percent of Americans remain without health insurance.

If Republicans did nothing more than simply repeal the Obamacare mandate, at least 10 million people would no longer have coverage, according to the Office of Management and Budget estimate of the repeal measure. The media reports this as Americans who will “lose” their coverage, but this particular 10 million will actually choose not to have coverage.

Whether that is a good idea or not is debatable. What is not debatable is what it represents: Freedom.

Because unless the government forces people by law to have health insurance, some will not. Freedom calls us to allow them to not and accept the consequences. Otherwise, with this precedent in place, the government could also make the case for regulating what we eat (because eating healthy is good for us) and forcing us to exercise (because exercising is good for us.) It could also require us to buy, say, solar panels and electric cars, because it deems those to be a good thing like health care insurance is a good thing.

You see the problem here. There is really no end to it, which is why it was a line that should never have been crossed.

So yes, Obamacare is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and would continue to until its complete failure. But it’s real cost is the loss of American liberty. And precious few seem to care.

Alas, Republicans fighting on Democrat ground

Republicans however, will not fight this on the grounds of freedom, the high ground and the right ground. They allow Democrats and the media to define the terms and put Republicans on the defensive on bad ground.

Republicans are doing what they always do, and part of it is the swampy D.C. mentality. Republicans end up abandoning conservative principles and going with Democrat-lite. They are willing to expand government, just less so. They are willing to raise taxes, just not as high. They are willing to trade rights for securities, just not as fast. But inexorably this moves in the same direction: More government control, more “free” giveaways, fewer American freedoms.

The health care coverage debate is a perfect example.

Democrats built it on the Democrat ground of heavy-handed government control and giveaways, and dared Republicans to come after it. To boil it down, in Obamacare, Democrats gave more Americans more free stuff that was not their’s and that we cannot afford — at the cost of lost freedoms — and Republicans now want to take some of that free stuff and restore those freedoms.

Meanies.

This of course is rough politics for Republicans, as so many Americans have lost the sense of liberty, self-reliance and personal responsibility. Too many are willing to trade a lot of liberties for a little security. But part of the reason for that is that no one is making the case for this and other issues on the grounds of freedom.

But in reality, Republicans aren’t even making the freedom case — or do so rarely. They want to make sure enough Americans get enough free stuff so they can be re-elected.

Taking away an entitlement once in place is just never done, and Democrats knew that in 2010. A big part of Obamacare is the entitlement portion. But that is only a problem if Republicans fight this on the grounds of coverage and giveaways, and not on the grounds of essential liberties.

Republicans hold every nationally elected office of power and there is one window for fixing the Obamacare debacle. If it does not happen now, Obamacare will be a permanent fixture of our health care system until it totally fails, and sucks the healthcare system into its death swirl.

The final step will be nationalized healthcare.

And the result will be an even greater loss of freedoms, and precious little in the way of securities. The worst of trade-offs.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

GOP leaders unveil changes to healthcare bill

Nearly 200 State Lawmakers Are Pushing for Changes to GOP Obamacare Repeal Plan

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

moral case for fossil fuels

Free ‘Fossil Fuel Energy Stakeholder Strategy Tool’ I Encourage Everyone to Try

For the last several years we have worked on creating the most effective messaging strategies, content, and training to:

  1. Neutralize attackers
  2. Turn non-supporters into supporters
  3. Turn supporters into champions.

After working with dozens of companies and other organizations and studying many more, and testing/refining our approach in every medium imaginable with the general public, I am confident that we have developed a system that, if widely adopted in the industry, would transform it from a national thought follower to a national thought leader in the energy debate.

After spending just a few weeks meeting with top executives in Houston, the energy capital of the world, I realize that I have not done nearly enough to share our system and how well it works.

Thus, I have decided to do two things.

First I am explaining our system to a degree I have never done publicly.

Second, I am making a standalone version our system available, for free, to every organization—so that they can use it to create better communications strategies, persuasive messages, employee training, and executive advocacy.

Today, I want to share our methodology for communications strategy.

Fundamentals of Communications Strategy

At CIP, we are known for our pro-human, big-picture messaging, which we believe is unmatched in neutralizing attackers, turning non-supporters into supporters, and supporters into champions. But for that message or any message to be used effectively, it must be part of a broader strategy—a results-based communications strategy based on clear metrics and proven methods of persuasion.

Too often, organizations use hope-based communications strategies with little/no ROI-related measurement using traditional, ineffectual messages and methods of persuasion. For example, it is common practice to delegate the task of persuasive energy messaging to agencies who are not even themselves convinced of fossil fuels’ goodness. It is also common practice to default to television ads instead of looking at far more cost-effective options.

I have found that every strategy must carefully consider a set of questions I call “the 10 Ms.”

I ask these questions in our Stakeholder Strategy Sessions to elicit all the relevant goals and facts needed to make a results-based communications strategy.

Now I want to encourage teams throughout the industry to use these questions themselves on any project at any time with what I call the Stakeholder Strategizer tool.

You can download it here in Word format so that it’s easy to fill in.

If you’re not in energy communications you still might find it interesting. And if you know anyone in energy communications, please forward it to them.

If you fill one in and want my feedback, just email me.

To get the tool immediately, just click here.

Safe-Spaces

Song ‘I’ve Got Friends in Safe Spaces’ for Snowflake Millennials on College Campuses

wicked-groundsIt only took a while for two real men to do a parody of those who seek comfort in “safe spaces” whether it be on a college or university campus or perhaps in your local Starbucks or Wicked Grounds coffee shop. Steve McGrew and Chad Prather, using the music Darth Brooks’ “I’ve Got Friends in Low Places” melody redid as “I’ve Got Friends in Safe Spaces.”

A Los Angeles Times Op-Ed “Campuses are breaking apart into ‘safe spaces’” notes:

The meaning of a “safe space” has shifted dramatically on college campuses. Until about two years ago, a safe space referred to a room where people — often gay and transgender students — could discuss problems they shared in a forum where they were sheltered from epithets and other attacks.

[ … ]

Safe space activism stems primarily from the separatist impulses associated with the politics of identity, already rampant on campus.

[ … ]

In 2015 and 2016, students of color at many colleges called for segregated safe spaces.

[ … ]

It seems the cultivation of identity has encouraged such a psychic and emotional distance between people that some prefer to stay in their bubble everywhere they go.

[ … ]

Encouraging students to engage with the unfamiliar and account for their ideas used to be one of attributes of a vibrant academic institution. Today’s university managers, however, are more likely to be complicit in relieving students of the uncomfortable burden of “being interrogated.”

[ … ]

There are worrying signs that future undergraduates will be even more disposed to embrace such self-segregation than their predecessors. The campaign for establishing a Queer Housing Program at Haverford College expresses the spirit of the times. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

The LA Times op-ed concludes with this statement, “The popularity of identity politics among insecure millennials threatens to fracture campus life to the point that undergraduates are inhabiting separate spaces and leading parallel lives.”

Now I don’t know about you but safe spaces have become the pacifier for sissies, don’t you think?

WARNING: If you’re a liberal, listening to this music may trigger you to run, don’t walk, to your safe spaces. 

LYRICS

By Steve McGrew and Chad Prather

Blame it all on our roots we never wore boots
and never once played in the street
We feel very bitter
get our news off of Twitter
And we just can’t handle defeat

You saw the surprise and the fear in our eyes
When Donald became president
Screamed this can’t be true
Americas through
And to the safe spaces we went

I’ve got friends in Safe Spaces
And If you don’t go with us
Then you must be racist
That is our catch phrase
Where is my latte

Come on in and let’s get cozy
Showing off participation trophies
Watching CNN
In Safe Spaces

Well we all get along
And sing happy songs
And watch movies by Michael Moore
We hate the alt right
We’ve got puppies on site
And we lay around on the floor

Oh there’s coloring books
And sad long faced looks
And tears just explode from our face
But give us an hour we’re delicate flowers
We just need an embrace…..

Oh I’ve got friends in Safe Spaces
If you don’t go with us
Then you must be racist
That is our catch phrase
Where is my latte

Come on in and let’s get cozy
Showing off participation trophies
Watching CNN
In Safe Spaces

man machine

Le Science est mort, vive le Science!: Science is dead. Long live Science!

According to Wikipedia:

The original phrase was translated from the French Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi!, which was first declared upon the coronation of Charles VII following the death of his father Charles VI in 1422.

[ … ]

The phrase arose from the law of le mort saisit le vif—that the transfer of sovereignty occurs instantaneously upon the moment of death of the previous monarch. “The King is dead” is the announcement of a monarch who has just died. “Long live the King!” refers to the heir who immediately succeeds to a throne upon the death of the preceding monarch.

Science under the previous monarch Barack Obama, is now officially dead. Science under President Trump has instantaneously succeeded the death of the old science.

So what does this mean for ordinary Americans?

In the film Jurassic Park, the character Ian Malcolm, a mathematician who specializes in a branch of mathematics known as “Chaos Theory,” states,

[Y]our scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn’t stop to think whether they should.

According to the Fractal Foundation Chaos Theory is defined as follows:

Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions, Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on.

Read more…

Policy Science Kills: The Case of Eugenics by Jeffrey A. Tucker notes this about nonlinear science:

The climate-change [weather] debate has many people wondering whether we should really turn over public policy — which deals with fundamental matters of human freedom — to a state-appointed scientific establishment. Must moral imperatives give way to the judgment of technical experts in the natural sciences? Should we trust their authority? Their power?

There is a real history here to consult. The integration of government policy and scientific establishments has reinforced bad science and yielded ghastly policies.

An entire generation of academics, politicians, and philanthropists used bad science to plot the extermination of undesirables [Eugenics].

Read more…

Crichton in his novel Jurassic Park wrote,

“God creates dinosaurs, God kills dinosaurs, God creates man, man kills God, man brings back dinosaurs.”

When man plays God, bad things happen. When scientists play God to further a political agenda, really bad things happen.

A column titled How States Got Away with Sterilizing 60,000 Americans by Trevor Burrus reports:

On the morning of October 19, 1927, the Commonwealth of Virginia sterilized Carrie Buck.

Dr. John Bell — whose name would forever be linked with Carrie’s in the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell — cut her open and removed a section from each of her Fallopian tubes. In his notes, Dr. Bell noted that “this was the first case operated on under the sterilization law.”

[ … ]

We know Carrie’s story because her case eventually made it to the Supreme Court. But to the Commonwealth of Virginia in the 1920s, Carrie was just another congenitally “feeble-minded” woman who, in the parlance of the times, had a tainted “germ plasm” that would create generations of “socially inadequate defectives” if she were allowed to procreate freely. Carrie is the most famous of the (at least) 60,000 Americans who were forcibly sterilized in order to “cleanse the race” of undesirable genes.

The United States forcibly sterilized people through the 1970s. Many victims are still living. Virginia has apologized for its sterilization program, and, like North Carolina before it, voted to compensate still-living victims.

Science created Eugenics, which is now called genetics.

Science must have a moral basis for what it does, a moral basis that tells it what it should not do.

Science is, “[T]he intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

Science is not being God, rather science is about observing God in all of His glory. Le Science est mort, vive le Science!

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The Reverend Trump? What the church can learn from the President

islam wife beating

VIDEO: Using Islam to Vet Muslims

To vet Muslims, don’t talk about Islam; instead talk about the fruit of the Islam. Here is an example: wife beating. No apologist can support wife beating, but wife beating is found in the Koran and the Hadith:

Koran 4:34 Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and … send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them.

Dawood #2142 Umar reported the prophet as saying: “A man will not be asked as to why he beats his wife”.

I object to any wife beating doctrine. I don’t want immigrants/Muslims who believe in wife beating to be my neighbor.

The Islamic doctrine supports: slavery, torture, Kafirs must submit to Sharia, wife beating, inferiority of women, political assassin. I reject Sharia, wife beating, torture, killing of Kafirs. Notice that I do not say I reject Muslims.

So ask an apologist: Do you support wife beating? Assassination? Killing apostates?

You say you don’t know enough to quote Koran and Hadith. Then go ask Imam Google. The hadith and Koran verse I used came from web searching: “wife beating Koran”. Finding this kind of information used to be hard, now it is simple.
Why do we want to bring in anybody who buys into wife beating, the inferiority of Kafirs, assassinations?

So, deal with the fruit of Islam, not Islam. Ask the apologist to agree with this evil fruit of the doctrine, for instance, wife beating. Notice the method: Talk about the source doctrine and its fruit.

Is it fair to ask if a Muslim follows the doctrine? If not, will they condemn it?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Raymond Ibrahim: Christianity and Judaism Breed Terrorism Just Like Islam?

Saudi prince hails Trump as “strong President” in fight against “dangerous” Iran

BEYOND THE CALIPHATE: Islamic State Activity – Inspired or Linked – Outside of the Group’s defined Wilayat

inflation

Trillions in Debt and We’re Just Scratching the Surface by Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan

As the federal debt has gone from astounding to unbelievable to incomprehensible, a new problem has emerged: The US government is actually running out of places to borrow.

How Many Zeros Are in a Trillion?

The $20 trillion debt is already twice the annual revenues collected by all the world’s governments combined. Counting unfunded liabilities, which include promised Social Security, Medicare, and government pension payments that Washington will not have the money to pay, the federal government actually owes somewhere between $100 trillion and $200 trillion. The numbers are so ridiculously large that even the uncertainty in the figures exceeds the annual economic output of the entire planet.

Since 2000, the federal debt has grown at an average annual rate of 8.2%, doubling from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the past eight years alone. Who loaned the government this money? Four groups: foreigners, Americans, the Federal Reserve, and government trust funds. But over the past decade, three of these groups have cut back significantly on their lending.

Foreign investors have slowed the growth in their lending from over 20% per year in the early 2000s to less than 3% per year today. Excluding the Great Recession years, American investors have been cutting back on how much they lend the federal government by an average of 2% each year.

Social Security, though, presents an even bigger problem. The federal government borrowed all the Social Security surpluses of the past 80 years. But starting this year, and continuing either forever or until Congress overhauls the program (which may be the same thing), Social Security will only generate deficits. Not only is the government no longer able to borrow from Social Security, it will have to start paying back what it owes – assuming the government plans on making good on its obligations.

With federal borrowing growing at more than 6% per year, with foreign and American investors becoming more reluctant to lend, and with the Social Security trust fund drying up, the Fed is the only game left in town. Since 2001, the Fed has increased its lending to the federal government by over 11% each year, on average. Expect that trend to continue.

Inflation to Make You Cry

For decades, often in word but always in deed, politicians have told voters that government debt didn’t matter. We, and many economists, disagree. Yet even if the politicians were right, the absence of available creditors would be an insurmountable problem—were it not for the Federal Reserve. But when the Federal Reserve acts as the lender of last resort, unpleasant realities follow. Because, as everyone should be keenly aware, the Fed simply prints the money it loans.

A Fed loan devalues every dollar already in circulation, from those in people’s savings accounts to those in their pockets. The result is inflation, which is, in essence, a tax on frugal savers to fund a spendthrift government.

Since the end of World War II, inflation in the US has averaged less than 4% per year. When the Fed starts printing money in earnest because the government can’t obtain loans elsewhere, inflation will rise dramatically. How far is difficult to say, but we have some recent examples of countries that tried to finance runaway government spending by printing money.

From 1975 to 1990, the Greek people suffered 15% annual inflation as their government printed money to finance stimulus spending. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Russia printed money to keep its government running. The result was five years over which inflation averaged 750%. Today, Venezuela’s government prints money to pay its bills, causing 200% inflation which the International Monetary Fund expects to skyrocket to 1,600% this year.

For nearly a century, politicians have treated deficit spending as a magic wand. In a recession? We need jobs, so government must spend more money! In an expansion? There’s more tax revenue, so government can spend more money! Always and everywhere, politicians argued only about how much to increase spending, never whether to increase spending. A century of this has left us with a debt so large that it dwarfs the annual economic output of the planet. And now we are coming to the point at which there will be no one left from whom to borrow. When creditors finally disappear completely, all that will remain is a reckoning.

This article first appeared in InsideSources.

Antony Davies

Antony Davies

Antony Davies is an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University in Pittsburg.

He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.


James R. Harrigan

James R. Harrigan

James R. Harrigan is the Senior Research Fellow at Strata, in Logan, Utah.

revolution

How Communism Became the Disease It Tried to Cure by Richard M. Ebeling

From Radical Revolutionaries to Privileged Bureaucrats

The great German sociologist, Max Weber (1864-1920) offered an understanding of the evolution of socialist regimes in the twentieth century from revolutionary radicalism to a stagnant system of power, privilege and plunder, manned by self-interested Soviet socialist office holders.

Max Weber, in his posthumously published monumental treatise, Economy and Society (1925), defined a charismatic leader as one who stands out from the ordinary mass of men because of an element in his personality viewed as containing exceptional powers and qualities. He is on a mission because he has been endowed with a particular intellectual spark that enables him to see what other men do not, to understand what the mass of his fellow men fail to comprehend.

But his authority, Weber explains, does not come from others acknowledging his powers, per se. His sense of authority and destiny comes from within, knowing that he has a truth that he is to reveal to others and then knowing that truth will result in men being set free; and when others see the rightness of what he knows, it becomes obvious and inevitable that they should follow his leadership.

Certainly Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) fit that description. While many who met or knew him pointed out his either non-descript or even unattractive physical appearance and presence, most emphasized at the same time Lenin’s single-mindedness of being on a “mission” for which he had absolute confidence and unswerving determination, and due to which others were drawn to him and accepted his leadership authority.

Surrounding Lenin, the charismatic, was an array of disciples and comrades who were called and chosen, and saw themselves as serving the same mission: the advancement of the socialist revolution. As Weber says:

“The . . . group that is subject to charismatic authority is based on an emotional form of communal relationship . . . It is . . . chosen in terms of the charismatic qualities of its members. The prophet has his disciples . . . There is a ‘call’ at the instance of the leader on the basis of the charismatic qualification of those he summons . . .”

The “chosen” group renounces (at least in principle, if not always in practice) the material temptations of the worldly circumstances, which the goal of their “mission” is meant to overthrow and destroy. And, this too, marked the often conspiring, secretive and sometimes Spartan lifestyle of Marxist revolutionaries. Max Weber explained:

“There is no such thing as salary or a benefice. Disciples or followers tend to live primarily in a communistic relationship with their leader . . . Pure charisma . . . disdains and repudiates economic exploitation of the gifts of grace as a source of income, though to be sure, this often remains more an ideal than a fact . . . On the other hand, ‘booty’. . . whether extracted by force or other means, is the other typical form of charismatic provision of needs.”

But once the charismatic and his followers are in power, a transformation soon occurs in their behavior and relationship to the rest of the society. Now it becomes impossible to stand outside of the flow of the mundane affairs of daily life. Indeed, if they do not immerse themselves in those matters, their power over society would be threatened with disintegration. Slowly, the burning fervor of ideological mission and revolutionary comradeship begins to die. Said Max Weber:

“Only the members of the small group of enthusiastic disciples and followers are prepared to devote their lives purely and idealistically to their calling. The great majority of disciples and followers will in the long run ‘make their living’ out of their ‘calling’ in a material sense as well . . . Hence, the routinization of charisma also takes the form of the appropriation of powers of control and of economic advantages by the followers and disciples and the regulation of the recruitment of these groups . . .

Correspondingly, in a developed political body the vassals, the holders of benefices, or officials are differentiated from the ‘taxpayers.’ The former, instead of being ‘followers’ of the leader, become state officials or appointed party officials . . . With the process of routinization the charismatic group tends to develop into one of the forms of everyday authority, particularly . . . the bureaucratic.”

I would suggest that in Max Weber’s analysis we see the outline of the historical process by which a band of Marxist revolutionaries, convinced that they saw the dictates of history in a way that other mere mortals did not, took upon themselves to be the midwives of that history through violent revolution.

But as the embers of socialist victory cooled, such as in Russia after the Revolution of 1917 and the bloody three-year civil war that followed, the revolutionaries had to turn to the mundane affairs of “building socialism.” Building socialism meant the transformation of society, and the transforming of society meant watching, overseeing, controlling and commanding everything.

Self-Interest and the New Socialist “Class Society”

Hence, was born in the new Soviet Union what came to be called the Nomenklatura. Beginning in 1919, the Communist Party established the procedure of forming lists of government or bureaucratic positions requiring official appointment and the accompanying lists of people who might be eligible for promotion to these higher positions of authority. Thus was born the new ruling class under socialism.

Ministries needed to be manned, Party positions needed to be filled, nationalized industries and collective farms needed managers assigned to supervise production and see to it that central planning targets were fulfilled, state distributions networks needed to be established, trade unions needed reliable Party directors, and mass media needed editors and reporters to tell the fabricated propaganda stories about socialism’s breakthrough victories in creating a new Soviet Man in his new glorious collectivist society.

Contrary to the socialist promises of making a new man out of the rubble of the old order, as one new stone after another was put into place and the socialist economy was constructed, into the cracks between the blocks sprouted once again the universals of human nature: the motives and psychology of self-interested behavior, the search for profitable avenues and opportunities to improve one’s own life and that of one’s family and friends, through the attempt to gain control over and forms of personal use of the “socialized” scarce resources and commodities within the networks and interconnections of the Soviet bureaucracy.

Since the state declared its ownership over all the means of production, it was not surprising that as the years and then the decades went by more and more people came to see membership in the Nomenklatura and its ancillary positions as the path to a more prosperous and pleasant life. In the end, the socialist state did not transform human nature; human nature found ways to use the socialist state for its own ends.

The system of privilege and corruption that Soviet socialism created was explained by Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007), the Russian Communist Party member who, more than many others, helped bring about the end of the Soviet Union and an independent Russia in 1991 that at first tried democracy. In his book, Against the Grain (1990), Yeltsin explained:

“The Kremlin ration, a special allocation of normally unobtainable products, is paid for by the top echelon at half its normal price, and it consists of the highest-quality foods. In Moscow, a total of 40,000 people enjoy the privilege of these special rations, in various categories of quantities and quality. There are whole sections of GUM – the huge department store that faces the Kremlin across Red Square – closed to the public and specially reserved for the highest of the elite, while for officials a rung or two lower on the ladder there are other special shops. All are called ‘special’: special workshops, special dry cleaners, special polyclinics, special hospitals, special houses, and special services. What a cynical use of the world!”

The promised “classless society” of material and social equality was, in fact, the most granulated system of hierarchical privilege and power. Bribery, corruption, connections and favoritism permeated the entire fabric of Soviet socialist society. Since the state owned, produced and distributed anything and everything, everyone had to have “friends,” or friends who knew the right people, or who knew the right person to whom you could show just how appreciative you could be through bribery or reciprocal favors to gain access to something impossible to obtain through the normal channels of the central planning distributive network for “the masses.”

And overlaid on this entire socialist system of power, privilege and Communist Party-led plunder was the Soviet secret police, the KGB, spying, surveilling and threatening anyone and everyone who challenged or questioned the propaganda or workings of the “workers’ paradise.”

Communist Contradictions and the End to Soviet Socialism

It is not an exaggeration to say that everything that the Marxists said was the nature of the capitalist system – exploitation of the many by a privileged few; a gross inequality of wealth and opportunity simply due to an artificial arrangement of control over the means of production; a manipulation of reality to make slavery seem as if it meant freedom – was, in fact, the nature and essence, of Soviet socialism. What a warped and perverted twisting of reality through an ideologically distorted looking glass!

It all finally came to an end in 1991 when the privilege, plunder and poverty of “real socialism” made the Soviet system unsustainable. Indeed, by that time it was hard to find anyone in any corner of Soviet society who believed, anymore, in the “false consciousness” of communist propaganda. The Soviet Union had reached the dead-end of ideological bankruptcy and social illegitimacy. The “super-structure” of Soviet power collapsed. (See my article, “The 25th Anniversary of the End of the Soviet Union.”)

In 1899, the French social psychologist, Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), looked at the, then, growing socialist movement at the end of the nineteenth century and the soon to be beginning twentieth century, and sadly said in his book, The Psychology of Socialism:

“One nation, at least, will have to suffer . . . for the instruction of the world. It will be one of those practical lessons which alone can enlighten the nations who are amused with the dreams of happiness displayed before their eyes by the priests of the new [socialist] faith.”

Not only Russia, but also many other countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been forced to provide that “practical lesson” in the political tyranny and economic disaster that socialist society, especially in its Marxist permutation, offered to mankind.

It stands as a stark demonstration of the disastrous consequences when a society fully abandons a political philosophy of classical liberal individualism, an economic system of free markets, and an acceptance of self-interested human nature functioning within a social arrangement of voluntary association and peaceful exchange.

Let us hope that with this year marking the one-hundredth anniversary of the communist revolution in Russia mankind will learn from that tragic mistake, and come to realize and accept that only individual liberty and economic freedom can provide the just, good, and prosperous society that humanity can and should have.

Based on a presentation delivered as the John W. Pope Lecture sponsored by the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism at Clemson University on March 1, 2017.

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling is BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) from 2003 to 2008.

geert wilders at protest january 23rd

Did Geert Wilders Win by Losing?

geert wilders party logoGeert Wilders of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) lost in the March 15, 2017 elections to Mark Rutte of the conservative Freedom and Democracy VVD, who will be asked by King Willem to form a new ruling coalition government.

Rutte’s VVD won 32 seats, while Wilders’ PVV won 22 seats in the 150 seat lower house of the Hague parliament, the tweeder kamer.

While the PVV won second position in the general election results there is a razor thin margin over third place Christian Democrats (CD) which might change in the final vote tally. Wilders did win the port city of Rotterdam despite its Muslim mayor. Moreover the Dutch Labor Party (PDVA) took a shellacking.

Wilders touts that he won more votes than in 2012, while Rutte’s VVD lost 9 seats; 32 versus 41.

Wilders indicated he might join a coalition government headed by Rutte if asked. Rutte was fairly adamant during the campaign that he and other center parties would not invite Wilders and PVV. Wilders loss today ensures that a Rutte led government would remain in the EU. Wilders had proposed a NExit from the EU.

Rutte’s victory reflected his move to some of the nationalist and anti Muslim immigration positions of Wilders. That figured in his ousting one Turkish cabinet minister and denying the Foreign minister from holding rallies in the Netherlands seeking Dutch Turkish votes in a national referendum that wound confer executive powers on Turkish autocrat President Erdogan. Erdogan had accused Rutte of acting like “Nazi remnants” that the latter strenuously condemned.

Some analysts we had posted on thought that Wilders losing the Dutch Premiership may still have won reflected in the shift by Rutte and other parties to some of Wilders’ more nationalist and Dutch values views. Further, Wilders might have some leverage as Rutte is unlikely to enlist the vanquished Labor Party in order to reach the required 76 seats plurality to form a ruling coalition.

Hence the formation of the new government under Rutte’s third term as PM could take a while.

RELATED ARTICLES:

European Populism Not ‘Going Away’ Despite Dutch Election Result

Dutch Elections: Pyrrhic Victory As Mainstream Party Clings to Power

christian persecution in america

University of Wisconsin-Madison students support religious freedom for Muslims, not for Christians

These interviews at the University of Wisconsin-Madison illustrate the stark double standard in American society — and likely in other Western countries as well: Muslims get preferential treatment, are judged by a different standard, and held to different expectations. Beyond the special treatment, Muslim migrants in Europe often get away with sex assaults, imams are frequently tolerated in their incitement to violence and hate speech against Jews, Christians and the West. The freedom of speech is being challenged and trampled upon so as not to offend Muslims. Little wonder that it is so difficult to fight what President Trump calls “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Here are some cases of abhorrent intolerance against innocent Christians for their beliefs:

Görtz Haus Gallery and bistro in Grimes, Iowa, was run by a Christian couple who lost their thriving business for refusing to participate in a gay wedding ceremony.

A devout Christian couple, Edie and David Delorme who own a bakery in Longview Texas, faced brutal threats and verbal abuse against them and their son after declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding, despite providing a list of other bakeries.

A municipal judge, Ruth Neely, faced losing her job and receiving a $40,000 fine after a local reporter asked her if she was happy about performing gay marriages and she said “no,” based on her Lutheran faith.

Missouri State University dismissed a student, Andrew Cash, from a counseling program because he expressed concerns about counseling gay couples due to his religious convictions.

A mechanic from Michigan faced death threats to himself and his family, and his business was vandalized after he posted on Facebook in opposition to homosexuality.

Meanwhile, a gay woman in Indiana created quite a commotion when she stood for religious liberty by publicly supporting the Christian-owned Memories Pizza in Indiana in its decision not to cater gay weddings. “One lesbian high school coach reportedly even tried to incite people to burn down the pizza shop.”

A couple of days ago, it was reported that “Satanist students at Clemson University” held a “Bible torching” and “live bloodletting and lamb sacrifice” to “commemorate” a new chapel. If such a despicable “ceremony” were held against Muslims, the blood-letting would be human blood, but the Satanist students know that: they would not dare offend Muslims for fear of the wrath of jihad coming upon them.

“WATCH: Students Support Religious Freedom for Muslims, Not Christians”, by Jerome Hudson, Breitbart, March 12, 2017:

Several students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison admit that Muslims should not be forced by law to do business with Christians. Those same students, however, had a hard time agreeing that Christians or conservative Americans have the right to decline work that conflicts with their conscience or religion.

In a viral video published by Arizona-based nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADL), students were asked if they support Sophie Theallet’s decision not to dress Melania Trump.

Several students agreed that Theallet — one of many fashion designers declining to dress the first family — has every right to refuse to dress Mrs. Trump.

The students were also asked if a Muslim singer solicited by a Christian church to sing had a right to refuse.

Again, the students agreed that the Muslim singer has a right to not sing in a Christian church.

“Yeah, if that goes against your religious view, I feel you have a right to turn that down,” one student said.

The students also said that a law forcing Muslims to sing inside a Christian church should not exist.

When asked if a Christian photographer should be allowed by law to decline to shoot a same-sex wedding, the students appeared torn.

“For them,” the ADL notes, “it seems that the freedom to live and work according to your beliefs really depends on what you believe.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pakistan PM: Blasphemy “unpardonable sin,” international orgs should eliminate all blasphemous content

Tennessee files constitutional challenge to refugee settlement program

MIKE

New York Teacher Alleged to Have Sexually Assaulted Students With Knife – May Still Be at Large

This Project Veritas video exposes attorney Mitchell Rubinstein from the New York State United Teachers describing a case in which he defended a teacher he names “Mike,” who was alleged to have forced students at knife-point to give him oral sex. The teacher was eventually convinced to resign, but was not convicted and therefore could still be at large.

WARNING ADULT CONTENT:

As you may have seen, our investigation took a turn for the worst in that we came across information that was so offensive, we had to regroup and take action of our own to locate this man who is known only as “Mike.”

Again, I can’t get into the allegations in this column as they are despicable.

It appears a very disturbing forced-sex crime has been committed against a child, and it also appears that the system is designed to keep these crimes from even coming to light, let alone the perpetrators being brought to justice.

For over a year, this footage has kept me up at night.

While maintaining the pace of our investigations throughout 2016, we continued to search for Mike and spent considerable time and resources trying to find him.

I had off-duty police, private investigators, and Project Veritas staffers to comb through countless databases and records trying to find this man.

We even called every pet store that caters to parrots (“Mike’s” pet), in multiple states.

Our search was exhaustive, and as our last lead went cold, I decided that our team needed reinforcements.

That’s where you come in.

This story and our video needs to be shared with as many people as possible.