3 Kinds of Economic Ignorance by Steven Horwitz

/in , , , /by

Nothing gets me going more than overt economic ignorance.

I know I’m not alone. Consider the justified roasting that Bernie Sanders got on social media for wondering why student loans come with interest rates of 6 or 8 or 10 percent while a mortgage can be taken out for only 3 percent. (The answer, of course, is that a mortgage has collateral in the form of a house, so it is a lower-risk loan to the lender than a student loan, which has no collateral and therefore requires a higher interest rate to cover the higher risk.)

When it comes to economic ignorance, libertarians are quick to repeat Murray Rothbard’s famous observation on the subject:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

Economic ignorance comes in different forms, and some types of economic ignorance are less excusable than others. But the most important implication of Rothbard’s point is that the worst sort of economic ignorance is ignorance about your economic ignorance. There are varying degrees of blameworthiness for not knowing certain things about economics, but what is always unacceptable is not to recognize that you may not know enough to be speaking with authority, nor to understand the limits of economic knowledge.

Let’s explore three different types of economic ignorance before we return to the pervasive problem of not knowing what you don’t know.

1. What Isn’t Debated

Let’s start with the least excusable type of economic ignorance: not knowing agreed-upon theories or results in economics. There may not be a lot of these, but there are more than nonspecialists sometimes believe. Bernie Sanders’s inability to understand why uncollateralized loans have higher interest rates would fall into this category, as this is an agreed-upon claim in financial economics. Donald Trump’s bashing of free trade (and Sanders’s, too) would be another example, as the idea that free trade benefits the trading countries on the whole and over time is another strongly agreed-upon result in economics.

Trump and Sanders, and plenty of others, who make claims about economics, but who remain ignorant of basic teachings such as these, should be seen as highly blameworthy for that ignorance. But the deeper failing of many who make such errors is that they are ignorant of their ignorance. Often, they don’t even know that there are agreed-upon results in economics of which they are unaware.

2. Interpreting the Data

A second type of economic ignorance that is, in my view, less blameworthy is ignorance of economic data. As Rothbard observed, economics is a specialized discipline, and nonspecialists can’t be expected to know all the relevant theories and facts. There are a lot of economic data out there to be searched through, and often those data require careful statistical interpretation to be easily applied to questions of public policy. Economic data sources also requiretheoretical interpretation. Data do not speak for themselves — they must be integrated into a story of cause and effect through the framework of economic theory.

That said, in the world of the Internet, a lot of basic economic data are available and not that hard to find. The problem is that many people believe that certain empirical facts are true and don’t see the need to verify them by actually checking the data. For example, Bernie Sanders recently claimed that Americans are routinely working 50- and 60-hour workweeks. No doubt some Americans are, but the long-term direction of the average workweek is down, with the current average being about 34 hours per week. Longer lives and fewer working years between school and retirement have also meant a reduction in lifetime working hours and an increase in leisure time for the average American. These data are easily available at a variety of websites.

The problem of statistical interpretation can be seen with data on economic inequality, where people wrongly take static snapshots of the shares of national income held by the rich and poor to be evidence of the decline of the poor’s standard of living or their ability to move up and out of poverty.

People who wish to opine on such matters can, again, be forgiven for not knowing all the data in a specialized discipline, but if they choose to engage with the topic, they should be aware of their own limitations, including their ability to interpret the data they are discussing.

3. Different Schools of Thought

The third type of economic ignorance, and the least blameworthy, is ignorance of the multiple perspectives within the discipline of economics. There are multiple schools of thought in economics, and many empirical questions and historical facts have a variety of explanations. So a movie like The Big Short that clearly suggests that the financial crisis and Great Recession were caused by a lack of regulation might be persuasive to people who have never heard an alternative explanation that blames the combination of Federal Reserve policy and misguided government intervention in the housing market for the problems. One can make similar points about the Great Depression and the difference between Hayekian and Keynesian explanations of business cycles more generally.

These issues involving schools of thought are excellent examples of Rothbard’s point about the specialized nature of economics and what the nonspecialist can and cannot be expected to know. It is, in fact, unrealistic to expect nonexperts to know all of the arguments by the various schools of thought.

Combining Ignorance and Arrogance

What is missing from all of these types of economic ignorance — and what is often missing from knowledgeable economists themselves — is what we might call “epistemic humility,” or a willingness to admit how little we know. Noneconomists are often unable to recognize how little they know about economics, and economists are often unable to admit how little they know about the economy.

Real economic “expertise” is not just mastery of theories and facts. It is a deeper understanding of the variety of interpretations of those theories and facts and humility in the face of our limits in applying that knowledge in attempting to manage an economy. The smartest economists are the ones who know the limits of economic expertise.

Commentators with opinions on economic matters, whether presidential candidates or Facebook friends, could, at the very least, indicate that they may have biases or blind spots that lead to uses of data or interpretive frameworks with which experts might disagree.

The worst type of economic ignorance is the type of ignorance that is the worst in all fields: being ignorant of your own ignorance.

Steven HorwitzSteven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions.

He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

The Rampant Racists of Tinsel Town by Ivan Betinov

/in , /by
37270-Whats-black-and-never-works---Racist-meme

Graphic by Navigator.

It’s official, movie fans: all of the cinema celebrities, heretofore the paragons of Progressive thought, are actually a sinister conspiracy of racists.

For the SECOND year in a row, not a single actress actor performer of color was nominated for ANY of the top slots in the Oscars. This can obviously be due to ONLY one thing: RACISM!

Of the some 2,900 films released in 2015, only eight were nominated. And not one of those eight were primarily about Black topics or starred black actors in the lead. This means that some TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY-TWO films were denied nomination. And the ONLY cause a film can be denied nomination is RACISM!

There are over 7,000 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Twenty performers were nominated, total, for best actor or actress, or supporting actor or actress. Not ONE of them is an actor or actress of color. That means that THOUSANDS of actors and actresses DID NOT RECEIVE A NOMINATION for these awards. And the only reason an actor or actress can be denied a nomination is RACISM!

The only possible way to remedy this situation is to mandate that at least one out of every three nominations goes to a person of color, and that at least one award in each category go to one of the nominees of color.

This mandated win will affirm that black actors, actresses, and film makers will know that their peers truly respect their talent on the basis solely of their race, as that is the important thing.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Ssshh! Nobody Tell the Government about UberEATS by Jared Meyer

/in , , , , , /by

UberEATS is delicious. You pull up the Uber app, choose among three to five menu options (usually between $8 and $12), and your meal is delivered within 10 minutes. Payment is through Uber, and there is no delivery fee. Service is rapidly expanding, and slow-to-catch-up regulators have yet to devise a way to stymie its growth.

In stark contrast to UberEATS and other on-demand food delivery services, burdensome restrictions on another way to get lunch — street vendors — are common across the nation.

Chicago does not allow food trucks to operate within 200 feet of any brick-and-mortar eatery. Miami only allows roaming vendors, as they are prohibited from staying in one place any longer than it takes to make a sale. Los Angeles completely bans sidewalk vending. New York City has an arbitrary cap of 3,100 on year-round food vendor permits, creating a costly secondary market that puts this line of work out of reach for average New Yorkers as the supply of city approvals fails to meet vendor demand.

Though street vending has always been a staple of American cities, its regulations are receiving more attention because the quality and number of food trucks has increased dramatically over the past few years. Even famed world traveler and chef Anthony Bourdain plans to open a market of 100 food vendors in New York City in 2017. To provide some data on this trend, a recent Institute for Justice report shows who street vendors are and how they contribute to the economy of the 50 largest U.S. cities.

The main reasons why city street vendors (78 percent of whom sell food) face opposition is that more dining options means increased competition for brick-and-mortar restaurants. Most office workers are accustomed to seeing long lines of people waiting to order at food trucks outside of their buildings. Indeed, 43 percent of street vendors operate in business districts, where other dining options are not as prevalent and are more expensive, due to high rental prices.

Some restaurant owners who choose to fight this change try to convince city government to place additional restrictions on street vendors. However, embracing mobile vending would be a smart move for restaurants who are struggling to stay competitive.

Not only do street vending and on-demand food services present opportunities for restaurants to reach more customers, they also provide ways to cut back on costs. Due to a combination of zoning laws, food service building requirements, limits on franchising, and labor regulations, brick-and-mortar restaurants face an uphill battle against their mobile, slim-staffed competitors.

Street vendors are not currently contractors for larger restaurants — 94 percent of vendors own their business and the structure they use to sell goods. Though most vendors do not have any employees, the 39 percent that do employ an average of 2.3 full-time workers and 2.7 part-time workers. This light staff lowers costs, especially when the venue is mobile and customers seem to be willing to spend half of their lunch breaks waiting in line.

Restrictions on vendors harm low-income individuals, both those who want to work and those who want to eat. The average year-round, full-time vendor earns just $18,000 a year working around 60 hours a week. Street vending also offers opportunities for modest earnings and upward mobility for those with low levels of education. Nearly 3 in 10 vendors do not have a high school degree (compared with 18 percent of all workers in large U.S. cities). In a time where the unemployment rate for those without a high school degree remains at 6.9 percent and labor force participation is just 45.7 percent, additional work options are sorely needed.

Veterans make up a disproportionate level of street vendors. Whereas veterans are 6 percent of the workforce in large U.S. cities, 10 percent of vendors are veterans. And a third of street vendor veterans are disabled — double the rate of non-vendor veterans.

In addition to employment opportunities, street vending offers a chance at upward mobility. District Taco in the Washington, D.C. Metro Area started as a simple $25,000 hot dog cart in 2009, but the business is in the process of opening its ninth brick-and-mortar restaurant. The chain, started by immigrant entrepreneur Osiris Hoil, now employs over 300 local workers.

One positive sign is that the licensing burden for street vendors does not seem to be too onerous. The Institute for Justice found that 72 percent of vendors were able to open by securing the appropriate permit. The other 28 percent needed to complete an average of 5 months of training to open their shops.

Even though there is some justification to require a course in sanitation for certain food vendors, it should be noted that an evaluation of 260,000 food safety inspection reports in seven cities found that food vendors did as well or better in terms of compliance than did brick-and-mortar restaurants. They certainly outperform Chipotle. In an age where it takes an average of 12 months to get government certification to trim trees, 14 months to be allowed to work as a door repair contractor, and 18 months to become a government-certified security alarm instructor, the requirements street vendors face seem to be lighter than the licensing burdens for other occupations.

As the IJ report concluded, “For cities looking to expand economic opportunities, facilitate job growth and realize greater tax revenue, welcoming street vendors is a low-cost and potentially high-reward option.”

Hungry consumers are fortunate that entrepreneurs are always able to find ways to outmaneuver regulators and provide lunch through innovations such as UberEATS.

This post first appeared at CapX.

Jared MeyerJared Meyer

Jared Meyer is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

The Death of America?

/in , , , , /by

In more than twelve years of writing a weekly essay on some of the most critical problems of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I’ve never been short of subject matter and I’ve never been at a loss for words… until now.  For more than two months I have tried to find a way to address the question of what must be done to prosecute the war on radical Islam, while being fully aware that a committed communist, who may also be a “closet” Muslim jihadist, serves as commander in chief of U.S. military forces.  Although I have never hesitated to go “out on a limb” to propose solutions that others may see as radical or “outside the box,” I have attempted to stay as close as possible to what I hope others would judge to be at least within the realm of possibility.

Having said that, and being aware that essentially everyone else in the western world remains wedded to the notion that the long term future of western civilization depends on our ability to find a way to peacefully coexist with Islamists… both radicals and moderates… I find myself of a different opinion.  In order to be persuaded otherwise, I would have to see conclusive proof that somewhere… at some time in history… Muslims have set aside their goal of total world dominion in the interest of harmony and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims.  That proof simply does not exist.  Instead, the so-called “moderate” Muslims appear to be nothing but a silent cheering section for radical jihadists.

Reading the history of Islam, it is tempting to believe that, for periods of years since the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims throughout the world had finally decided to live as civilized human beings when, in fact, they were merely resting, re-arming, and preparing for the next major assault on Christianity, Judaism, and the rest of western culture.

According to an April 13, 2015, report by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), during calendar year 2011, for the third year in a row, Sunni Muslims accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities.  Of the more than 5,700 terror incidents during that year, some 56 percent were committed by Sunnis.  As such, they were responsible for 12,533 fatalities, or 70 percent of all terrorist fatalities.

The report tells us that, while Sunni Muslims were responsible for 70 percent of the terrorist fatalities, worldwide, another 24 percent of the fatalities were attributable to Shiites.  Taken together, the two largest Muslim sects were responsible for 94 percent of all terror fatalities during calendar year 2011.  Since 2011, with ISIS making a major contribution, the number of fatalities attributable to Muslim terrorism, worldwide, has grown to nearly 100 percent of the total terror-related deaths.

According to the NCTC report, a total of 9,707 terror attacks occurred worldwide during calendar year 2013, resulting in more than 17,800 deaths and more than 32,500 injuries.  In addition, more than 2,990 individuals were kidnapped or taken hostage.  The identities of the responsible terror groups were reported in only 3,100 (32 percent) of the 9,707 attacks recorded in 2013.  However, of the 17,800 fatalities attributable to those 3,100 terror attacks, 5,655 were attributable to only three of the more than 50 known terror organizations: the Taliban, ISIS, and Boko Haram.

And while we in the United States appear to be frozen in fear of radical Islam, afraid to do what is necessary to protect ourselves, there are positive signs in other parts of the world. For example, according to an April 17, 2015 article by Y.K. Cherson in The Counter Jihad Report, Japan is “practically closed” to Muslims.

A leader of the Japanese Muslim community, Nur Ad-Din Mori, was asked what percentage of Japan’s total population are Muslims.  He estimated the number to be one out of a hundred thousand.  With a total population of 130 million people, the Muslim population of Japan would be about 1,300.  Nevertheless, those Muslims who obtained immigration permits and have lived in the country for many years have little expectation of ever becoming Japanese citizens.

Clearly, the Japanese make things very difficult for Muslims.  As impediments to the spread if Islam, Japan officially forbids proselytizing people to adopt Islam as their religion, and anyone who is found actively encouraging conversion to Islam faces deportation and possibly jail time.  Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims, it does not allow Muslims to take up permanent residence, Japanese universities do not teach Arabic or other Islamic languages, and it is not permitted to import a Quran published in Arabic.  There is no Sharia law in Japan and even today, in the age of technology, visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers, or managers sent by foreign corporations.  Most Japanese companies have policies stating that job applications prepared by Muslim applicants will not be considered. .

In China, Muslim prayers are banned in government buildings and schools in Xinjiang Province (Western China) and, in some regions of the country, burqas and long beards are banned and Muslim bars and restaurants are required to sell alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, both of which are banned in Islam.

In England, the parliament has passed legislation which allows the government to strip terror suspects of their citizenship… even if it renders them stateless.  Britain has been one of the few Western countries that can revoke citizenship and its associated rights from dual citizens, even those who are native-born, if they are suspected or convicted of acts of terrorism or disloyalty.

In Germany, 78 attacks targeting mosques have been carried out between 2012 and 2014.  During calendar year 2015, alone, there were 81 violent attacks on mosques.

Since New Year’s Eve, when nearly 1,000 Muslim immigrants engaged in the mass rape and sexual assaults of German women and girls in the square near the Cologne Cathedral, it appears that Germans are finally beginning to awaken to the dangers posed by unrestricted Muslim immigration.  In the early days of January, crowds of outraged Germans rioted in the streets in major cities across the country, attacking Muslim immigrants and ransacking and burning Muslim-owned businesses.
In Norway, more than 2,000 Muslims have been deported in a major crime-fighting program.  Since those individuals left the country, crime has fallen by 72%.  Prison officials are reporting that nearly half of their jail cells are now vacant and courtrooms are nearly empty.  The Pakistani imam of a Norwegian mosque, where a pig’s head was delivered to his front door, was injured in an axe attack in June.

In Poland, an anti-immigrant group has published its manifesto, saying,

“In Poland, there will be NO sharia law.  NO head-banging or shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ in the streets.  NO insulting our religion and our culture.  NO burning cars like in France.  NO burning down police stations.  NO imposing your ways on us.  NO calling us the sons of apes and pigs.  If you do, we will be the ones waging jihad…on YOU!  Remember that, in your lands, you can do what you want, but not in Poland.”

In Cuba, a delegation sent by the Muslim World League (MWL) requested permission to build a mosque in Havana.  They were sent home empty-handed.  The Castro government responded by saying, “This is impossible because, once the Cuban government agrees to the setting up of an Islamic organization, it has also to agree to the setting up of similar organizations by other religious denominations, such as the Christians, whose Catholic denomination make up 90 percent of the population.  We are not religious-minded because we are socialists and do not allow any religious societies in our midst.”

The March 2015 edition of The Atlantic Magazine describes ISIS in very stark terms, saying, “Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned.  (ISIS leader Abu Bakr) al-Baghdadi has spoken on camera only once.  But his address and the Islamic State’s countless other propaganda videos and encyclicals are online, and the caliphate’s supporters have toiled mightily to make their project knowable.  We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of… and headline player in… the imminent end of the world.”

That is how radical Islamists see the future.  Unfortunately, a great many American politicians and opinion leaders have convinced themselves that Muslims and Hispanics come to America with the same hopes and aspirations.  They refuse to acknowledge that most Hispanics come to America to improve their lives, while far too many Muslims come to America to deprive us of ours.

If we fail to convince our political leaders that Islam is incompatible with our culture and our constitutional principles and cannot be tolerated, and if we fail to insulate our advanced civilization from the brutal seventh century incivility of modern day Islam, then we can have little hope for our long term future; the end of America is at hand.  Our fate is sealed.

A Postscript to Congressman Linder’s Article on the FAIR Tax by Karen Walby, Ph.D

/in , , , /by

In a recent FAIRtax Friday article by John Linder, he commented that “If we had been under the FAIRtax in 2012, 10 percent of all corporations in America would have collected 89 percent of all the taxes on goods.  These are big corporations with totally computerized ordering and sales systems. It would be difficult for them to help you cheat even if they were inclined to do so.”

I thought you would like to view the data behind that statement since it is key to appreciating how the FAIRtax will improve compliance and reduce tax evasion.

The IRS has a Corporation Statistics Program which produces estimates of the various line items on the U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return (Forms 1120 and 1120-S).  The data presented below are based on a sample of the actual returns of all active corporations for the 2012 tax year.

The IRS classifies corporation tax returns by the size of business receipts.  In the table below we have consolidated the data for both C and S corporations* that are in the Wholesale and Retail Trade industry.  Since the FAIRtax does not tax sales to businesses, it must be noted that the IRS does not report data separately for retailers and wholesalers. This is not surprising since there are many wholesalers who also sell at retail:  many building supply and hardware stores sell both to construction subcontractors as well as to “do-it-yourselfers.”  However, these data should still be representative of the percentage of retail sales done by large businesses.

The table shows the number of corporate tax returns and the business receipts (sales) for each business size category.

There are 5.2 million corporations engaging the Wholesale and Retail Trade industry with combined sales of $14.6 trillion.  Ten percent are corporations with greater than $2.5 million in annual sales.  These Top Ten percent account for sales of $12.9 trillion.  That’s 89% of total sales in the Wholesale and Retail Trade industry.  Clearly the large corporations dominate the Wholesale and Retail Trade industry.  These corporations are going to accurately report their sales and the sales taxes collected on them.

Graph
We also want to note that there was a typo in Linder’s same article.  Thanks to the reader who pointed it out.  [We do read your comments.]  The article referred to a “74,000-word code.”  That should have read “74,000-page code.”  That number includes all the IRS code, regulations, and IRS rulings.  But the typo begged the question:  Just how many words are there in the tax code?  TEN MILLION.

The Tax Foundation recently calculated the number of words in the income tax code and regulations (excluding legal rulings) to be more than 10 million.  The King James Version of the Bible has only 783,137.  And in contemporary literature, the very popular seven volume series of Harry Potter novels amounts to only 1,084,170 words.   It is no wonder that the code is incomprehensible, even to tax experts.  It takes no less than wizardry to understand it!

ABOUT KAREN WALBY, PH.D.

Karen Walby, Ph.D., is the Director of Research Americans For Fair Taxation

Knowledge is Power

/in , , /by

Many times my friends told me that “GOP never misses the opportunity to miss the opportunity.”

I believe that it is happening due to the lack of knowledge over the big picture of the world predicament. That exact situation we see today, when National Review tried to defeat Trump.  Of course, the publication has the right to express its opinion, but it was done by the Republican magazine within its own party in a very unethical manner before the crucial votes in Iowa.

“Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones,” – See more here.

The magazine is openly agitates the votes:

Don’t vote for Trump, he is an existential threat to the party. This is the kick bellow the waste, a knife to the back of the Republican Party and its future. Moreover it is a deliberate infiltration and corruption of the free electorate process.

The words “Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist” is a mere rude offence, without the understanding of the crisis in the world and America: we are entering the point of no return due to the Democrats adhered to the ideology of Socialism, I called Soviet fascism.

Look at Bernie Sanders who has called himself a Democratic-Socialist. Respecting his age, I wouldn’t use more loud words, but Democratic-Socialist is an oxymoron—democratic is the opposite of Socialist, and a Socialist can’t be democratic. Why is National Review not addressing the most important issues of our days? Socialism is currently being accepted as a valid political philosophy in America. Don’t they see the upcoming catastrophe, created by the Democrat-Socialists, leading by Obama?

The answer is very simple—the magazine is not evaluated the real predicament in our country, they have no enough knowledge to do so. It is much easy to avoid a principle philosophy of Socialism and attack and damaging Trump, who is the only chance for the Republican Party to win the presidency. Trump is bringing in a new blood that the Republicans were unsuccessfully seeking the last forty years.

I would recommend to the editor of National Review to read my books, to learn about real Socialism, I called it Soviet Fascism, to see my warning to America for the last twenty years.

With Clear Eyes and a Very Cold Heart – The Assassination of Alexander Litvinenko

/in , , /by

It was always going to be the case that Sir Robert Owen’s inquiry into the death of the Russian exile and former spy Alexander Litvinenko, in London in 2006, was going to be controversial. But few could have imagined a dramatic outcome of the kind seen this week.

It is one thing for the masses to have believed that Vladimir Putin ordered Litvinenko’s poisoning with polonium-210, a radioactive material made only at Russian nuclear facilities. Quite another for a senior British judge to have formally concluded that Russia’s President “probably” approved the murder through his FSB secret service agency – “probably” in this case being the legal equivalent of “as close to definitely as can be, absent a formal written or verbally recorded order.”

For all Russia’s immediate bluster that this verdict reflects “the theatre of the absurd”, the Kremlin will be aware that the lifting of the veil on the Litvinenko killing will cause real damage to Russia’s reputation. And just at a time when Mr Putin was counting on his insertion into the Syrian
conflict as being his path to escape the international opprobrium justly earned through his invasion of Ukraine.

For Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, the crisis occasioned by the Report could help define a new Western response to Putin’s repeated acts of aggression, both near and far. Mr Cameron has conceded that the UK will have to go on having “some sort of relationship with them [Russia]” because of the Syria crisis, but it would be done with “clear eyes and a very cold heart”. But if the UK response is simply a ritualistic addition of a few travel bans to stop those implicated in the murder from travelling to London, then he will have flunked the test before him. Much sterner action – whether increased sanctions, asset seizures or some form of targeting of Russian state entities – will be required to show Russia that state-sponsored nuclear terrorism on foreign soil will not be tolerated. And that Russia’s repeated crossing of internationally acknowledged red lines has real consequences.

Long before it was fashionable to do so, The Henry Jackson Society recognised that Mr Putin was not a man who the West could do business with, but rather a kleptocrat and autocrat whose strangulation of Russian domestic opposition would eventually lead him into conflict with democracies near and far, and encourage him to take increasingly desperate measures to prop up his own rule. And thus it has proven.

Those within the international community who think that Putin is somehow our salvation in the Syrian quagmire should look at the Litvinenko Report and take stock. Placing trust in Mr Putin is the road to perdition. Perhaps Mr Cameron can yet show us a path to salvation.

mendozahjs

From the Director’s Desk 

Unnoticed by many, an energy revolution is under way in the Eastern Mediterranean. Natural gas finds by countries like Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus and Egypt look likely to transform not only their own energy dependency status, but also the source of imports for European countries customarily forced to deal with Russia and Qatar, with all the attendant baggage those countries bring to the negotiating table.

But as energy expert Mona Sukkarieh explained to a Henry Jackson Society audience this week in the House of Commons, while the relatively small size of the new discoveries will not mean that Europe’s energy dependency problems are solved overnight, the Mediterranean gas fields have the potential to effect a more fundamental change within the region itself through their impact on geopolitical considerations.

This is already happening. In Cyprus, part of the incentive for Greek and Turkish Cypriots to unite is the knowledge of the shared economic bonanza that awaits through their gas discoveries. Consequently, the two sides are closer than ever before to an agreement, as the Cypriot High commissioner noted in person.

In the case of Israel, although its burgeoning ties with Egypt have security as its core, these have been solidified by a gas trading relationship that means the two countries have more in common. While the economic balance between them will change when Egypt’s own field comes on stream, meaning it will no longer need to import gas, their shared interest in trading stability will incentivise each to work with the other. Equally, it is no secret that despite openly embracing Hamas and attacking Israel at every opportunity, Turkey’s President Erdogan sees Israel as an important trading partner, with the gas relationship having contributed to a recent thaw in relations. It may even be possible to see a time when Lebanon’s absurd official policy of not recognising Israel but also criminalising direct contact with any Israeli is swept aside by the need to engage in direct discussions over not just gas territorial demarcations – currently being mediated by the USA – but how regional neighbours can manage their energy assets in the regional interest.

While we may be a long way off form the formation of an “East Mediterranean Gas Community” to mirror the original “European Coal and Steel Community” that formed the basis of the European Union, stranger things have been known to happen. And in the Middle East, they frequently do.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

Is Trump Trustworthy? Is Cruz Likable?

/in , , , , , /by

A puzzling mindset has emerged in some conservatives regarding Cruz. A publisher who usually publishes my articles rejected one touting Ted Cruz for president. The publisher politely lectured me about my support for Cruz; calling it misguided and even non Christian. I love the way when people know you are Christian they try to use your faith to manipulate you. (smile)

Conservatives choosing to perceive Trump as they want him to be is a reflection of their anger, frustration and fear of losing their country. I witnessed this phenomenon when Trump first announced his campaign. An evangelical minister attempted to convince me that Trump is a committed Christian. I was a bit taken aback. While I do not think poorly of Trump, it never occurred to me to use the words “Trump” and “Christian” in the same sentence. My Evangelical brother’s effort to make Trump a strong Christian confirmed that Conservatives are desperate. Pure and simple.

The reality is many conservatives will follow anyone promising “real” change in Washington. Given the betrayal, heartache and disappointment that the GOP has put tea partiers/patriots through, I cannot criticize my patriot brothers and sisters who support Trump. It kind of offends me when I hear conservative pundits trashing Trump supporters; in essence, beating up on the victims.

I will state again that if Trump becomes our GOP nominee, I will wave “Vote Trump!” signs on street corners. However, I do have concerns about the man. I am not talking about the mainstream media, Democrats and RINO’s accusations about Trump.

As a matter of fact, please allow me to digress for a moment. I heard a report that British politicians have half a million signatures on a petition supportive of banning Trump from the UK because of his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from the U.S. Folks, this infuriated me. I thought, “Just because you idiots have surrendered to political correctness and allowed Muslim terrorists to dominate your country, does not mean we should do the same in the US!”

Back to my issues with Trump. My dad said a snake can swim under water a very long time just like a fish. However, it eventually has to come up for air because it is not a fish, it is a snake. Folks, I am not calling Trump a snake. I am simply saying while Trump has touted conservative values during his campaign, Trump’s history is not conservative. Perhaps, Trump has had a road to Damascus conversion and is now a rabid conservative. Who knows? But why risk it?

A wise person said, “The best predictor of future behavior is… past behavior.” Folks, I suspect that there is very little doubt in your mind as to who Ted Cruz is and what he will do as president. Cruz has a history of rock solid conservatism.

And dare I mention the “C” word, character. Cruz proudly proclaims his Christianity. Real religious conviction affects ones character/behavior. I want my president to believe that there is a God and that it is not him.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom…” Proverbs 8:10

William Bradford, the Christian who lead the pilgrims on the Mayflower to the new world, seeking religious freedom, knew this scripture to be true. Bradford was very outspoken about his belief and trust in God to lead them to their new home in the new world; built on the unique concept of individual freedom.

What I found most distressing about SCOTUS, in essence, making same sex marriage the law of the land is the Left’s successful effort to make normal what has been considered deviant since the beginning of time. SCOTUS’s decision opened the floodgates not for tolerance, but for Americans to be bullied into embracing anti-biblical behavior. Why do same sex couples force Christian businesses to service their weddings rather than going to businesses with flashing neon signs, “We Service Homosexual Weddings”? Clearly, their agenda is not about getting a wedding cake and all about the Left’s intolerance of Christians.

It still blows my mind that Christians are actually being thrown into jail in the United States of America for not embracing sodomy. Ted Cruz has vowed to defend religious freedom. I know he will.

A tea party group leader said they feel like Cruz is lecturing them when he speaks. I thought, “Excuse me. With a morally bankrupted anti-America scoundrel like Barack Obama running our country for eight years, America desperately needs a leader/Commander-in-Chief of the highest character and moral standards”. No way, would I reject such a candidate because I feel a bit intimidated in their presence. In a field of two-faced, say-whatever-necessary-to-win candidates, I say praise God for a candidate who truly stands for something (conservatism).

When I was a child, I assumed all US presidents were exceptional people of the highest character. Man, was I wrong. Americans long for a great trustworthy and moral leader. America desperately needs Ted Cruz.

RELATED ARTICLE: What Trump and Sanders Said about Oil Prices 4 Years Ago

British Parliament Moves Against the Real Threat: Donald Trump

/in , , , , , /by

In FrontPage today I discuss how the British Parliament went into full Sharia mode as it debated banning the Presidential candidate for his unwelcome opinions.

Say goodnight, Winston. Sayonara, Shakespeare. It’s light’s out in the United Kingdom. In Britain, it’s all over but the Sharia. This was made abundantly clear on Monday, when the British Parliament held a three-hour debate on whether or not to ban Donald Trump from the country.

It used to be that only serious criminals, severe threats to the public order, were ever banned from countries. Ostensibly, that is still the case, but the idea of who and what constitutes a threat to the public order has changed. Multitudes in Britain want to keep Trump out of their green and pleasant land not because he absconded with the church funds, or plotted bomb attacks in the London Tube, but because he said that in light of the jihad terror threat and the impossibility of distinguishing Islamic jihadists from peaceful Muslims, there should be a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the U.S.

For that, the learned Parliamentarians debated banning Trump from Britain, and in the process, heaped abuse upon him, calling him a “fool,” a “buffoon” and a “wazzock,” which is apparently a word more properly applied to those who voted for David Cameron. One thing that never became clear during the entire three hours of heated discussion, however, was what terrible results the foes of Trump thought might ensue from his entry into the Sceptered Isle. Did they think that if he repeated his call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration on British soil, that Muslims, those notorious shrinking violets, would retreat to psychologists’ couches in such droves that the British mental health system would be overwhelmed?

More likely, the unspoken fear was that if Trump entered Britain, Muslims would riot. And so those British politicians who have insisted that Islam is a Religion of Peace moved to ban him, knowing but afraid to admit that the adherents of the most famous peaceful religion in the world could quite easily become violent if crossed. To avoid crossing them was their highest of priorities – and as Sharia forbids criticism of Islam and offense to Muslims, they eagerly became Sharia-compliant, eagerly anticipating the electoral rewards that were certain to follow in the wake of their submission.

The whole thing looks now as if it was just a chance for Trump’s foes to do a bit of grandstanding and show their Muslim masters how solidly they were in their corner, but seriously, why not ban Trump? After all, I myself was banned from entering Britain for saying that Islam “is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.”

The anti-Trump movement in the UK implied that Trump might escape due punishment for his heinous crimes because he is rich: “If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.” But that’s a lot of hooey. The “unacceptable behavior” criteria is already applied unfairly. Just days before Pamela Geller and I were banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said:

“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

That was acceptable in Britain. My work, which has consistently denounced violence and been in defense of the equality of rights of all before the law, was not. That’s a fair application of the “unacceptable behaviors” criteria?

If I can get banned for making a manifestly true observation about Islam, then Trump can certainly be banned for calling for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration in view of jihad terror. The UK continues to demonize and stigmatize resistance to jihad terror, and will probably continue to do so until it is far too late: the last free Briton will be congratulating himself that he was not “Islamophobic” as the knife slices through his neck.

As Britain continues to make itself an international laughingstock, transgressing its core principles by banning people for holding unpopular opinions, there is one thing that can be said for that once-great nation: as Sharia states go, it is a hell of a lot funnier than Saudi Arabia or Iran.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Muslim migrants grope Swedish woman, demand she “make sex”

Islamic State razes to ground 1,400-year-old Christian monastery

Don’t Believe The Bigots

/in , , , /by

Despite the ongoing onslaught of lies the progressives promote against the truth concerning anything, including American history, the United States of America was founded upon Judeo/Christian Ethics.  In many circles, there was a heavy emphasis on the blessed leadership, protection, wisdom and mercy of God almighty, through his son Christ Jesus.  Great men of adventure, dating all the way back to Christopher Columbus dedicated land in this hemisphere to the God of Abraham, Isaic and Jacob.  As time progressed, there came to the fore a series of events that would build toward what would later become the United States of America.

Such a venture was an almost non-stop cascade of herculean actions which took an unlimited amount of faith, grit and intelligence to accomplish.  There were also the horrendously scorched summers that the Europeans were not accustomed to.  In addition, many of the first wave of early pilgrim settlers were wiped out through disease, starvation and bad decisions until wisdom finally prevailed and changed their fortunes and halted their demise.

Sometime later, 56 men gathered in Independence Hall in Philadelphia and said “no more” of the boot heel of tyranny under Britain’s King George and declared independence.  As a result, there was a collective wave of laughter throughout the British Empire.  After all, Great Britain was the world’s super power at the time.  So it was unfathomable to those in England that those colonial rabble rousers could present much of a challenge to the mighty Brits.

However there were four things the Founding Fathers of the United States possessed that the proud red coats did not seem to poses or exhibit.

  • Faith
  • Sense of purpose
  • Destiny
  • Mission of Liberty

For just as during the time of the prophet Nehemiah, there were those lousy skeptics and discouragers who sought to prevail against what some might describe as a rendezvous with destiny.  As the men focused more on the job at hand than the irritant discouragers, they prevailed, setting yet another example of not giving in to those who oppose what you are destined to achieve.  You can refer to Nehemiah 2: 17 to 20 in the Amplified or King James version.

Of course, Nehemiah and his friends rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem.  They clearly were victorious.  But eventually, the glory of their victory faded into a defeat for their nation.  Primarily, because the people turned away from God, who was their source of success.  In addition to that mistake, the parents and others including national leaders did not properly pass on the concept of victorious living to the succeeding generations.  Throughout the annals of history, mankind has either experienced or caused revival then fell away to defeat or decline, followed by revival again, then yet another tumbling away from the greatness of victorious living.  Yet we were meant to be continuously victorious in living all aspects of greatness, victory and positive achievement, not just a partial life of existence.

For example there is more to salvation than simply being saved from Satan’s vow of damnation with him.  Much like the founding fathers did, I believe God wants us to live complete lives of continuous advancement, vitality, victory and liberty, which they understood comes from our creator.  Our liberty and unalienable rights do not come from government or bastardized rights called civil rights either, no matter what certain people may say.

The United States was and is still meant to be the beacon of light to the world.  The light of true liberty should be so bright that rest of the world would desire to emulate the concept in their respective nations.  Through true liberty, America was once known as the envy of the world do to almost unlimited opportunities and even her cities were world renowned for their civility.  I believe America will experience a soon to come revival.  But before that can really occur there may be some sort of setback, possibly on the scale of the 9.11 attacks in 2001.  Why? Because many stupid and detrimental decisions (like the Iran deal and speeding up the growth of immorality) have been made by the current regime that has America vulnerable to possible enemy attacks or economic collapse.

Also, unfortunately our nation has become stuck in a quagmire of declining greatness because the good aspects of our past are purposely not taught to most students.  So as a result, the foundations of individual and societal greatness based upon God’s principles have not been built upon, and now our republic is in a heap of hurt.

But despite the mangled mess of today, I believe our republic will arise from her current moral, economic, political, educational and spiritual stupor.  Even though America is currently in a seemingly bottomless pit of decline, believe it or not there is much hope.  First of all, God wants us to do away with the curse of mediocrity that breeds stagnation for both individuals and the nation as a whole.

We don’t have to hold on to the brokenness that has led to the prevailing scourge of mediocrity that has led to stagnation, decline and pervasive misery.  Just as the Founding Fathers and the people of ancient Israel turned to God, especially after making wrong decisions and paying for them, let us humble ourselves and seek God’s forgiveness, wisdom, guidance and mercy.  He will then hear from heaven and forgive our national sin and heal our land.  It can’t hurt to give it a faith filled try. I believe our future generations and the republic itself is worth the effort.

God Bless You, God Bless America and May America Bless God.

RELATED ARTICLES:

These 7 Actresses are Celebrating Killing Babies in Abortions

16-Year-Old Girl Dies From Massive Blood Clot After Taking Birth Control Pill

Trump, Cruz and New York Values

/in , , , /by

New York City values are going through the roof. And it’s not just real estate. A prime story the last many days has been the GOP debate dust-up between Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. After the senator impugned “New York values” in an effort to call into question the businessman’s conservative bona fides, Trump responded with an impassioned defense of New Yorkers’ character. Trump won the exchange on style with rhetorical effectiveness, but, frankly, Cruz was right on substance.

This is not a commentary on whether Trump exemplifies NY values. In fact, I love most of what The Donald is saying; furthermore, while I have great respect for Cruz, the fact that no other candidate Thursday night could join Trump in supporting a halt to Muslim immigration — a common-sense measure — calls their qualifications for the presidency into question. But this isn’t a commentary on that, either, or on NY values, although I will touch on them. This article is about something far deeper.

All of us generalize. And most of us bristle at generalizations we don’t’ like — whether true or not. It’s then that we, waxing emotional, may complain about the “folly of generalization.”

Now, it may come as a shock to the critics of mine who suppose I live in West Virginia and eat chicken-fried steak, but I was born in NY and grew up in NYC — the Bronx, to be precise. And believe me, there are NY values (along with an ever decreasing number of NY virtues). Moreover, as Cruz said, most people know what they are. Trump certainly does; after all, he referenced his NY values in a 1999 interview. And while radio host and Trump supporter Michael Savage, another man I greatly respect, took exception to Cruz’ remarks, I remember when he complained on air that Vermont was ruined and became Sandersized when too many New Yorkers moved there.

What are NY values? Well, state residents elected a governor who said in 2014 that pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservatives “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are’”; and the Big Apple elevated to mayor Bolshevik Bill, a Marxist who honeymooned in Cuba and once raised money for the Sandinistas. You figure it out.

My real concern here, however, is not how people value New Yorkers or Cruz or Trump, but how they value generalization itself. For our refusal to properly generalize is one of the characteristic faults of our time — and a dangerous one at that.

Here’s a good example: if it’s wrong to generalize about New Yorkers because, in principle, it’s wrong to generalize, how can we then generalize about terrorists or Muslims? Doesn’t it make it harder to justify a halt to Muslim immigration if generalization is taken off the table? So some may get offended and say “Not all New Yorkers are liberals,” but this is reminiscent of liberals opposing common-sense profiling and saying “Not all Muslims are terrorists” (or “Not all terrorists are Muslim”). In point of fact, the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is lower than the percentage of New Yorkers who are liberal, but this is irrelevant. The fact that virtually all the terrorists bedeviling us are Muslim is significant and indicates the importance of honest examination of Islamic values — which, like NY values, certainly exist.

The reality is that “not all _____ are _____” is not a valid argument against generalization, only reflective of a misunderstanding of it. If I say “Men are taller than women,” it’s silly to respond “But not all men are taller than all women!” After all, I didn’t say “all” and wasn’t implying the absence of individual variation; rather, I was referring to men and women as groups. And just as we must judge every individual as an individual and not paint everyone with the same brush, we must judge an individual group as an individual group and not paint every one with the same brush.

In fact, the only reason we can even identify groups as “groups” is that there are differences among them. And barring the rare cases in which groups are differentiated solely by location (as when dividing a class of boys into two groups placed at different tables), those differences are often neither arbitrary nor insignificant. Is location the only thing differentiating Afghans from Americans? Is location the only thing differentiating New Yorkers from Alabamans? Just as there’ll be very different government if you replace the 320 million Americans in the US with 320 million Muslims, there’ll be very different state government if you replace the 4.8 million Alabamans in Alabama with average New Yorkers.

In fairness, most NY counties without big population centers are red. “Aha,” you say, “what about those rural values in the Empire State?!” Yes, there can be sub-groups within groups, and there is a general ideological divide between the woods and the hoods. But the point is that speaking of “rural values” is a generalization, too — and a correct one.

Why does this matter? Question: who’s in closer touch with reality, someone who only understands individual variation or someone who also understands group variation? In fact, the latter is necessary for survival. Just as being able to judge individual character (as when choosing a babysitter) is important, so is being able to judge group character (related to this is being able to properly judge what faults are found mostly in a given group, even if they’re exhibited by only a minority in the group). This is especially true given that understanding group character aids in assessing individual character.

This is not synonymous with prejudice. It rather is part of profiling, which, to paraphrase Dr. Walter Williams, is a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information when the cost of obtaining more information is too high. For example, since an Israeli airport-security agent can’t spend a month living with and becoming acquainted with every traveler, he must make judgments based on group associations; thus, knowing not all Muslims are terrorists but virtually all Mideast terrorists are Muslim, he’ll scrutinize a Muslim flier more closely.

We all make such generalization/profiling-based judgments. A stranded woman motorist may refuse to roll down her window and accept aid from a young man with greasy hair who’s peppered with tattoos and body-piercings; of course, he could conceivably be well-meaning, but this is a situation where she really does have to judge the book by its cover. Likewise, she may refuse to lower her window for any man, knowing that while most men aren’t rapists, most all rapists are men. I’m not hiring a member of the Communist Party USA as a babysitter no matter how pleasant the person appears. And not all dogs bite, but it’s still a good policy to not pet strange dogs.

Doctors also must consider group characteristics, to do their patients justice. For example, understanding that Pima Indians have the world’s highest diabetes rate and that black men’s prostate-cancer rate is twice white men’s can serve as indicators for screening. And only women are routinely examined for breast cancer even though men occasionally develop the disease.

Of course, no good person wants generalization to descend into prejudice, a fault man so often exhibits. But to consequently dismiss generalization, and thus throw out of the baby with the bathwater, is much like dispensing with medical diagnostics merely because witch doctors have existed. Moreover, note that since “prejudice” is defined as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason,” such an uninformed, unfavorable opinion of generalization is a prejudice itself. And it’s a prejudice that can get you killed.

Bernie’s Bolsheviks vs. Donald’s Trumpites

/in , , , /by

Bolshevik: Russian for “One of the Majority.” There appear to be two movements in the 2016 presidential primary race. One is led by Bernie Sanders and his Bolsheviks. The other is lead by Donald Trump and those who “Want to Make America Great, Again”, known at Trumpites. One movement promotes collectivism, the other individualism. Ayn Rand defines the principles underlying these movements as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group (i.e. One of the Majority).

Question: Which movement will win on November 8th, 2016?

Chris Stirewalt from Fox News reports:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign network is riot with talk about socialism, seeping in under the door or perhaps in the fluoridated water. You never know where the “conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids” will turn up.

Among those warning of socialist creep is prominent Clinton booster, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, who got double coupons for warning of a threat to the very heartland of the nation. “Here in the heartland, we like our politicians in the mainstream, and he is not — he’s a socialist,” Nixon told the NYT.

The sinister socialist to whom Nixon is referring is 74-year-old Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been in Congress since 1991 and for all of his adamancy about being an independent and a, yes, socialist has almost always been a perfectly pliant supporter of the Democratic party. Read more.

Megan Kelly Tweeted: A stunning new poll out of  with the below graphic:

poll out of New Hampshire

I recently wrote a column titled “The Trump Insurgency.” In that column I noted:

The definition of an insurgency is a “rebellion against an existing government by a group not recognized as a belligerent.”

Is it Trump who created an insurgency or is Trump following the lead of a growing insurgency that was already taking place? I have written that Trump leads his followers by following their lead. The movement began during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and continues today. It is a struggle between the individualist and the collectivist.

The choice for America is between a collectivist form of government or one that returns power to the people.

In a column titled “Government Caused the ‘Great Stagnation‘” Peter J. Boettke, Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University, discusses how government has outgrown America’s ability to pay for it. Boettke writes, “Government is too big, too bloated. Washington faces a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But too many within the economy depend on the government transfers to live and to work. Yet the economy is not growing at a rate that can afford the illusion. Where are we to go from here?”

Boettke labels totalitarian government as “Stupidity.” Boettke notes that, “[W]e fought off (in the West, at least) totalitarian government (Stupidity).”

However, that has changed. Today stupidity reigns supreme with more and more citizens receiving government subsidies and largess.

If either Hillary or Sanders wins the Democratic Party nomination for president, we could see the party at the last minute recruit Uncle Joe Biden to run.

This would be a last ditch effort to end the stupidity, or maybe not?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump: Biden would run if Clinton indicted

World faces wave of epic debt defaults, fears central bank veteran

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is courtesy of AP/Jacquelyn Martin/Seth Wenig/Photo montage by Salon.

Political Correctness and Barack Obama

/in , , , , /by

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 12, 2016 was criticized by many. For us, the people of the former Socialist countries, it had been a very familiar political theater. The carefully choreographed speech was brought from the stratosphere of illusion and a calligraphy of misleading, which had nothing to do with the reality on the planet Earth. We were not surprised—we are used to the political theater of Stalinist’s ideology, the only achievement of Soviet Socialism. President Obama’s speech represented a quintessential form of the Stalin’s Political Correctness, which has been nourished by the liberals in America for the last several decades.

You won’t find a person in America’s social media who doesn’t use the term Political Correctness every day and many times a day. In his interview with Fox, the former FBI deputy director Kostrome said to Judge Jeanine: “Political correctness is killing us.” He is right, PC was designed to harm and destroy Western civilization. Yet, I am not sure that all the people using the term are familiar with its agenda, etymology, and creator. The author and architect of the term is Joseph Stalin and knowing this fact will help many to grasp the world politics of the 21st century.

Barack Obama forces me to return again to this subject. When I read that 76 per cent of the American people loath Political Correctness (PC), my love for those people tripled. They did not know that PC was a Stalinist ideological invasion into their culture, they just felt it intuitively. I also knew that they are the fairest people in the world and their dislike for PC shows them to be very sensitive to the adversarial and harmful actions against American interests.

Political Correctness is the Ideological Tool of Soviet Socialism.

Political Correctness is the major method in fighting the war against Western civilization and implementing the ideology of Soviet Socialism, the topic I have been writing about for the last twenty years. I called this war WWIII. There are four main components in my definition of an asymmetrical WWIII. They are the following: Recruitment, Infiltration, Drugs, and Assassinations. Recruitment and Infiltration are inextricably connected. Neither could have been achieved without Political Correctness, which is falsely projects tolerance.

A famous Russian dissident Vladimir Bukowski once said: “when a Socialist comes to power, you can expect concentration camps.”  He was right—violence is the main feature of Socialism. The perspective for the future Socialist world was expressed by Karl Marx in his slogan Proletarian of the world unite, which meant a violent world war. One hundred years later Joseph Stalin developed the Socialist intent in a more politically pronounced manner by camouflaging violence: One world Government under the Kremlin auspices. He used Political Correctness.

We, the former citizens of the Socialist countries went through that development, called Soviet Socialism. It was a war by the government against its own citizens–a multi-faceted war with different fronts, methods, shapes, and forms. Speaking different languages and living in different countries, we all came to America from a collective microcosm of Political Correctness—a false narrative to alter the nature of the Truth. There is no surprise that the American people are angered and frustrated—this is a response to Obama’s war against the population. He is following the same way Stalin did to build his Soviet Socialism, which had never worked.

Yet, many Americans are still infected by the virus of Stalin’s Socialism. The question is – how it was possible that a fraud, as I identified Stalin’s ideology of Socialism, survive for almost a century and still seduce a lot of people in the world today? The question I have been researching and investigating for many years discussing multi-faceted methods of the Stalin’s social model—one of them is Political Correctness.

Does anybody in America or the world know the architect of PC, its concept or the fundamental agenda behind it? Does anybody know the nature and crucial role those two words played in their lives for decades? The answer to the question will unite us: the former citizens of the Socialist countries and all of the people in the 21st century, as we all together in different times have been manipulated and brainwashed by these two words—Political Correctness.

It seems that the nature of those two words, is very neutral indeed. In fact, those words are not peaceful, on the contrary they represent the psychological tools or methods which are used to transform a political system by fraud, while simultaneously fighting its ideological opponents. To my knowledge Stalin was the author of those two words that were published for the first time in the Soviet newspaper Izvestia (News) in 1933, the time when major transformation was going on within the Soviet Union. Stalin called “Politically Incorrect” the leaders of the opposition. The American educator Herbert Kohl confirms my opinion:

“In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase “Politically Correct” were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists. The phrase was a colloquialism referring to the Communist party line, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. According to American educator Herbert Kohl writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s. “

Writing about Stalinism and watching its ubiquitous application in the 21st century, I have offered my version of the matter several times before:

“… Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of quintessential system of lies, the long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.”

And again I’d like to remind you about Stalin’s incredible ability to mislead, lie, and defraud. Stalin was so skillful at political intrigue that vast majority of people in the Soviet Union not only believed him, but adored him as a Messiah. Nobody could compete with him in the art of intrigue. Political Correctness had no opponents and reigned in the country—we lived inside a gigantic network of falsehood… And so lives America in the 21st century.

Look at America today. Due to the constant efforts of the Obama administration America is drastically transformed, like us, living in the Soviet Union, America lives today inside a gigantic network of falsehood created by Political Correctness. And this is not the end of the resemblances: our economy is going down the tube, the harm Obama has done to economy counts in billions, our morals are at their lowest level ever. All of this has a logical result—Socialism has never worked anywhere, it ended by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The history of the 20 century repeats itself in the 21st when manipulation and brainwashing of human minds goes undetected in America. We can’t continue down the path of “Democratic Socialism”: it is an oxymoron–Democratic can’t be Socialist and Socialism can’t be democratic. We must return to the values of our Founding Fathers. Now is the time to see clearly where we are going under the leadership of the party, called Democratic: Even the name is a false one. I am not sure that Trump, like the vast majority of Americans knows about source of PC, yet, with his magnetic and unique personality, he symbolizes them all. We are witnessing an uprising against the bureaucracy of the Washington political class.

“I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!” – Clint Eastwood

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria can dish it out but can’t take it 

/in , /by

CNN host Fareed Zakaria is now calling to censor social media because he was offended by The People’s Cube satire about his writings. Without mentioning that our satire was a hyperbolic buildup on his own recent writings, Zakaria cries for government protection of his hurt feelings, making it clear that he can dish it out but can’t take it. Taste your own medicine, Fareed.

“Progressives” have trolled, ridiculed, satirized, maligned, insulted, bullied, and lied about conservatives since the inception of the Internet. But once they see the signs of oncoming traffic, they cry and run to mommy – or to the nanny state in this case – asking to make it a one-way street once again, where only they can ride their tricycles, wear funny hats, and fling poop at those whom they consider inferiors. Watch Fareed Zakaria on camera wiping his face from the poop flung at him.

Fareed’s Take: I was the target of Internet trolling

An open letter to Fareed Zakaria from The People’s Cube:

Dear Fareed,

There have been studies showing that a foreign-born author’s unique perspective can help the natives to boost their own creative thinking through the so-called “schema violation,” which occurs when our world is turned upside-down. You may argue that your “otherness” benefits and enlightens this country, with an implication that those unwilling to be enlightened by you are bigots who resent your “otherness” and won’t have their old schema to be violated by a newcomer.

Like you, I am a foreign-born author whose English is a second, or, rather, a third language; I know what it feels to be “the other.” I also like to help the natives to boost their creative thinking by turning their reality upside-down and sending their temporal and spatial cues off-kilter (my website,The People’s Cube, is one such big schema violation). I don’t resent anyone’s “otherness” as long as they don’t attempt to make me comply to theirs. In sum, I am not concerned with your ethnic or cultural “otherness.” It is your ideological “otherness” that bothers me, which makes you indistinguishable from the next run-of-the-mill, native-born “progressive.”

Now that we got the implication of bigotry out of the way, let’s get down to business.

On January 2, one of our contributors posted a satirical response to your Washington Post articlewhere you apparently gloated over the premature deaths of white males in America. Our author took your argument to its logical conclusion, adding the need to exterminate white females as well – through Jihad, rape, and sex slavery as recently seen in Europe and elsewhere. This parody wasn’t meant to be taken as factual reporting, given the context of our website and especially considering the author’s credentials at the top: Chedoh, Kommissar of Viral Infections, Hero of Change, Prophet of the Future Truth.

On January 14, you responded to our satire in your Washington Post article titled, Bile, venom and lies: How I was trolled on the Internet, and today you started your show on CNN with a segment titled, Fareed’s Take: I was the target of Internet trolling, in which you were mostly reading your earlier article from the teleprompter. Among other things you claimed that our story “was cleverly written to provide conspiracy theorists with enough ammunition to ignore evidence” and complained that some people took our “reporting” seriously and reposted it in social media with impolite comments, all of which led you to conclude that someone must create a mechanism in social media “to distinguish between fact and falsehood.” And since that someone can only be the government, your statement can only be understood as a vague call for the government censorship of the Internet.

However, neither your article, nor the CNN segment mentioned that our grotesque fiction was based on your own controversial ideas that many Americans found insulting and grotesque. Why? Was it because such an admission would have undermined your argument that people were angry at you over nothing?

And why in the world, Fareed, did you decide to bring up the term “radicalization,” which in today’s world is mostly associated with Islam? Do you have such a tin ear – or do you really think that if you broaden the definition and talk about “American radicalization,” people will begin to see the two as morally equivalent? Do you think they are morally equivalent, Fareed?

Fine, let’s talk about radicalization.

For you, sitting on the top floors of your well-protected media establishment’s ivory tower, it’s easy to downplay the threat of Islamic radicalization and throw the “Islamophobia” labels at all those little people down at the street level. The only radicalization to which your skewed radar is attuned is the faintest sound of protest from the little people, when they get fed up with your condescending elitism and begin to rebel against the “progressive” establishment. That’s what scares you the most, doesn’t it, Fareed? That’s when you mouth off your grave concerns on CNN and write in WaPo about the threat of radicalization.

But who is at fault that Americans no longer trust the establishment and its media? Have you considered the possibility that none of this would be happening if you and your colleagues weren’t so radical yourselves, feeding the people with half-truths, distortions, propaganda, and outright lies, placing your Utopian “progressive” ideology above facts, smug and secure in your impenetrable media castle? Did it occur to you that you and your media establishment may be the very reason why so many people suddenly like Donald Trump, whom you so despise, and nothing you say on the subject can change their minds because no one trusts you anymore?

When you talked about a study where “simply by talking to one another, the bigoted students had become more bigoted,” has it even occurred to you how perfectly this describes your “progressive” echo chamber, where tolerance towards opposing philosophical viewpoints is nonexistent? If you think that calling those who disagree with you “bigots” makes you an anti-bigot, let me share a little secret. There are two kinds of bigots today: the bigots and the anti-bigots, and it’s hard to say which kind is worse.

A good example of “group polarization” involving radical “anti-bigots” is JournoList – a highly biased group of about 400 left-wing journalists and political activists who for three years (2007-2010) participated in a private online echo chamber where they, in violation of public trust and professional ethics, conspired to coordinate media attacks on conservatives, to promote certain issues while burying others, and to influence the 2008 elections in favor of Barack Obama. To paraphrase Kolbert’s study, “Simply by talking to one another, the radical left-wing journalists had become more radical left-wing journalists.” To use your exact quote, “It is how radicalization happens and extremism spreads.” Say, were you just as worried about “group polarization” then as you are now?

Another example of such “group polarization” and radicalization is a knee-jerk impulse of allegedly mainstream journalists to describe anyone who doesn’t lean left as “far-right,” as you have demonstrated in your CNN segment, or “ultra-right-wing,” as you have demonstrated in your segment.

Isn’t it a little too late to complain about America’s radicalization, Fareed? Where were you during the George W. Bush years, when your fellow “progressives” trolled, ridiculed, and slandered the U.S. President and his supporters, with full support of the mainstream media? When there no longer was any distinction between a drug-fueled street protester and a media commentator?

Did you complain when “progressive” satirists collectively created a false, hyperbolic reality around Bush, conservatives, Fox News, and America in general, which was then regularly disseminated as the truth around the world, translated into many languages, and contributing to the anti-American sentiment? Some of my own family members in Russia and Ukraine still honestly believe that those “facts” really happened. As you so eloquently stated,” the people spreading this story were not interested in the facts; they were interested in feeding prejudice.” Did you complain then, or did it feel too good to let go?

You refer to a scientific study of Facebook users, which found that “people mainly shared information that confirmed their prejudices, paying little attention to facts and veracity.” That sounds reasonable. For example, even without a scientific study I know that an overwhelming majority of your fellow “progressives” believe that Sarah Palin has actually said “I can see Russia from my house,” paying little attention to the fact that it originated as an SNL skit. Did you complain about that in 2008? Were you at all concerned that Tina Fey’s “Palin” videos might confuse voters and skew the election? Probably not; it was just satirical hyperbole, right?

What if social media encourage misinformation, rumors, and lies, you ask. But did you ask the same question when misinformation, rumors, and lies were coming not from social media but from a seasoned mainstream journalist named Dan Rather – or, more recently, The Rolling Stone Magazine? Or, worse yet, from the nation’s political leaders whom you support and admire? Wasn’t the entire debate on and implementation of ObamaCare based on misinformation and lies? Were you alarmed when Joe Biden told a black audience that the Republicans would put them back in chains?

Did you speak against radicalization when the “hands up don’t shoot” movement, based on misinformation, rumors, and lies, and encouraged by the mainstream media, resulted in looting and the destruction of property, followed by the murders of innocent police officers?

The answer to all those question is “no.” You have never violated the “progressive” schema, Fareed. You’ve been a loyal Party soldier, albeit a mediocre creative thinker, having traded your “otherness” for conformity and sacrificing your unique perspective to what you thought was “progress.”

Examples are plenty; more can be provided upon request. Now let’s talk about victimhood.

You say you are the victim because you have received some hateful messages and comments. I have also received many hateful messages and comments from your fellow “progressives” over the years. Now what? You claim you have received a late-night phone call that woke up and threatened your young daughters. Indeed, Fareed, making threatening calls is a crime. Did you file a police report? Did the police trace the number and find the perpetrators, who are hardly a sophisticated organization behind an impenetrable firewall? If not, I can’t believe every claim that comes from a confirmed plagiarist. You may as well claim that someone kicked your three-legged puppy and it made you cry.

While you played the world’s saddest song on the world’s smallest violin, I was the one who took the real hit. Snopes.com, a “fact-checking” website rooting for the “progressive” team, has not onlydebunked our satire as they’ve done it many times in the past – this time they also made an unsourced and slanderous allegation that our site is “known for spreading malware.”

Next, some busybody contacted one of our advertising providers, Content.ad, which then declined to pay our advertising earnings due to “serious quality issues.” The money we lost as a result may be small change compared to your CNN contract, but if you were penalized for your writings in the same proportional amount, I’m sure your righteous indignation would go well beyond just one article in WaPo and a five-minute segment on CNN.

There is only one victim of lies, prejudice, and institutionalized bias here – and it ain’t you, Fareed. But don’t let this stop you from playing your upside-down game of “victims and radicals” while you still can.

So you think your opponents are radicals? Here’s a news tip: down here in the streets below you, it’s the other way around: growing numbers of Americans see you and your media colleagues as radical ideological hacks. You can call them any name you want, adding ultra-, far-, uber-, and other hyphenated insults; that won’t change the fact that their thinking is the norm and yours is not. Like all normal people on this planet, they don’t respond well to insults. But they are also the ones who make sure you have the freedom to call them radicals.

Oleg Atbashian
AKA Red Square
People’s Director,
Department of Visual Agitation and Unanimity

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

VIDEO: Florida Democrat Wasserman-Schultz defends Muslim raping mannequin – Bill Clinton responds

/in , /by

The below video shows a Muslim man sexually assaulting a mannequin (hat tip to PamelaGeller.com for this breaking news story).

Local sources report the sexual assault occurred after the Muslim rapist couldn’t find a suitable non-Muslim woman to rape.

debbie wasserman schultz

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, FL District 23

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, U.S. Representative for Florida’s 23rd congressional district and the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, defended the assault. Wasserman-Schultz said:

It is better to submit and take it like a mannequin, than to resist!

All women can learn a lesson from this mannequin. She was passive throughout the assault and survived the attack without incident.

We will be introducing legislation that will disarm women so that they do not shoot inadvertently a Muslim trying to rape them. With many Syrian Muslims migrants registering as Democrats, every refugee vote will count in November.

The bill will be called the Muslim Mannequin and Fire Arms Protection Act of 2016 HB 69.

According to the Council of American Islamic Relations, “His libido just got the better of him. It is un-Islamic to rape a mannequin. However, it is permitted, under Muslim laws, to rape a Christian or Jew or other non-Muslim. We understand that the mannequin in question was made by Christians. We have asked our Islamic scholars to study this new form of sexual jihad. We will issue further guidance to the American Muslim ummah (community) next week.”

Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin based Mondo Mannequins President Bob Rosean in a press release noted:

We are concerned that Muslims are sexually attacking mannequins. We have partnered with the Feminist Majority Foundation to allow those Muslim men thinking of raping a mannequin, who wish to seek help for their sexual addiction, to call a new hotline 1-800-MANIRAPE.

This hotline will have Arabic speakers for those who recently arrived in the United States under President Obama’s Syrian refugee initiative.

We are considering a new line of female mannequins that have fully function sexual organs. We see this incident as a emerging new market in America and Europe. We are looking at a series of mannequins that appear to be under the age of 9-years old. We plan on calling this line “Aisha”, in honor of the underage wife of Mohammed.

We can help reduce rapes of real women by providing mannequins that function as well as or better than real Christians and provide jobs at the same time.

All of our mannequins are proudly made in America.

The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), which was founded in 1987, notes, “This is new and uncharted territory for our organization. We will do what we can to protect mannequins in Wisconsin and beyond from such assaults.”

Bill Clinton, while in Iowa campaigning for Hillary, stated:

I am sure Hillary will institute a national program for the protection of Muslims who wish to rape mannequins. We cannot allow Islamophobes, such as Donald Trump, to make an issue of this video and call for the banning of Muslims coming to America, the land of milk, honey and mannequins.

I have on occasion been attracted to mannequins. I understand my Muslim brothers pain, especially in their loins.  It is something that must be addressed by our government sooner rather than later.

Hillary understands the plight of Muslims who can’t seem to find enough women to rape. She has first hand knowledge of men who can’t get enough. Who better to address this issue than a President Clinton, I mean Hillary of course?

HRC logoThe Gay Pride, LGBT community and Human Rights Campaign issued a joint statement:

We believe that Muslims who are attracted by the same sex should have gay mannequins to abuse. It is sexist to deny those Muslims who are questioning their sexuality to not have a choice in which mannequins to assault.

We ask that the producers of mannequins consider a gay line for the sexually diverse. We would suggest calling this line “Q”, for obvious reasons.

The Donald Trump campaign issued the following short statement, “You have got to be kidding me? Muslims raping mannequins? Is this the new M&Ms?”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

13-Year-Old Schoolgirl Kidnapped by 3 Muslim Migrants, Raped for 30 Hours

Anti-pedophilia bill quickly rejected in Pakistan; considered ‘anti-Islamic’

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire appeared in Playboy and the Islamic State Inspire magazines.