The Bible and Hayek on What We Owe Strangers by Sarah Skwire

/in , , , /by

It’s so much easier to sympathize with our own problems and with the problems of those we love than with the problems of complete strangers.

Adam Smith observes in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that our ability to sympathize with ourselves is, in fact, so out of all proportion to our ability to sympathize with others that the thought of losing one of our little fingers can keep us up all night in fearful anticipation, while we can sleep easily with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands on the opposite side of the world have just died in an earthquake.

Hayek makes the same point in The Fatal Conceit:

Moreover, the structures of the extended order are made up not only of individuals but also of many, often overlapping, sub-orders within which old instinctual responses, such as solidarity and altruism, continue to retain some importance by assisting voluntary collaboration, even though they are incapable, by themselves, of creating a basis for the more extended order. Part of our present difficulty is that we must constantly adjust our lives, our thoughts and our emotions, in order to live simultaneously within different kinds of orders according to different rules.

It may not be the best part of our humanity, but it is a very human part. We care more about those we see more often, understand more thoroughly, and with whom we share more in common.

And maybe that’s not so bad. We treat family differently, after all. My daughter will get a giant pink fluffy stuffed unicorn from me on her birthday. I don’t believe that I am similarly obligated to provide fuzzy equines for all other eight-year-olds. Different treatment is a way of acknowledging different kinds of bonds between people and different levels of responsibility to them.

All of this is on my mind because the other night, after I gave a talk on liberty and culture, an audience member and I had a discussion about banking, debt, and interest rates during which he carefully explained to me how Jews lend each other money for no interest, but when they lend to Christians, the sky’s the limit. Everyone knows it, because it’s in the Bible.

He was right, sort of. It is in the Bible, sort of.

It’s right there in Deuteronomy 23:

You shall not give interest to your brother [whether it be] interest on money, interest on food, or interest on any [other] item for which interest is [normally] taken. You may [however], give interest to a gentile, but to your brother you shall not give interest, in order that the Lord your God shall bless you in every one of your endeavors on the land to which you are coming to possess.

But textual interpretation is a tricky business. And textual interpretation of a text that has existed for thousands of years and been wrangled with by millions of interpreters — well, it doesn’t get much trickier than that.

But it seems worth noting that the word used here (both in translation and in Hebrew) is literally “brother.” This has been interpreted over the years to mean “fellow Jew.” But the word, as given, is brother.

What I think the passage means to emphasize by using this word — regardless of whether we are talking about literal brothers, or just “brothers” — is the importance and of treating those who are closest to us with particular care and concern. The kind of business relationship that is part of Hayek’s extended order, or that is located in an outer ring of Smith’s concentric circles of sympathy, doesn’t come with extra moral responsibilities to one another. A price is agreed on. A bargain is struck. An exchange is made. Everyone is content. But in an intimate order — with brothers or sisters, husbands or wives, parents or children — we have a responsibility to give more and do more than in the extended order.

And so observant Jews are told that they should not pay or charge interest to brothers — whomever they consider those brothers to be.

Though it has been interpreted uncharitably by many over the years, this passage from Deuteronomy is not a passage about cheating the outsider. This is a passage about taking special care of those who are closest to our hearts. It’s hard to find anything to object to in that.

Sarah SkwireSarah Skwire

Sarah Skwire is the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

Networks Topple Scientific Dogma by Max Borders

/in , , , /by

Science is undergoing a wrenching evolutionary change.

In fact, most of what we consider to be carried out in the name of science is dubious at best, flat wrong at worst. It appears we’re putting too much faith in science — particularly the kind of science that relies on reproducibility.

In a University of Virginia meta-study, half of 100 psychology study results could not be reproduced.

Experts making social science prognostications turned out to be mostly wrong, according to political science writer Philip Tetlock’s decades-long review of expert forecasts.

But there is perhaps no more egregious example of bad expert advice than in the area of health and nutrition. As I wrote last year for Voice & Exit:

For most of our lives, we’ve been taught some variation on the food pyramid. The advice? Eat mostly breads and cereals, then fruits and vegetables, and very little fat and protein. Do so and you’ll be thinner and healthier. Animal fat and butter were considered unhealthy. Certain carbohydrate-rich foods were good for you as long as they were whole grain. Most of us anchored our understanding about food to that idea.

“Measures used to lower the plasma lipids in patients with hyperlipidemia will lead to reductions in new events of coronary heart disease,” said the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1971. (“How Networks Bring Down Experts (The Paleo Example),” March 12, 2015)

The so-called “lipid theory” had the support of the US surgeon general. Doctors everywhere fell in line behind the advice. Saturated fats like butter and bacon became public enemy number one. People flocked to the supermarket to buy up “heart healthy” margarines. And yet, Americans were getting fatter.

But early in the 21st century something interesting happened: people began to go against the grain (no pun) and they started talking about their small experiments eating saturated fat. By 2010, the lipid hypothesis — not to mention the USDA food pyramid — was dead. Forty years of nutrition orthodoxy had been upended. Now the experts are joining the chorus from the rear.

The Problem Goes Deeper

But the problem doesn’t just affect the soft sciences, according to science writer Ron Bailey:

The Stanford statistician John Ioannidis sounded the alarm about our science crisis 10 years ago. “Most published research findings are false,” Ioannidis boldly declared in a seminal 2005 PLOS Medicine article. What’s worse, he found that in most fields of research, including biomedicine, genetics, and epidemiology, the research community has been terrible at weeding out the shoddy work largely due to perfunctory peer review and a paucity of attempts at experimental replication.

Richard Horton of the Lancet writes, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” And according Julia Belluz and Steven Hoffman, writing in Vox,

Another review found that researchers at Amgen were unable to reproduce 89 percent of landmark cancer research findings for potential drug targets. (The problem even inspired a satirical publication called the Journal of Irreproducible Results.)

Contrast the progress of science in these areas with that of applied sciences such as computer science and engineering, where more market feedback mechanisms are in place. It’s the difference between Moore’s Law and Murphy’s Law.

So what’s happening?

Science’s Evolution

Three major catalysts are responsible for the current upheaval in the sciences. First, a few intrepid experts have started looking around to see whether studies in their respective fields are holding up. Second, competition among scientists to grab headlines is becoming more intense. Third, informal networks of checkers — “amateurs” — have started questioning expert opinion and talking to each other. And the real action is in this third catalyst, creating as it does a kind of evolutionary fitness landscape for scientific claims.

In other words, for the first time, the cost of checking science is going down as the price of being wrong is going up.

Now, let’s be clear. Experts don’t like having their expertise checked and rechecked, because their dogmas get called into question. When dogmas are challenged, fame, funding, and cushy jobs are at stake. Most will fight tooth and nail to stay on the gravy train, which can translate into coming under the sway of certain biases. It could mean they’re more likely to cherry-pick their data, exaggerate their results, or ignore counterexamples. Far more rarely, it can mean they’re motivated to engage in outright fraud.

Method and Madness

Not all of the fault for scientific error lies with scientists, per se. Some of it lies with methodologies and assumptions most of us have taken for granted for years. Social and research scientists have far too much faith in data aggregation, a process that can drop the important circumstances of time and place. Many researchers make inappropriate inferences and predictions based on a narrow band of observed data points that are plucked from wider phenomena in a complex system. And, of course, scientists are notoriously good at getting statistics to paint a picture that looks like their pet theories.

Some sciences even have their own holy scriptures, like psychology’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. These guidelines, when married with government funding, lobbyist influence, or insurance payouts, can protect incomes but corrupt practice.

But perhaps the most significant methodological problem with science is over-reliance on the peer-review process. Peer review can perpetuate groupthink, the cartelization of knowledge, and the compounding of biases.

The Problem with Expert Opinion

The problem with expert opinion is that it is often cloistered and restrictive. When science starts to seem like a walled system built around a small group of elites (many of whom are only sharing ideas with each other) — hubris can take hold. No amount of training or smarts can keep up with an expansive network of people who have a bigger stake in finding the truth than in shoring up the walls of a guild or cartel.

It’s true that to some degree, we have to rely on experts and scientists. It’s a perfectly natural part of specialization and division of labor that some people will know more about some things than you, and that you are likely to need their help at some point. (I try to stay away from accounting, and I am probably not very good at brain surgery, either.) But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t question authority, even when the authority knows more about their field than we do.

The Power of Networks

But when you get an army of networked people — sometimes amateurs — thinking, talking, tinkering, and toying with ideas — you can hasten a proverbial paradigm shift. And this is exactly what we are seeing.

It’s becoming harder for experts to count on the vagaries and denseness of their disciplines to keep their power. But it’s in cross-disciplinary pollination of the network that so many different good ideas can sprout and be tested.

The best thing that can happen to science is that it opens itself up to everyone, even people who are not credentialed experts. Then, let the checkers start to talk to each other. Leaders, influencers, and force-multipliers will emerge. You might think of them as communications hubs or bigger nodes in a network. Some will be cranks and hacks. But the best will emerge, and the cranks will be worked out of the system in time.

The network might include a million amateurs willing to give a pair of eyes or a different perspective. Most in this army of experimenters get results and share their experiences with others in the network. What follows is a wisdom-of-crowds phenomenon. Millions of people not only share results, but challenge the orthodoxy.

How Networks Contribute to the Republic of Science

In his legendary 1962 essay, “The Republic of Science,” scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi wrote the following passage. It beautifully illustrates the problems of science and of society, and it explains how they will be solved in the peer-to-peer age:

Imagine that we are given the pieces of a very large jigsaw puzzle, and suppose that for some reason it is important that our giant puzzle be put together in the shortest possible time. We would naturally try to speed this up by engaging a number of helpers; the question is in what manner these could be best employed.

Polanyi says you could progress through multiple parallel-but-individual processes. But the way to cooperate more effectively

is to let them work on putting the puzzle together in sight of the others so that every time a piece of it is fitted in by one helper, all the others will immediately watch out for the next step that becomes possible in consequence. Under this system, each helper will act on his own initiative, by responding to the latest achievements of the others, and the completion of their joint task will be greatly accelerated. We have here in a nutshell the way in which a series of independent initiatives are organized to a joint achievement by mutually adjusting themselves at every successive stage to the situation created by all the others who are acting likewise.

Just imagine if Polanyi had lived to see the Internet.

This is the Republic of Science. This is how smart people with different interests and skill sets can help put together life’s great puzzles.

In the Republic of Science, there is certainly room for experts. But they are hubs among nodes. And in this network, leadership is earned not by sitting atop an institutional hierarchy with the plumage of a postdoc, but by contributing, experimenting, communicating, and learning with the rest of a larger hive mind. This is science in the peer-to-peer age.

Max BordersMax Borders

Max Borders is Director of Idea Accounts and Creative Development for Emergent Order. He was previously the editor of the Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also co-founder of the event experience Voice & Exit.

Will a ‘Socialist’ Government Make Us Freer? by Jason Kuznicki

/in , , , , /by

“Socialism” is a weasel word.

Consider that the adjective “socialist” applies commonly — even plausibly — to countries with vastly different ex ante institutions and with vastly different social and economic outcomes. Yet Canada, Norway, Venezuela, and Cuba can’t all be one thing. Does socialism mean substantial freedom of the press, as in Norway? Or does it mean the vicious suppression of dissent, as in Venezuela?

We need more clarity here before we decide whether socialism is a worthwhile social system, and whether, as Will Wilkinson recommends, we ought to support a socialist candidate for president.

An approach that clearly will not do is to apply the term “socialism” to virtually all foreign countries. Shabby as that definition may be, some do seem to use it, both favorably and not. The result is that “socialism” has grown popular largely because a lot of people have concluded that the American status quo stinks. Maybe it does stink, but that doesn’t endow “socialism” with a proper definition.

Let’s see what happens when we drill down to the level of institutions.

Now, we might personally wish that the word “socialism” meant “the social system in which the state owns the means of production and runs the major industries of the nation.”

This is a workable definition: It has a clear genus and differentia; it includes some systems, while excluding others; and it’s not obviously self-referential. It’s also the definition preferred by many important political actors in the twentieth century, including Vladimir Lenin.

Lenin’s definition was not a bad one. But it’s far from the only current, taxonomically proper definition of socialism. As Will Wilkinson rightly notes, socialism also commonly means “the social system in which the state uses taxation to provide an extensive social safety net.”

And yet, as Will also notes, “ownership of the means of production” and “provision of a social safety net” are logically independent policies. A state can do one, the other, both, or neither. Of these four possibilities, there’s only one that can’t plausibly be called a socialism — and not a single state on earth behaves this way!

Better terms are in order, but I know that whatever I propose here isn’t going to stick, so I’m not going to try. Instead I want to look at some of the consequences that may arise from our fuzzy terminology.

One danger is that we may believe and support one conception of “socialism” —only to find that the agents we’ve tasked with supplying it have had other ideas all along: We may want Norway but get Venezuela. Wittingly or unwittingly.

Before we say “oh please, of course we’ll end up in Norway,” let’s recall how eager our leftist intelligentsia has been to praise Chavez’s Venezuela — and even declare it an “economic miracle” — until the truth became unavoidable: The “miracle” of socialism in Venezuela turned out to be nothing more than a transient oil boom. Yet leftist intellectuals are the very sorts of people who will be drawn, by self-selection, to an administration that is proud to call itself socialist.

There’s some resemblance to a “motte-and-bailey” process here: they cultivate the rich, desirable fields of the bailey, until they are attacked, at which point they retreat to the well-fortified motte. The easily defensible motte is the comfortable social democracy of northern Europe, which we all agree is pretty nice and happens to have quite a few free-market features. The bailey is the Cuban revolution.

This motte-and-bailey process does not need to be deliberate; it may be the result of a genuinely patchwork socialist coalition. No one in the coalition needs to have bad faith. An equivocal word is all that’s needed, and one is already on hand.

Even when we look only at one country, the problem remains: We may only want some institutional parts of Denmark — and we may want them for good reasons, such as Denmark’s relatively loose regulatory environment. But what we get may only be the other institutional parts of Denmark — such as its high personal income taxes. (Worth noting: Bernie Sanders has explicitly promised the higher personal income taxes, while his views on regulation are anything but Danish.)

Will thinks that electing someone on the far left of the American political spectrum could be somewhat good for liberty, but I’m far from convinced. Remember what happened the last time we put just a center-leftist in the White House: By the very same measures of economic freedom that Will uses to tout Denmark’s success, America’s economic freedom ranking sharply declined. And that decline was the direct result of Barack Obama’s left-wing economic policies. We got a larger welfare state and higher taxes, but we also got much more command-and-control regulation.

Faced with similar objections from others, Will has already performed a nice sidestep: He has replied that voting for Sanders is — obviously — just a strategic move: “Obviously,” he writes, “President Bernie Sanders wouldn’t get to implement his economic policy.” Emphasis his.

To which I’d ask: Do you really mean that Sanders would achieve none of his economic agenda? At all? Because I can name at least two items that seem like safe bets: more protectionism and stricter controls on immigration. A lot of Sanders’s ideas will indeed be dead on arrival, but these two won’t, and he would be delighted to make a bipartisan deal that cuts against most everything that Will, the Niskanen Center, and libertarians generally claim to stand for. Cheering for a guy who would happily bury your legislative agenda, and who stands a good chance of actually doing it seems… well, odd.

There is also a frank inconsistency to Will’s argument: The claim that Sanders will make us more like Denmark can’t be squared with the claim that Sanders will be totally ineffective. Arguing both is just throwing spaghetti on the wall — and hoping the result looks like libertarianism.

Would Sanders decriminalize marijuana? Or reform the criminal justice system? Or start fewer wars? Or spend less on defense? Or give us all puppies? I don’t know. Obama promised to close Guantanamo. He promised to be much better on civil liberties. He promised not to start “dumb wars” or bomb new and exotic countries. He even promised accountability for torture.

In 2008, I made the terrible mistake of counting those promises in his favor. We’ve seen how well that worked out.

It’s completely beyond me why I should trust similarly tangential promises this time around — particularly from a candidate like Sanders, whose record on foreign policy is already disturbingly clear. None of the rest of these desiderata have anything to do with state control over our economic life, which would appear to be the one thing the left wants most of all. (Marijuana: illegal in Cuba. Legal in North Korea. Yay freedom?)

Ultimately, I think that electing someone significantly further left than Obama will not help matters in any sense at all, except maybe that it will show how little trust we should put in anyone who willingly wears the socialist label. The only good outcome of a Sanders administration may be that we’ll all say to ourselves afterward: “Well, we won’t be trying that again!”

Now, I am prepared to believe, exactly as Will writes, that “‘social democracy,’ as it actually exists, is sometimes more ‘libertarian’ than the good old U.S. of A.” That’s true, at least in a few senses. Consider, for instance, that Denmark isn’t drone bombing unknown persons in Pakistan using a type of algorithm that can’t seem to deliver interesting Facebook ads. (One could say that, as usual, Denmark is letting us do their dirty work for them, with their full approval, but I won’t press the point.)

Either way, that’s still a pretty low bar, no? Meanwhile, there remains plenty of room for us to imitate some other bad things — things that we aren’t doing now, but that Denmark is doing, like taxing its citizens way, way too much. The fact that these things are a part of the complex conglomerate known as northern European social democracy doesn’t necessarily make them good, exactly as remote control assassination doesn’t become good merely by virtue of being American.

In short: Point taken about social democracy. At times, some of it isn’t completely terrible. But that only gets us so far, and not quite to the Sanders slot in the ballot box.

Jason KuznickiJason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki is the editor of Cato Unbound.

Islamic Terrorism Not A Problem In Japan

/in , , , /by

It is hard to find a country in today’s world that isn’t experiencing an uptick in violent Islamic terrorism. Surprisingly Japan is not one of those countries having to deal with the aftermath of mass shootings, beheadings, or other known-wolf attacks on their citizens.

According to the authors of Immigrants of Doom, and their research on The National Counterterrorism Center’s unclassified report,

“In 2011, Sunni Muslims accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third year in a row. Over 5,700 incidents were committed by Sunni Muslims, responsible for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of 12,533 fatalities. Another 24 percent of the fatalities are on Shi´a Muslims. So in 2011, Muslims were responsible for 94 percent of the fatalities in terrorist attacks. Since 2011, with ISIS on the scene, the number of the fatalities –victims of the Muslim terrorist attacks- sharply grew, together with Muslims´ share in the world terrorism that is steadily closing in on 100%.”

Even with those statistics Japan has been able to stay above the fray, and the reason is their immigration policy towards Muslims. Japan is a country who is proud of their heritage, and would like to see it remain intact. Understandably the only Muslims they allow in their country are for business purposes. The article goes on to state,

“And Japanese society expects Muslims to pray at home: no collective “prostrating” in the streets or squares; in Japan, for such “shows” the actors can get pretty high fines, and in those cases Japanese Police consider “serious”, the participants can be deported.”

There is only one Imam in all of Tokyo. The few thousand Muslims that do live among the roughly 127 million Japanese are encouraged to worship in their homes versus being allowed to build huge mosques throughout the country.

Incidentally when Muslims build mosques it is a way for them to declare victory in the area in which they have colonized. This is happening all across Europe and now in America, silent and stealthily our government works to bring new Islamic immigrants into our midst while forbidding anyone of the Christian or Jewish faith to dare mention the thought or idea of a loving God to them.

Quietly, but surely, they build their barracks and battalions among our neighborhoods. It is from these mosques that most, if not all, of the terrorists get their teaching from the Quran to go out into our communities and kill or maim the non-Muslim.

But, our government knows best and anyone who speaks out about curbing the number of Islamic immigrants is called unfeeling, a racist or a bigot. The Japanese see the Islamic ideology as strange and one that doesn’t make sense. They simply do not want Islam to play any part whatsoever in their rich culture. And what is wrong with wanting to keep your nations culture alive?

In America, we now have teachers who have their students practicing Arabic writing by copying the Shahada in class, which is the  Muslim conversion prayer. Our students are also being told to throw a burka and/or a hijab on for good measure too, just so they can feel like what it is to be a Muslim woman.

Excuse my language, but what the hell are we doing here? Japan has no problem saying to the Muslim, “Your ways are not our ways, and don’t think for a second your kind is going to come into our country and change it.” Why aren’t we screaming this from our rooftops? Have Americans lost their voice? At what point are we going to make our legislators understand the peril in which they have placed the country, all in the name of multi-culturalism.

Trump made a statement several months ago about barring Muslims from this country, and people all over the world practically had an aneurism over it. This policy  makes perfect sense in a climate where practically 100% of terrorist attacks are attributed to Muslims.

Japan obviously couldn’t care less what the world says about their policy. Apparently they aren’t swayed by the political correct crowd that our leaders bow to. They can sit back and enjoy their sushi, sake, and plum wine while the rest of the world burns.

Maybe with a new administration, schools would once again be encouraged to teach the historical truth about our country and we could start to instill a sense of pride in a country that once respected God and celebrated the traditional family.

I believe we are all ready to find out who that one nominee will be for the presidential race. Regardless of who it is, we better all be ready to stand behind them 100%. Hopefully the next president could look at Japan’s stance on immigration and glean some wisdom from it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Canadian Iranian: “I feel betrayed”; waves of migrants endanger Western societies

A Salute to Authentic Men

/in , /by

In an age where masculinity is often mistaken for male patriarchy, I want to commend the men remaining true to who they were created to be. As the country continues its descent down the road of gender ambiguity, they will be crucial to its restoration.

So many men have succumbed to the cries of the culture which desire to press them into a submissive mold. In numerous atmospheres they are told to defer to the woman, but don’t dare compliment her, because that could be seen as sexual harassment. In addition, they are advised to avoid politically charged topics at work, because it is not proper.

Heaven forbid a conversation comes up about abortion, and a man comments on the sanctity of life. Most liberal leaning people seem to think this issue is entirely the  woman’s choice, leaving the man out of the equation.

This belief has excused men from accountability and led to the surrendering of responsibilities in the family unit. And with the introduction of lesbian unions, who manage to acquire children, there will be little male influence in these families.

In this climate there is a growing animosity for authentic men and the roles that are rightfully theirs in society. It starts as early as preschool where boys have been disciplined for innocent acts such as bringing toy guns to school or kissing a cute little girl on the cheek. It only gets worse as these boys grow into young men and young adults.

Just the other day a good friend of mine was relating a story about when he dropped his son off at a new school. Like all parents, you want your child to make friends and feel comfortable. My friend decided to bring along a soccer ball to kick around with his son in hopes of gathering possible acquaintances for him to meet. He was surprised at the number of boys who came up immediately wanting to play and even race my friend.

There is undoubtedly a vacuum of male leadership in the inner cities where so often children grow up fatherless, but also in the number of broken families through divorce. Sadly the result can be men who question their identity. On the flip side those men who have had positive role models in a father, uncle, coaches, etc., usually grow up to be strong men.

Authentic men speak unapologetically about what they believe to be truth, gladly take leadership roles, and don’t remain silent or still when obvious wrongs are occurring. Their character shines through especially in the midst of stressful situations. And yes, they pay tasteful compliments to women that promote self-esteem while showing them respect.

Consider what John Eldredge, author of Wild at Heart, said about men needing permission to be true to their heart and their passions, and how that effects a woman.

“They need a deeper understanding of why they long for adventures and battles and a Beauty-and why God made them just like that. They need a deeper understanding of why women long to be fought for, to be swept up into adventure, and to be the Beauty. For that is how God made them as well.”

When women are around men who are comfortable in their own skin, it is encouraging, comforting and intoxicating. I would venture to say many marriages could benefit from the husband embracing true masculinity, because it yields legitimate femininity. It is a cycle that has gotten interrupted by a civilization that is growing more antagonistic of  gender norms.

Societal norms, for the way men should and ought to act, have been established over hundreds of years in America. But many men have grown away from these norms in part because of the feminist movement. Women and women’s issues seem to remain at the forefront of daytime talk shows and most definitely the  hot button topic of the liberal left, not to mention Hollywood’s bent.

Men who are undeterred by worldly discouragement don’t back down from confrontation due to their beliefs, and they stand up for those who can’t help themselves. I have had the privilege of knowing many men throughout my life who mirror these qualities.

Part of the reason for this article is to thank those of you who, despite the counter-pressure, continue in your roles. Believe me, in circles of respectful women, you are appreciated. I would also urge other men, who have dismissed their true calling, to step up to the plate and make a stand in these areas discussed. Your influence could be limitless.

We are in desperate need of authentic men, and if their numbers grow, they just may encourage the rebirth of true femininity in America.

The Reprobate Mind of America

/in , , , /by

In what will most likely be known to historians as the last greatest friendship between a conservative and a liberal, Americans will forever memorialize the snapshot in time of Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia and his longtime friend Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the back of an elephant waving to a nearby crowd.

It is Justice Scalia’s sudden and unexpected death that has escalated anxiety among Americans of what is yet to come. The Scalia-Ginsburg friendship could very well be the last living generation given over to civility in which agreeing to disagree is simply a stimulating conversation piece among friends.  The issues have become far too vile, as the American sliding scale has gradually redefined right and wrong.  We have walked in hatred one to another. We have made other gods our God. We have made ourselves our God.

We now face the final precipice in which America is now at the point of no return, unable to reconcile our stark differences without the strong and loving hands of divine intervention. Signs and wonders in the skies, ancient prophecies unfolding, earthquakes, and cataclysmic events all point to the end of an era now that America has succumbed to a reprobate mind, with one final chance to change directions and charter a new course.

Ancient teachings have long predicted the perilous times in the last days when it has been foretold that the evidence of such a culture will show people to be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, lacking self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…having a form of godliness but denying its power.  These are the descriptions as described by Paul, known for writing over half of New Testament.

Perhaps teacher Don Koenig developed some of the most thought-provoking ideas, when he posed poignant questions that act as a litmus test of the modern American mindset:  Why is almost everything on TV about sex, violence, and the abnormal?  Why is porn half the Internet traffic that is not marked as Spam?  Why does America have the highest incarceration rate in the world?  Why do Americans use illegal and legal mind-altering drugs more than any other nation on Earth?  The list goes on in his essay aptly entitled, “Many Exhibit Insanity Because God Gave Them Over to a Reprobate Mind“.

Where there is a reprobate mind, otherwise reputable men and women, no longer conform to sound doctrine, but alter it to suit their selfish desires. The reprobate mind turns away from truth and turns towards myths.  The reprobate society is one in which truth is censored and suppressed by wickedness.  The reprobate man says he knows God, but neither glorifies Him, nor gives thanks to Him.  Instead his thinking has become futile, his foolish heart darkened.  He claims to be wise, but has become a fool, exchanging the glory of an immortal God for mortal things.

The reprobate society is filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, depravity. It is plagued by envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. It is filled with gossips, slanderers, God-haters, those who are insolent, arrogant and boastful and invent ways of doing evil.  They do all of these things as well as condone those who practice them.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s leadership and presence in the Supreme Court was representative of one of America’s final vestiges of hope, a protective shield from forces of darkness and an anchor that secured a once great society from being overcome by the reprobate abyss.

Without an adequate replacement to fill Justice Scalia’s seat in the judicial branch of government and principled leadership in the executive branch, both currently at stake, we risk even further departing from the Judeo-Christian benchmark that has established America’s rule of law throughout the generations, and civilization as we know it will cease to exist.

No matter what our particular shortcomings as a nation and as individuals may be, let us never deny the existence of our one true Creator. Let us always uphold Truth, even when we are far from making good choices in our own power. Let us continue to put our hope in the God of our fathers and halt the impending destruction of our beloved America, one in which our children can experience kindness, joy, peace, and the other freedoms that have been the bedrock of the greatest nation on Earth.  It is then, and only then, that America will be released from the invisible choke-hold that is threatening our future and currently destroying us from within.

European pressure cooker set to explode as countries unilaterally close borders

/in , , , , , /by

A major crisis is at hand as the Balkan countries close their borders (following Austria’s lead).

Because there is no serious will to do so, there is nothing to effectively stop the flow of illegal migrants into Greece from Turkey. Greek leaders fear their country will become one big refugee camp as the migrants cannot move toward Germany (the country whose streets they believe are paved with gold!).

Here is the story at the Malta Independent.  And below is a screen shot of the flow yesterday showing 2,972 came in from Turkey but the flow northward has all but stopped.

Go to the interactive map and move the courser back over the last month to see the astounding numbers that were moving into Austria and then Germany in recent weeks.

Screenshot (26)

eu pessimists by country chart

The Independent:

The rift over how to handle Europe’s immigration crisis ripped wide open Friday. As nations along the Balkans migrant route took more unilateral actions to shut down their borders, diplomats from EU nations bordering the Mediterranean rallied around Greece, the epicenter of the crisis.

Cypriot Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides – speaking on behalf of colleagues from France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Malta and Greece – said decisions on how to deal with the migrant influx that have already been made by the 28-nation bloc cannot be implemented selectively by some countries.

“This issue is testing our unity and ability to handle it,” Kasoulides told a news conference after an EU Mediterranean Group meeting. “The EU Med Group are the front-line states and we all share the view that unilateral actions cannot be a solution to this crisis.”

[….]

The Greek government is blaming Austria – a fellow member of Europe’s passport-free Schengen Area – for the flare-up in the crisis. Austria imposed strict border restrictions last week, creating a domino effect as those controls were also implemented by Balkan countries further south along the Balkans migration route.

[….]

Thousands of migrants are pouring into Greece every day and officials fear the country could turn into “a giant refugee camp” if they are unable to move north due to borders closures.

Continue reading here.  What a mess!

Go here for all of our ‘Invasion of Europe’ news.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Swiss Vote on Expelling Foreigners for Petty Crimes

23 Years Ago the World Trade Center was Bombed Because of Illegal Alien Amnesty | Daniel Greenfield

The Next Syrian Refugee Crisis: Child Brides

European ship headed to Asia to help rescue Rohingya (why you should care)

Trump and Sanders Win Presidential Bumper Sticker Poll

/in , , /by

TREVOSE, Pa. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and  Republican Donald Trump should sweep Super Tuesday primaries, according to the Presidential Promo Polls on bumper sticker preferences released today by the Advertising Specialty Institute® (ASI).

With an eye on Tuesday’s primaries and how promotional products are used in elections, ASI asked residents in primary states this question: If you received a bumper sticker from each of the presidential candidates, which one would you be most willing to put on your car?

“We purposely chose to ask people about bumper stickers because it is an iconic election promotional product that’s also very personal,” said ASI Editorial Director Andy Cohen. “While you might accept and use a branded pen from a candidate you don’t necessarily support, no way would you put a bumper sticker on your car if you didn’t really endorse a candidate.”

In the lead-up to Super Tuesday, ASI released results from voter polls taken in nine, non-caucus states participating in primaries. More than 600 people from each state participated in each survey that was fielded among the Google Consumer Survey Network. All responses were collected between February 20-25.

In all nine states, voters ASI polled chose Trump and Sanders by wide margins.

When asked about the popularity, in particular, of the Vermont senator with Democrats, versus former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ASI’s Director of Market Research Nate Kucsma said, come Tuesday, voters ASI polled may end up voting with their heads instead of their hearts. “Although our poll tells us lots of people love Sanders enough to put his bumper sticker on their car, they may end up voting for Hillary because they think she has the best chance to win in November,” Kucsma said. “Whereas Republican voters truly believe that Trump, or whomever else they support, can win it all in November.”

Below are results from ASI’s Presidential Promo Poll:

  • Alabama: Trump 53%, Sanders 58%
  • Arkansas: Trump 51%, Sanders 59%
  • Georgia: Trump 46%, Sanders 61%
  • Massachusetts: Trump 50%, Sanders 62%
  • Oklahoma: Trump 43%, Sanders 64%
  • Tennessee: Trump 50%, Sanders 56%
  • Texas: Trump: 40%, Sanders 53%
  • Vermont:  Trump 45%, Sanders 91%
  • Virginia: Trump 43%, Sanders 58%

Promo products, also known as swag, freebies and giveaways, are items like pens, T-shirts, caps, coffee mugs and high-tech electronics imprinted with a logo or slogan used by companies, schools and non-profits to advertise their brand and events and to thank employees and clients.

In 2012, ASI estimated total election-related promo product spending fueled by giveaways like bumper stickers, yard signs and candidate brochures hit $870 million.

About ASI
The Advertising Specialty Institute (ASI®) serves a network of 25,000 suppliers, distributors and decorators in the $22 billion promotional products industry.

Voters Rate Key Attributes Necessary For a Commander-In-Chief

/in , , /by

LOS ANGELES, CA /PRNewswire/ — A new national survey from E-Poll Market Research measures perceptions of the current Presidential candidates among members of each political party along 46 personality and behavioral attributes. Among Democrats, results show Clinton and Sanders splitting the ballot on many attributes, with Clinton owning the traits most associated with statesmanship (Experienced, Influential and Confident) while Sanders wins on attributes associated with likeability (Sincere and Trustworthy).

Among Republicans, Trump is perceived as most Confident and Influential. Carson is the anti-Trump, perceived as the most Appealing, Intelligent, Sincere and Trustworthy. Rubio is noted as most Articulate, while Kasich is most Experienced. Cruz does not lead in any of the presidential attributes.

Evolving Perception of Clinton

Since her last presidential campaign in 2008, Clinton has increased her appeal, especially among women, and held very strong or grown in the presidential attributes including Experienced, Influential and Confident. Since 2008 she is considered less Sincere and Trustworthy by Democrats, and particularly male Democrats.

2016 Presidential Candidates: Perceptions Among Democrats

FEMALE DEMOCRATS

MALE DEMOCRATS

Attribute

Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders

Attribute

Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders

E-Score

82

87

E-Score

82

87

Appeal

64

63

Appeal

51

66

Articulate

44

34

Articulate

26

49

Confident

57

33

Confident

36

36

Experienced

54

43

Experienced

49

48

Intelligent

62

54

Intelligent

43

52

Sincere

18

42

Sincere

13

38

Trustworthy

17

30

Trustworthy

8

41

Source: E-Score

 

Perceptions of Hilary Clinton: Then and Now

FEMALE DEMOCRATS

MALE DEMOCRATS

 Attribute

2008

2016

 Attribute

2008

2016

E-Score

75

82

E-Score

75

82

Appeal

55

64

Appeal

49

51

Experienced

54

54

Experienced

49

49

Influential

50

55

Influential

55

30

Confident

58

57

Confident

53

36

Sincere

24

18

Sincere

21

13

Trustworthy

23

17

Trustworthy

21

8

Source: E-Score

 

2016 Presidential Candidates: Perceptions Among Republicans

Attribute

Donald Trump

Ben Carson

Ted Cruz

Marco Rubio

John Kasich

E-Score

76

82

49

60

40

Appeal

46

67

46

60

33

Articulate

14

32

28

37

35

Confident

45

35

43

43

35

Experienced

36

36

27

28

44

Influential

41

26

29

32

18

Intelligent

38

68

49

56

48

Sincere

9

42

20

22

24

Trustworthy

10

34

22

31

26

Source: E-Score

Methodology:

E-Score surveys conducted among 1,000 persons aged 18+with general representation across income, age, education and geographic demographics to represent a cross-section of the U.S. population. 2016 Surveys conducted February 5, 2016. 2008 Survey conducted June 9, 2008. All numerical figures except E-Score represent % of respondents.

About E-Score:

E-Score has been the leader in personality ratings for more than 15 years, and tracks public opinion on more than 9,000 entertainers, athletes, politicians and newsmakers. E-Score is a product of E-Poll Market Research, a full-service consumer research company. More information is available at www.epollresearch.com.

No, It’s Not Your 1st Amendment Right to ‘Talk Dirty’ to a Child by Dani Bianculli

/in , , , /by

Criminal laws must be updated to adapt to the new Internet community.

Like any other community the Internet is a place for business, relationships, dating and unfortunately criminal activity, including the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. This is why the National Center on Sexual Exploitation has filed an amicus brief for a court case in Georgia stating that it should not be legal to “talk dirty” to a child.

The Georgia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on February 22ndregarding this First Amendment challenge to a Georgia statute criminalizing obscene Internet contact with a child. NCOSE believes that Georgia’s statute is necessary to protect children from harm because the First Amendment does not protect sexually exploitive speech to children. The person challenging the statute, states in his brief to the Court that he has a First Amendment right to “talk dirty to a child.” We at NCOSE, think absolutely not. This is not harmless chatting but rather child exploitation. And the most frightening aspect of this case is that a very similar statute in Texas[1] has already been struck down on First Amendment grounds led by the same defense attorney challenging the statute in this case.

The sad and scary reality is that child sexual abuse and exploitation has moved online. And due to the nature of the Internet the problem is only growing. A child predator has instant, anonymous access to children all over the country, and even the world. Meanwhile, young adolescents looking to make friends while both curious and naïve about sex are virtually all online, all the time.[2] And this is not on the family computer under the watchful eyes of mom and dad but on tablets and smartphones, which are carried around with the child everywhere they go.[3] This means those who would mean to harm these children can find them on social media platforms and chat rooms any time, anywhere, and children of these young ages tend to share too much information and actively seek out online friendships. Especially, those children who are most vulnerable to sexual abuse.

States have been trying to protect children from predators since the dawn of the Internet ageabuse moved online child but there is still much left unaddressed and technology has changed faster than laws have been updated. Most States have laws against online solicitation of minors. And most States have laws against exposing oneself to a minor in person or selling minors obscene or indecent materials. But what if an adult uses a webcam to expose himself/herself to minor online? Or what if he/she describes in graphic detail sexual encounters, or sexual acts he/she would like to perform on the child he/she is speaking to via online messaging? And even more disturbing, what if the adult instructs the child to touch themselves sexually, directing and commanding their movements? These are real examples of the activities which have been prosecuted under this Georgia statute. And without this statute such activity would considered legal. This activity does not fall under other statutes aimed at prohibiting child abuse and exploitation. But because these actions, which amount to cybersex, and sometimes even remote child molestation, are occurring via Internet chat there is a real possibility that it could be given a pass under the guise of First Amendment freedom.

This serious confusion over the First Amendment’s role in the Internet space could cause serious consequences for children who are being victimized and traumatized by predators online. And it would be completely inconsistent with First Amendment jurisprudence. The First Amendment does not protect child exploitation and has always restricted a minor’s access to material that is harmful to them. And the content of these communications meet the standard for material that is harmful to minors. But because harmful to minors laws do not encompass live online communications this statute is needed to cover this ground.

The Supreme Court of the United States has already held that material, such as magazines, books, pictures, or videos containing sexually explicit nudity or sex acts appealing to the prurient interest of a child may be restricted to children, even material that would not be obscene as to adults, without offending the First Amendment. In fact, the Supreme Court has placed the protection of children from sexual exploitation as the highest priority of the States and material that is harmful to them receives no First Amendment protection in its distribution to children. The Georgia state legislature used the same language that has been upheld in harmful to minors laws and merely applied these restrictions to live streaming video or instant message conversations online. Further, we argue that these online communications are even more harmful than obscene magazines or videos, and therefore the State has an even greater interest in protecting children, because it is not simply mass produced and available to children, but created for a specific targeted child by an adult. The exposure is intentional and crafted around that particular child’s vulnerabilities and inexperience with sexual matters.

Furthermore, freedom of speech does not protect criminal speech. For example, conspiracy, which amounts to criminal conversations, obscenity, and advertisements and solicitations for child pornography are all “speech” and yet completely excluded from First Amendment protection. Similarly, there is no reason why conversations or webcam video which would be rightfully restricted if printed in a book or contained on a DVD cannot be restricted merely because they occur in real-time through the medium of Internet communications. Such harmful material does not become transformed into political speech imbued with value simply because it takes place online.

And this statute is careful to prohibit only conversations between an adult and a child online which intentionally exploit and abuse a child. The statute requires belief by the adult that he/she is speaking to a child and the intention to sexually arouse either himself/herself or the child. Any doubt or concerns about overbreadth are dispelled in looking at the statute’s real world application. It reveals that what is in fact prohibited is the grooming of children for sexual abuse and/or exposing them to sexually explicit language and images. Such actions are harmful to children and inherently exploitive.

States must be able to extend the protections for children that already exist in the physical world to the realm of the Internet. And the State of Georgia has properly done so with this statute. This is why the National Center on Sexual Exploitation has written and filed an amicus brief to inform the Georgia Supreme Court on the exploitive nature of the content restricted in this statute, how such exposure to sexually explicit material is harmful to children, how the sexualization of children is harmful to them, and that such explicit conversations are a well recognized tool by researchers and law enforcement in the grooming of a child for further sexual abuse by child predators and should therefore receive no First Amendment protection.

Read the National Center on Sexual Exploitation Brief Here

END NOTES:

[1] See Ex Parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10, 24–25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

[2] “Fully 95% of all teens ages 12-17 are now online.” http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/teens-fact-sheet/

[3] Id. “Three-quarters (74%) of teens have accessed the internet through a mobile device such as a cell phone or tablet.  One-quarter of teens (25%) access the internet mostly on a cell phone.”

Dani Bianculli

Dani BianculliEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LAW CENTER

Dani Bianculli joined the NCOSE team as Director of the Law Center in August of 2015. Dani has a passion for human rights issues especially those affecting women and children. This passion is what led to her decision to attend law school. Dani received the Wilberforce Award, a full academic scholarship for those with human rights interests, to attend Regent University School of Law. While at Regent, Dani was in the Honors Program, a member of the Moot Court Board, the Journal of Global Justice and Public Policy, and the Student Bar Association. During her studies Dani interned with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and the Florida Attorney General’s Office of Statewide Prosecution.

Prior to law school Dani worked as a government relations intern for multiple DC policy organizations and graduated from the University of Central Florida with dual degrees in Psychology and Marketing.

EXCLUSIVE PODCAST: Cyber Warfare — A Clear and Present Danger

/in , , /by

I had the honor and pleasure of appearing on The Denise Simon Experience. The radio show is hosted by Denise Simon, who is the Senior Research and Intelligence Analyst for Foreign and Domestic Policy for numerous flag officers and intelligence organizations.

I spoke about the clear and present dangers of enemies, both foreign and domestic, using technology to commit crimes, steal national secrets and impact our way of life. Denise calls cyber attacks “the poor man’s nuclear weapon.” I talk about the current threat (attacks from nation states, cyber hackers and groups like Anonymous) to the looming future threat of cyborgs, chipping and Internables.

Internables are internal sensors that measure well-being in our bodies may become the new wearables. According to Ericsson’s ConsumerLab eight out of 10 consumers would like to use technology to enhance sensory perceptions and cognitive abilities such as vision, memory and hearing.

My greatest concern is that the United States government is only conducting defensive operations against the threat, and not doing that very well. The Obama administration does not conduct effective offensive operations against our enemies which include: China, Russia, Iran, the Islamic State, North Korea and many others.

I am on the first hour:

HOUR 1 – Dr. Rich Swier, LTC. U.S. Army (Ret.) successful publisher and national security expert spoke about artificial intelligence, hacking, cyber warfare and the future threat of chipping and Internables.

HOUR 2 – Jack Martin, with www.FairUS.org, explains the condition of American employees being replaced with foreign nationals and how the process has grown and is hurting employment. This is a don’t miss segment.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Smartphones to die out ‘within five years’, says new study – According to a new study mobile technology is expected to be replaced by artificial intelligence

The US Military Wants a Chip to Translate Your Brain Activity Into Binary Code

Techno-skeptics’ objection growing louder

Is technology causing us to evolve into a new SPECIES?

No, It’s Not Your 1st Amendment Right to “Talk Dirty” to a Child online

EDITORS NOTE: The Denise Simon Experience is broadcast live worldwide on Fridays from 12:05 AM – 2:00 AM (Eastern) on RedStateTalkRadio.com. Or you may visit The Denise Simon Experience to listen to her extensive interview archives.

VIDEO: Donald Trump and ‘The Vicious Snake’

/in , , , /by

Donald Trump began reciting the lyrics to a Al Wilson song from 1968 entitled “The Snake” at a rally in Iowa, which was reported on by Ali Vitali from NBC News. Many understood that this song related to the influx of Muslim migrants into Europe and the United States. To tell you more would be to give away the below video that is now going viral.

Rust e,  the creator of the video inspired by Trump’s remarks, asks viewers, “Do not allow the Islamification currently happening in Europe to reach America. Act now before its too late.”

RELATED VIDEO: Donald Trump reading the lyrics to Al Wilson’s song “The Snake” on January 12th, 2016 as filmed by NBC News:

eu pessimists by country chart

EDITORS NOTE: Videos like these do take time to create. Rust e, the creator of this video does not monetize them, nor is he getting paid to do them. If you would like to see more videos in the future, or would just like to donate to Rust e, his bitcoin address is: 19c2STV1jKWajYLu5B7qmzkfzSinpgAJpC

Cupcake Kasich is a (Rather Dull) Tyrant Enabler

/in , , , , /by

When Governor John Kasich said recently that he probably should be running in the Democrat Party, he wasn’t kidding. Although seeking office in Cuba might be even more fitting.

Taking a break from lecturing us on how we must accept amnesty, the presidential contender recently weighed in on the case of the Oregon bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a faux wedding. Mentioned briefly in Thursday’s GOP presidential debate, here are his comments, made on Monday at the University of Virginia:

I think, frankly, our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them. But if you’re a cupcake maker and somebody wants a cupcake, make them a cupcake. Let’s not have a big lawsuit or argument over all this stuff — move on. The next thing, you know, they might be saying, if you’re divorced you shouldn’t get a cupcake.

Now, Kasich is a man who just loves the idea of moving on. After the Obergefell v. Hodges decision last June, he said that recognition of faux marriage was “the law of the land and we’ll abide by it” and that now “it’s time to move on.” It’s no wonder Republicans long ago move on from the idea of him as president.

Kasich managed to squeeze a remarkable number of misconceptions into his three sentences. First, while the cupcake lines may be cute to some and possess rhetorical flair, they’re nonsense. There’s not one Christian baker persecuted by governments recently who said he wouldn’t bake “cupcakes” or anything else for a given group; in fact, these businessmen have made clear that they serve homosexuals all the time. This isn’t about serving a certain type of people.

It’s about servicing a certain type of event.

Only someone who hasn’t bothered to ponder the matter deeply or who’s intellectually dishonest could miss this simple fact. And I’ll put it to you, Governor Kasich: can you cite any other time in American history when the government compelled a businessman to service an event he found morally objectionable? This is unprecedented. And is it really a road we want to go down?

If so, can the government compel a Jewish or black businessman to cater, respectively, a Nazi or KKK affair? How about a forcing a Muslim restaurateur to serve pork at an event for the National Pork Producers Council? Or is this another situation where government gets to pick winners and losers, this time in matters of conscience?

Of course, this is already happening, which brings us to Kasich’s divorcé cupcake eater. The proper analogy here doesn’t involve serving such a person because, again, the bakers in question serve homosexuals.

The proper analogy involves servicing an event celebrating a divorce.

Government wouldn’t even consider compelling participation in the above, or in events celebrating adultery, fornication, polygamy (yet) or auto-eroticism. So why the double standard? Well, homosexuals have very effective lobbying groups and millions of enablers — such as Cupcake Kasich.

Kasich‘s “churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them. But…” comment is also interesting. Our First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. For those who say this is only meant to restrain the central government’s legislature (and I’m sympathetic to this view), note that the constitution of Kasich’s own state dictates that no “interference with the rights of conscience be permitted.” And since he was commenting on a case involving Oregon residents, consider that the Beaver State’s constitution likewise reads, “No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.”

Now, “exercise” is action; thus, at issue here isn’t just the freedom of religious belief, but of acting on that belief. Of course, there are limits in that we don’t allow practices such as human sacrifice. But anything considered legitimate action under these constitutions is allowed in churches. And here’s the point: none of these constitutions limit this free exercise to church property.

Thus, any type of exercise allowable in church is allowable outside of it.

So for this reason alone, the action against the Oregon bakers was unconstitutional. Since a person can refuse to be party to a faux wedding within a church, he can also refuse to be party to a faux wedding outside of it.

Interestingly, Kasich and others seem to be espousing a kind of “dual truth” philosophy, which I understand is part of Islamic theology. This basically states what what’s “religiously true” may not be true beyond the religious realm (whatever that’s supposed to be). But a moral issue doesn’t cease to be a moral issue because it moves down the block.

The action against the bakers is unconstitutional for another reason. Perhaps invariably, part of creating a wedding cake is placing a written message on it; in the case of faux weddings, this message would relate to faux marriage. Even two male figurines placed on top of the cake relate a message; note here that the courts have rule that symbolic speech is covered under the First Amendment. And where does the government have the constitutional power to compel people to be party to a message they find morally objectionable? Forced speech is not free speech.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if we accepted a principle even many conservatives today reject: freedom of association. Think about it: you have a right to include in or exclude from your home whomever you please, for any reason whatsoever, whether it’s because the person is a smoker, non-smoker, black, white, Catholic, Protestant, or because you simply don’t like his face.

Why should you lose this right merely because you erect a few more tables and sell food?

Or because you bake cakes, take pictures, plan weddings or conduct some other kind of commerce?

It’s still your property, paid for with your own money and created by the sweat of your own brow. Is a man’s home not his castle?

Of course, this all goes back to a Supreme Court ruling stating that private businesses can be viewed as “public accommodations,” which was a huge step toward the Marxist standard disallowing private property. And it has led to endless litigation, with the Boy Scouts sued by homosexuals, atheists and a girl (who wanted to be a “boy” scout); the PGA Tour sued by a handicapped golfer who wanted a dispensation from the rules; Abercrombie & Fitch sued by a Muslim woman who wanted to wear her hijab on the job; and Barnes & Noble sued by a male employee who claimed he suddenly was a female employee, just to name a few cases. It has also led, now, to some Americans being confronted with a Hobson’s choice: cast the exercise of your faith to the winds and bow before the government’s agenda, or kiss making a living goodbye.

Is all of this worth it just to stop less than one percent of the population from discriminating in unfashionable ways? And remember, freedom of association is like any other freedom: it’s only the unpopular exercise of it that needs protection. As for popular exercise, its popularity is usually protection enough.

As for Kasich’s desire for popularity, it’s pretty hard to achieve when your implied campaign slogan is “A chicken-hearted politician in every office and a coerced cupcake in every cupboard.”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

School Is About Freedom, Marco Rubio, Not Just Money

/in , , , /by

Republicans including Marco Rubio parrot leftist lines about how education’s ultimate goal is money. It needs to be a great deal more than that if our republic is to survive.

Once again, presidential candidate Marco Rubio, when asked a question about education, disparaged liberal learning by repeating his well-rehearsed lines about preparing students for careers in a “global” and “twenty-first-century” economy.

During the CNN town hall last week, he said that rather than teaching philosophy (“Roman philosophy,” no less), colleges should teach practical things—like welding. Sadly, Rubio is not alone. Many Republicans, forgetting their conservative roots, have joined Democrats in advancing a utilitarian view of education.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being a welder. My father, an immigrant, was one. And there is nothing wrong with philosophy—for the student in a technical school. In fact, it was our Founders’ belief that only a literate, well-educated citizenry could govern themselves. Even the tradesman should be versed in the basics of literature, history, and ancient philosophy, they thought. “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people,” said James Madison.

Modern Philosophy Is Merely Cynicism

Rubio, however, does not distinguish between legitimate philosophy and what philosophy, like the rest of the humanities, has become under the regime of tenured radicals. The problem is that philosophy professors no longer teach their subjects or, if they do, it is to cast suspicion upon the very enterprise, as I learned in graduate school in the 1990s.

Yancy would do well to review the Greek philosophers on the art of rhetoric and what they have to say about not insulting your audience.
My seminar on ancient rhetoric consisted of the professor elevating the sophists, the teachers who for fees taught the art of persuasion by making the worse case seem better. The ends were practical: so citizens could defend themselves in court. To my amazement, my professor ridiculed the traditional philosophical goals of searching for the truth.

In the intervening decades, the situation has become worse. Consider Emory University philosophy professor George Yancy. This full professor, according to the university’s website, specializes in “Critical Philosophy of Race (phenomenology of racial embodiment, social ontology of race),” “Critical Whiteness Studies (white subject formation, white racist ambush, white opacity and embeddedness. . .),” and “African-American Philosophy and Philosophy of the Black Experience (resistance, Black identity formation . . .).”

Yancy received national attention in December for penning the screed “Dear White America” in The New York Times. He began, “I have a weighty request. As you read this letter, I want you to listen with love, a sort of love that demands that you look at parts of yourself that might cause pain and terror, as James Baldwin would say. Did you hear that? You may have missed it. I repeat: I want you to listen with love. Well, at least try.”

Yancy would do well to review the Greek philosophers on the art of rhetoric and what they have to say about not insulting your audience (“Did you hear that?” “Well, at least try.”). Behind such appeals like Yancy’s is an implied threat. Invoking the names of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and other allegedly innocent victims of police violence, he accused “White America” of being racist through and through. Such rhetoric presages and justifies the angry mobs on our campuses and in our streets.

Philosophy Doesn’t Mean Grievance-Mongering

College campuses, once the places where the civilized arts of debate and the pursuit of truth were taught, have become places where the PhDs, doctors of philosophy, lead mobs of students in pursuit of retribution against some “systemic” wrong, usually in reference to race, ethnicity, or gender. Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, supporter of the Black Lives Matter mob movement, is promising to make such education free.

Our presidential candidates should consider what philosophy, rightly understood, could do. Indeed, by studying Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” students would be able to distinguish between different rhetorical appeals and learn the legitimate arts of persuasion—those that allow us to live in a civilized manner, where we resolve our differences through debate, not violence.

Were students to study Plato’s “Republic,” they might understand the dangers of a popular democracy and why the American Founders rejected one. They would consider Thrasymachus’s contention that justice is synonymous with strength, with being a “winner,” regardless of the methods. They might decide to evaluate such rhetoric carefully when it comes from a political candidate, like Donald Trump.

They would consider whether it is good for the government to put people in certain classes, as craftsmen or “guardians,” instead of allowing them to choose for themselves, or whether government should raise children rather than parents. What has been the historical outcome of such societies with centralized government, five-year economic plans, government-assigned jobs, and child-rearing from infancy? Are there any similarities to what Sanders is proposing?

Education Is Ultimately about Self-Governance

This is not to say that a class discussion should center on current political candidates. Indeed, the truly philosophical professor will keep the discussion largely away from the immediate. If the lesson is taught well, the student should come to his or her own conclusions and be able to carry those lessons into adulthood. That is the purpose of an education, not regimented job training and political molding.

The student should come to his or her own conclusions and be able to carry those lessons into adulthood. That is the purpose of an education.
The responses to Rubio’s statements in November, by such leftist outlets as ThinkProgress, CNN, and Huffington Post, were quite telling. They replied in kind to his materialist arguments. “Philosophers make more money than welders!” they said. In this they betrayed their utilitarian view of education, one that dominates the Obama administration, specifically through Common Core, a federally coerced program designed to produce compliant workers in the global economy.

The job training part has lured some short-sighted or corrupt Republicans. In higher education, too, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker advanced short-sighted “careerism,” as if he had forgotten, as Peter Lawler pointed out, Alexis de Tocqueville’s argument for studying the Greek and Roman classics. Earlier this year, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin suggested that electrical engineering was worthy of support, while French literature was not.

The other part of the progressive vision for education is to produce graduates who adhere to the state’s status quo. Students are trained to work collectively, focus on emotions, refrain from making independent judgments, and read in a way that does not go beyond ferreting out snippets of information. They are not asked to read an entire Platonic dialogue or novel. They do not get the big picture, from the dawn of civilization.

Our current educational methods are a far cry from the Founders’ robust views, of preparing citizens who are literate, logical, and knowledgeable; citizens capable of voting intelligently.

We Need Cultural Renewal, Not Materialism

We should embrace this conservative view of education. Although it is extremely rare in today’s college classrooms, it is being advanced in more than 150 privately funded academic centers on and off campuses. According to the John William Pope Center for Education Renewal, these centers “preserve and promote the knowledge and perspectives that are disappearing from the academy.”

One of these is the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, where I am a resident fellow. It was founded by three Hamilton College professors in 2007, and is located in the village of Clinton.

AHI offers students the option to read the classics in a manner that is increasingly difficult to find in the typically highly politicized open curriculum. AHI-sponsored reading groups have focused on the works of such important figures as Leo Strauss, St. Augustine, and Josef Pieper. This semester Dr. Elizabeth D’Arrivee is leading a discussion group on Plato’s “Republic.”

Political candidates would do well to explain how they will support such efforts for educational renewal, instead of disparaging philosophy and literature.

RELATED ARTICLE: Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist. Photo Crush Rush / Shutterstock.com

Muslim Indoctrination and the U.S. Department of Education from Hihab Dress-Up to Convert

/in , , , /by

The World Hijab Day website presents hijab-wearing as a sign of empowerment; women and girls who wear hijabs are called “queens, princesses, and sultanas.” One blog post by Megan Baase, however, reveals that experimental hijab-wearing may have other effects.  Baase writes that she didn’t know much about Islam until World Hijab Day.  After reading about Islam and “why women wear hijabs,” she decided to convert: “I would’ve never learned about Islam if it weren’t for world hijab day.”Now, the U.S. Department of Education is encouraging Islamic proselytizing.

Ever since 9/11 educators have been trying to promote a positive view of Islam under the pretext of fighting harassment of Muslims.  American textbooks repeat Muslim doctrine as if it were historical fact, students are taken to pray in mosques, and girls are asked to dress up in hijabs, the Muslim head scarves.

When I taught at Georgia Perimeter College (2007-2010) I’d see posters on bulletin boards put up by a Muslim professor who advised the Muslim Student Association (a “legacy project” of the Muslim Brotherhood), inviting girls to “wear a hijab for a day.”  In 2009, at the annual meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies, I reported on such panels as “Muslim Perspectives Through Film and Dialogue.”

Now we have a World Hijab Day on February 1. The first one was held in 2013.  The organization’s website reported that that February, “Girls of all faiths across East Lancashire [United Kingdom] have been taking part in World Hijab Day to understand and appreciate the muslim [sic] culture.” At Pleckgate High School, the head of “RE and citizenship,” was quoted as saying, “Staff and pupils, Muslim and non Muslim, wore the hijab all day as a way of increasing understanding. . . .”

Here in the USA, in Texas, later that month, WND reported, “Students Made to Wear Burqas – in Texas.”  The exercise was part of the Texas CSCOPE curriculum.  In California, at Natomas Pacific Prep public charter school, some girls wore hijabs as part of their senior projects.

This year according to the World Hijab Day’s website, college campuses in Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania participated.  Advice for Muslim Student Associations on holding such events is offered at the site, as are testimonials from Muslim and non-Muslim women.  So is New York Assemblyman David Weprin’s statement in support of World Hijab Day 2016.

On February 11 of this year, the U.S. Department of Education sent out an official “Homeroom” blog post titled “Protecting Our Muslim Youth from Bullying: The Role of the Educator.”

It began: “Not since the days and months immediately after September 11 has the Muslim community faced the level of anti-Muslim bias and bullying that has been seen over the past several months. In the wake of Paris and other terrorist attacks, combined with the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a lack of information among the public about Islam, and the tendency to associate  Islam with terrorism, there has been an increase in expressions and incidents targeting the Muslim community. . . .”

An alleged “increased wave of anti-Muslim sentiment in our public discourse, political rhetoric and everyday interactions,” includes schools, where youth have been called, “terrorists” or “ISIS” and attacked physically, verbally, and through social isolation.

The “statistics,” however, come from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).   As evidence of 75 reported incidents, ranging from assault to fliers opposing a mosque in Fredericksburg, there are links to only 10 news reports that go so far as to only describe allegations (many of these will likely prove to be hoaxes).

The suggested activities and curricula also come from ADL, which has long been selling its anti-bullying programs and materials to schools.  These activities are aimed at the larger goal of controlling students’ emotions and thoughts, i.e., getting them to stop “hating,” and to uncritically accept all cultures and lifestyles. (Early in the Obama administration, such anti-bullying programs were directed at protecting gay students and were coordinated with then-“safe schools czar,” the co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teacher Network, Kevin Jennings.)

Among the Department’s suggested activities is holding a “Walk a Mile in Her Hijab Day.”  There is a link to a video of a classroom at Vernon Hills High School in Illinois, where girls are shown in a classroom helping each other put on hijabs.  It’s presented as a fun activity, dress-up for teenagers.  The event, held last December, was organized by the school’s Muslim Student Association President, Yasmeen Abdallah, who claimed it was intended to “denounce negative stereotypes.”

At a Rochester, New York, high school, another Muslim student, Eman Muthana, successfully petitioned the administration to participate in World Hijab Day this month.  Some parents became outraged.  Muthana said it was a way to share a cultural experience and fight prejudice.

The World Hijab Day website reported that Memphis Central High School also participated this year. The blog-poster, identified only as “Mary,” a “Christian, USA,” did not report any outraged parents, but only feeling good at “seeing so many people support one another.”

The World Hijab Day website presents hijab-wearing as a sign of empowerment; women and girls who wear hijabs are called “queens, princesses, and sultanas.”

One blog post by Megan Baase, however, reveals that experimental hijab-wearing may have other effects.  Baase writes that she didn’t know much about Islam until World Hijab Day.  After reading about Islam and “why women wear hijabs,” she decided to convert: “I would’ve never learned about Islam if it weren’t for world hijab day.”  The post features a picture of her and her four-year-old son, both wearing hijabs.  She writes that she “couldn’t say no” to his request to “be just like mommy.”

Although proponents claim such activities are cultural exercises, critics rightly point out that students are not asked to participate in the wearing of crucifixes or yarmulkes.  Now, the U.S. Department of Education, under the cover of anti-bullying, is encouraging Islamic proselytizing.

The development is alarming especially given the Department’s increased grip on day-to-day school operations.  “Dear Colleague” letters give directives on such things as bullying, rape prevention, and school discipline.  School administrators tend to act preemptively to fend off potential punishment from the feds.  It’s why school websites are plastered with anti-discrimination statements and notices about training in “affirmative consent.”

To ward off charges of creating a hostile school environment, school officials may want to have proof in the form of a list of activities that encourage cultural sensitivity – like having girls wear hijabs.

Such activities do have consequences.  We need to listen to what Muslim converts say, rather than what the Department of Education says.

RELATED ARTICLE: Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research website. The featured image is of Vernon Hill students join their Muslim peers in wearing hijabs.