#Take Back Our Kids

/in , , , /by

Our nineteen fifty something station-wagon was loaded with Mom, Dad, big fat Aunt Nee (300 lbs ), myself and four younger siblings. Aunt Nee raised my Dad; his surrogate Mom. Our family was excited about spending a hot summer day at Carr’s Beach, Maryland. I had no idea at that time that it was the only Maryland beach open to blacks.

Before hitting the road to the beach, the ritual included riding from our black suburban community into Baltimore city to pick up Aunt Nee and stopping down “Jew Town” to purchase corned-beef and a bread that the adults loved. I did not get a sense that my parents calling it Jew Town was meant in a derogatory way. It was simply an area of Baltimore filled with Jewish businesses that sold great food.

As a matter of fact, most of the corner stores in black neighborhoods were owned by Jews. Blacks purchased items without cash, put on their account. Store owners would log items in their book; no bulletproof wall and turn-style between the Jewish store owners and their black customers.

We always had a wonderful time at the beach and rode home exhausted. Dad’s car was not air conditioned. Looking back, I wonder how on earth did we endure; three adults, five kids, food and beach supplies stuffed in a hot station-wagon. And yet, all my memories of family days at the beach bring a warm smile to my face.

Mom was a great cook. Two of mom’s weekday dinner menus stick out as favorites. One was mom’s hot homemade biscuits with butter and King Syrup. The other was collard greens with cornbread dumplings. We kids were clueless about the economic component surrounding these meals. We simply enjoyed them, never feeling deprived.

Wednesday nights were prayer service at the storefront church in Baltimore city where dad was assistant pastor. On the way home, there was a corner bakery right before we crossed over the Hanover Street bridge. Whenever dad unexpectedly pulled over to purchase a dozen donuts, it was an exciting family treat.

As the eldest, I remember my parent’s lean years more than my siblings. One Christmas, I was extremely excited receiving a secondhand bicycle. Years later, Santa delivered new bikes for my younger brothers and sister.

Dad was among Baltimore City’s first black firefighters and mom worked part-time as a custodian at a high school and a domestic for white folks.

My point is we did not have what kids have today. And yet, we enjoyed the little things. We did not feel deprived. Mom and dad always found a way to get us whatever we needed. I remember wearing my new suit for 6th grade graduation looking at my friend Martin wearing a suit a few sizes too small. My three brothers, sister and I were happy.

The Bible says “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). While my siblings and I had our individual periods of rebellion, like the prodigal son, we defaulted back to our home training; our parent’s principles and values.

Today, the Left is aggressively usurping authority over your kids, ripping parenting out of your hands.

Decades of allowing liberal indoctrination to go unchallenged has produced a generation of youths who believe in the name of “fairness” that no one should have more than anyone else (income inequality). Needs and desires are now declared to be rights (government entitlements). In our quest to prove our tolerance as conservatives, we allowed the Left to steal our kid’s minds.

Youths are idealistic. Once liberalized guilt-ridden youths are led down the road of trying to make life fair, the consequences are far reaching. For example: Pressure from students is forcing colleges to make all campus restrooms “all gender”. An Oregon High School created gender-neutral restrooms for transgender students.

In case you have not noticed, the Left has zero tolerance for anyone daring to disagree with their far left radical liberal agenda. They punish and even seek to criminalize opposing points of view. How long will it be before our kids are reporting their parents to authorities after overhearing them express an opinion out-of-step with that of the Left, government and the mainstream media?

Folks, it is time that we take back our kids from Leftist’s indoctrination.

Though “#Bring Back Our Girls” won rave reviews from liberals, sadly, it did nothing to free the 200 girls kidnapped and made sex slaves by Islamic extremists. A year later, the girls have not been returned.

I wish to implement, #Take Back Our Kids. I am calling all parents to closely monitor their local school administrators and school boards, confronting them when necessary. Home schooling is a great option. We can no longer sit back and passively allow the Left to totally control the thinking and beliefs of our kids. We must #Take Back Our Kids.

On the Road to Dictatorship

/in , , , /by

In a speech before the City Club of Cleveland on March 18, 2015, Barack Obama put into words what, until now, he has only allowed himself to dream about.  In his remarks, he launched into a diatribe on how he would choose to run U.S. elections… if only he could dictate his own terms.

According to the Associated Press, when he was asked about the “corrosive” influence of money in U.S. elections, he digressed into the related topic of voting rights, suggesting that “the U.S. should be making it easier… not harder… for people to vote.”

For those who may doubt the wisdom of mandatory voting, he suggested, “Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote.  If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.”  As Obama sees it, universal voting would counteract the evil influence of money in politics more than anything else.  This from a man who raised $750 million against John McCain in 2008 (much of it from illegal foreign sources), and $1.12 billion in his reelection bid against Mitt Romney in 2012.  So, if money in politics is “corrosive,” as Obama suggests, then he is the most thoroughly “corroded” politician in U.S. history.

He went on to note that, disproportionately, those who fail to vote on Election Day are younger, lower-income, and more likely to be immigrants or minorities.  Translated, what Obama yearns for is a nation in which the most ignorant and uninformed people (his base) are required to vote.

On Election Day 2008, in an attempt to learn how much Obama voters knew about politics and current affairs, Zogby International interviewed more than 500 Obama voters outside polling places across the country, asking the same fourteen questions in each location.  One of those interviews with self-proclaimed Obama voters was caught on film and circulated on the Internet.  They were asked:

  1. Which party currently controls Congress?
  2. Do you know who Barney Frank is?
  3. Do you know who Nancy Pelosi is?
  4. Do you know who Harry Reid is?
  5. What do you think of Bill Ayers?
  6. Which candidate was given $150,000 worth of clothes by a political party?
  7. Which candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter?
  8. Which candidate said they could see Russia from their home?
  9. Which candidate said they’d campaigned in all 57 states?
  10. Which candidate won their first political campaign by having all the other candidates of their own party kicked off the ballot on technicalities?
  11. Which candidate had to quit a previous campaign because of a plagiarized a speech?
  12. Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to skyrocket?
  13. Which candidate said that the government should redistribute wealth?
  14. Where do you get most of your news?

Those  interviewed were two white females, aged 20-25; three black females, aged 20-25; one black female, aged 40-45; two white males, aged 35-40; one white male, aged 55-60; and three black males, aged 40-45.

When asked which party controlled Congress in 2008, and what they thought of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Bill Ayers, one black woman thought Pelosi was a “fair” woman, but none knew that Democrats controlled Congress or had any idea who Frank, Pelosi, Reid, or Ayers were.  However, when questioned about which candidate received a $150,000 clothing allowance from a political party, which candidate had a pregnant teenage daughter, and which candidate was charged (falsely) with having said that she could see Russia from her home, nearly all were able to name Sarah Palin.

When asked which candidate claimed to have campaigned “in all 57 states,” which candidate won their first political campaign by having all of their opponents kicked off the ballot, which candidate claimed that their policies would bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to  skyrocket, and which candidate said that government should redistribute wealth, most of those interviewed attributed those statements to either Sarah Palin or John McCain… none named Barack Obama.  And when asked which candidate had to withdraw from a previous campaign because he had plagiarized a speech, none knew that it was Joe Biden.

Not surprisingly, when asked where they got all of their information, the respondents mentioned ABC, CBS, CBC, CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, the New York Times, Bill Moyers, Jon Stewart, and the Colbert Report.  So is it any wonder then that they knew nothing about current affairs but took yellow journalism from network news and yellow propaganda from Democrats and television comedy skits as fact?

If the Zogby poll tells us nothing else, it tells us that a lot of people are voting who shouldn’t be because they are not representative of the sort of informed voters necessary to the maintenance of a constitutional republic.  By relying on yellow journalism and yellow propaganda as their primary sources of political information, they cast themselves, in fact, as enemies of the republic.

In the best of all worlds, voter registration should be open only to those who could provide evidence of property ownership, and their immediate family members, while on Election Day prospective voters should be required to score at least 60% on a simple fourth or fifth grade level civics exam, with multiple choice questions drawn at random from a pool of questions.

Unfortunately, it is precisely the type of voter interviewed by Zogby that Obama and other Democrats are interested in herding into the voting booths.  They make up a large enough segment of the Democratic base to sway most elections.  Without them, Democrats could never win control of any legislative body, nor could they elect a president or a vice president.  Such voters are the life blood of the Democrat Party.

As matters now stand, the Democrat Party is totally dependent on the availability of a large pool of ignorant and uninformed voters, such as those produced by the public education system and our colleges and universities.  It represents a “devil’s bargain” between the teachers’ unions and the Democrat Party in which the teachers’ unions churn out millions of ignorant, uneducated, and uninformed voters in exchange for the right to dictate education policy and funding to Democrats in Congress and in the state legislatures.

In a series of widely circulated remarks, former Clinton operative James Carville is quoted as saying:

“Ideology isn’t all that important.  What’s important is psychology.  The Democratic constituency is like a herd of cows.  All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running.  That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats.  With Democrats, all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole’ cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.  Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

“What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the opposite of their own personal convictions.  Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want…

“Truth is relative.  Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth.  That’s why I’m a Democrat… I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

Although Carville’s remarks are unsubstantiated and may, in fact, be bogus, the truth of those sentiments are undeniable and represent what Republicans have always known about Democrats.  Put those sentiments together with an ethically-challenged politician, motivated by a foreign ideology, and what do you have?  We have the United States of America under Barack Obama.

In the March 22, 2015 edition of the New York Post, Michael Goodwin says of Barack Obama: “First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt, and nationalizes the Internet.

“He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican ‘enemies.’  He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries, and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.  Now he’s coming for Israel…  Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest.  He is transforming the whole world before our eyes…”

In a recent townhall meeting I suggested to our second term congressman that he ask those in attendance if they knew who Valerie Jarrett was and what role she plays in the Obama White House.  Only four of us in the room, all Republican activists, knew the answer to the question.

Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett have put us well down the road to a fascist dictatorship.  What remains to be seen is whether or not rank-and-file Republicans will be concerned enough and wise enough to turn their backs on establishment Republican candidates in 2016, nominating, instead, conservative leaders with the backbone to lead us back from the abyss.

Supreme Court to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage

/in , , , /by

In 1973, the Supreme Court looked into the Constitution, found that it approved of abortion and overruled laws banning it. Other laws have since addressed late term abortions and those resulting from rape or incest, but killing human life in the womb has been lawful since then. According to the Guttmacher Institute from 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S.

By dismantling the fundamental traditions and beliefs of a nation piece by piece, you ultimate will destroy it. Claiming this is done in the name of “love” or “equality” ignores the greater societal issues involved in marriage; the creation of families with mothers and fathers, and, indeed, the welfare of children raised in same-sex marriages.

Abortion remains a moral issue in the minds and hearts of many Americans and now they are waiting to see how the Supreme Court will rule on same-sex marriage. As Ryan T. Anderson wrote in The Heritage Foundation’s publication, The Daily Signal, “There simply is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.”

“The over-arching question before the Supreme Court is not whether a male-female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the Constitution. The question is not whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the Constitution.”

Anderson points out that “The only way the Court could strike down laws that define marriage as the union of husband and wife is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it an essentially genderless institution…” Marriage is all about gender and the union of opposites that is blessed by the community when a man and woman enter into it. To legalize same-sex marriage is to degrade the essential element of society, the keystone of family.

What we are witnessing is the current high point in a long campaign to remove any obstacle to being homosexual and the right to marry another homosexual represents an important political goal for GLBT community. For them it’s not about the thousands of years in which all societies forbid the marriage between those of the same gender or the 227 years since the Constitution was ratified.

Clearly the Constitution neither requires nor bans same-sex marriage. The thought of such a marriage would never have occurred to the Founding Fathers and the creation of a new nation had far greater priorities and responsibilities than same-sex marriage. Most such issues such as abortion were left to the states to determine. Even so, when the voters of California voted in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage, the courts there overturned it.

We are witnessing a homosexual juggernaut that will settle for nothing less than their own interpretation of the relations between the sexes.

When the Supreme Court hears the same-sex marriage case on Tuesday, April 28, it will be decided by a Court that is sharply divided between liberal and conservative points of view, but in the legal community, there is no argument that, as federal law states, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

That’s why the fact that in late September Justice Elena Kagan performed a same-sex “wedding” takes on tremendous importance. As documented by MassResistance.org, Justice Kagan has a long history of advancing homosexual issues and policies. A 16-page report leaves little doubt that she favors acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights.”

There is no way that Justice Kagan should join other Supreme Court judges to rule on this case. That would run counter to federal law and would be an arrogant dismissal of the most fundamental concept of justice before the bench.

What we have learned thus far is that the practice of same-sex marriage has proven more a threat to the rights of those who are opposed to it for sincere religious reasons than for those demanding their services. If there is any justice left in America, a bakery or florist should be able to say no. Demanding that they act against their faith tells you a great deal of the homosexual mindset when it comes to their “rights.”

I am utterly opposed to same-sex “marriage” for all the reasons the Bible and history provide.

If Justice Kagan does not recuse herself from Tuesday’s case and her fellow justices do not demand that she does, the rule of law and justice in America will have suffered another serious blow.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

BOOM! Allen West Goes After Muslim Student Association Cancelling American Sniper

/in , , , , , /by

american sniper posterIt is the highest grossing war movie in U.S. history but — as we’ve reported previously — it is in the target sights of Muslim students. Once again, a showing of “American Sniper” has been cancelled, this time at the University of Maryland, College Park.

As reported by Foxnews.com, “The University of Maryland announced it will postpone indefinitely an upcoming screening of “American Sniper” after Muslim students protested – calling the film Islamophobic, racist and nationalistic.

“American Sniper only perpetuates the spread of Islamophobia and is offensive to many Muslims around the world for good reason,” read a petition launched by the university’s Muslim Students Association. “This movie dehumanizes Muslim individuals, promotes the idea of senseless mass murder, and portrays negative and inaccurate stereotypes.”

“The critically-acclaimed film about the life of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle was supposed to be screened May 6 and 7. It was “postponed” on April 22 by the university’s Student Entertainment Events (SEE). While SEE did not mention the Muslim Students Association’s petition, they referenced a meeting with “concerned student organizations” about the film. “SEE is choosing to explore the proactive measures of working with others during the coming months to possibly create an event where students can engage in constructive and moderated dialogues about the controversial topics proposed in the film,” read a statement from SEE posted on the university’s website. The Muslim Students Association posted a Facebook message praising the university’s capitulation to their demands.”

“Praising the university’s capitulation to their demands” — in other words, the surrender of our freedom of speech and expression. Now, I find it doggone funny that the Muslim Students Association (MSA), an organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, is allowed to operate freely on our colleges and universities in the first place. I furthermore find it unconscionable that this group of 250 who signed this petition would influence the decision on a campus of some 28,000.

However, consider this irony: black students were allowed to freely stomp on the U.S. flag at Valdosta State College and an Air Force veteran who sought to claim the flag for proper disposition was physically restrained by campus police, arrested, and ordered never to step on the Valdosta State campus again.

Are we upside down or what?

Regarding the MSA protest, I’m starting to believe something is up with states that begin with the letter “M.” I know this banning of “American Sniper” has occurred at the Universities of Missouri, Michigan, and now Maryland — where next, U-Mass?

But who are these individuals to tell an American university what can be shown on its campus? I wonder if the movie “Twelve Years a Slave” was shown at the University of Maryland? And if these MSA students believe “American Sniper” is offensive to Muslims it means means they are supportive of Islamic terrorism and jihadism.

If they stand for freedom, liberty, and democracy, they should not be offended. As a matter of fact, Kyle’s exploits came primarily in Al Anbar province — Fallujah and Ramadi — is it offensive to these Muslim students that ISIS, the reconstituted al-Qaida in Iraq, is now driving Muslims from their homes in Ramadi? Then again, MSA is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is affiliated with Hamas and supports Islamic terrorism and jihadism, so maybe the gist of all this is that these Muslim students are upset to see the story of a heroic American who fought against their compatriot jihadist brothers.

Maybe they don’t want the truth to be known about the savage barbarism of their associates. And the University of Maryland SEE and leadership is so cowardly that they succumb to these “demands.”

The President of the University and the SEE should have sent back a simple letter with a one-word response, “Nuts.” Now, the question I have, is there a Coach John Harbaugh on the campus of Maryland, someone who will stand up to these stealth jihadists who would seek to advance their intolerance in order to suppress our rights? And let me ask a very basic question — why are they here in America studying in our schools and universities promoting their beliefs which are counter to our Constitutional Republic?

If they don’t like the fllm then doggone, don’t go see it! But, how dare they make a “demand” and worse, Maryland caved.

“We sincerely appreciate your commitment to exercising your freedom of speech to create an inclusive, just and safe campus community,” MSA wrote. Furthermore the Muslims Student Association said “American Sniper” creates a “dangerous climate for Muslim students and severely devalues the community atmosphere.”

So what the heck does beheading Christians create? What kind of climate exists in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the hotbed of ISIS recruiting? What type of community atmosphere exists for Christians and Yazidis in Mosul?

“Breyer Hillegas, president of the university’s College Republicans, told Fox News that he was furious about the cancellation. “Universities are always trying to satisfy the political correctness police and worry about who they might offend – rather than standing up for principle and the First Amendment of the Constitution,” Hillegas told me. He said the College Republicans had been behind the effort to convince SEE to show the film. “If the university prevents a movie like that from being show – it promotes intolerance and stifles dialogue and debate – and goes directly against the atmosphere that the University of Maryland is supposed to support,” he said.

What do the University of Maryland Campus Democrats have to say on the matter? Crickets. Their silence is deafening — and telling.

So here is my message to the MSA:

I and many other Americans deployed to Muslim countries to bring a chance for liberty and freedom. We lost our brothers and sisters. Some lost their limbs — all gave some, some gave all. And to have you here in our country “demanding” the story of one of our own not be told is offensive.

Your time is running out, as we will not tolerate the intolerant for much longer. You will be crushed and defeated, because in America we just don’t take crap for too long — regardless of the complicit bond you’ve found with progressive socialists — stretching from the White House to the College and University campuses — Islamic fascism will not prevail in these great United States of America.

Two words: Molon Labe!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Speaking Truth to Power Real Heroes: Jimmy Lai by LAWRENCE W. REED

/in , , , , /by

For years, a bust of John James Cowperthwaite sat prominently in the foyer of Jimmy Lai’s Next Media office in Hong Kong, along with others of economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman. If that’s all you ever knew about Jimmy Lai, you could at least surmise that he loves liberty and free markets.

Cowperthwaite had been the architect of Hong Kong’s free market miracle. He started with a destitute rock and turned it into one of the world’s freest and most prosperous economies. (Indeed, I’ve suggested that he deserves to be recognized annually and everywhere with a Cowperthwaite Day on the anniversary of his birth date, April 25.) Jimmy Lai is precisely the sort of individual that Cowperthwaite had in mind when he decided that entrepreneurs, not central planners, should drive an economy. Because of what Cowperthwaite had done, Jimmy Lai found a hero himself. And Lai, too, would go on to do great things.

Of the characteristics most often identified with successful entrepreneurship, Jimmy Lai possesses them all in abundance. He is a self-starter who takes initiative (and risk) with enthusiasm. He’s creative and intuitive. He’s passionate and tenacious. Where others see problems, he sees opportunity. He’s a visionary, both in business endeavors and for society at large. He doesn’t hesitate to defy conventional wisdom when it points to a dead end. Whatever he undertakes, he musters the courage to act. He puts his all — money, time, and energy — where his mouth is (and where his convictions are).

On paper, Lai’s early life would seem unlikely to produce a “real hero.” He was born in China the year before it fell under Mao Zedong’s dictatorial rule. Lai was smuggled out of the country and into Hong Kong at age 12. In the absence of child-labor laws, which would have ensured his deprivation there, too, Lai went to work in a garment factory for $8 a month. Fifteen years later, he bought his own garment factory and built it into the giant known as Giordano, now a leading international retailer. Lai’s boundless entrepreneurial zeal, free to operate within Hong Kong’s laissez-faire business environment, yielded jobs for thousands and consumer goods for millions.

But in 1989, Beijing’s infamous Tiananmen Square massacre set Jimmy Lai on a new course. With Hong Kong scheduled to be transferred from British to Chinese rule in just eight years, Lai knew that maintaining traditional freedoms under Beijing’s rule would be a challenge. So he ventured into media, creating what soon became the territory’s largest-circulation magazines,Sudden Weekly and Next. In spite of Beijing’s coercion of advertisers, Jimmy Lai’s tabloid-style newspaper, Apple Daily, is still the premier voice in Asia for the freedoms of speech, press, and enterprise.

Jimmy Lai does not shrink from controversy. The Communist Party of China, he wrote in a 1994 column, is “a monopoly that charges a premium for a lousy service.” He defended the student demonstrators when they went into the streets by the hundreds of thousands in late 2014 in defense of democracy. He routinely exposed corruption in both government and business, including the especially toxic brand of corruption that arises when the two get in bed together. He sold Giordano, the apparel firm he founded, to save it from Beijing’s intense pressure, but he refuses to this day to renounce his principles.

In December 2014, he revealed that he was stepping down as publisher of Apple Daily and chairman of Next Media to devote more time to family and personal interests. A month later, and for the second time, unknown assailants firebombed his home. He remains under intense scrutiny from Beijing, which regularly employs ugly rumors, threats of litigation, and other nefarious means to undermine his influence.

Earlier this year, Lai told the New York Times that he never planned to make his media empire into a family dynasty. His six children (ages 8 to 37) are not in line as heirs to that business or its leadership positions. “I don’t think I should ask my kids to inherit my business, because they can’t start where I did,” he said. “I was from the street. I’m a very different make of person. I’ve been a fighter all my life.”

Whatever the future holds for Jimmy Lai, friends of liberty everywhere can count him as one very brave man.

For additional information:

In the Freeman:

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s.

EDITORS NOTE: 

The Foundation for Economic Education is pleased to present a weekly feature every Friday by our president, Lawrence W. Reed, commencing April 24, 2015. Real Heroes is expected to run for approximately one year. Each week, Mr. Reed will briefly relate the stories of people whose choices and actions make them heroes.

Mr. Reed has personally met many heroes himself. In a 2007 essay on one of them, Sir Nicholas Winton, he wrote, “The truest hero does not think of himself as one, never advertises himself as such, and does not perform the acts that make him a hero for either fame or fortune. He does not wait for government to act if he senses an opportunity to fix a problem himself.”

The people Reed will write about will not be the well-known, usual suspects. Often, they will be men and women you’ve never heard of, from the distant past to the present day. In every case, they will be individuals who deserve notice and appreciation. They will exemplify one or more of the character traits Reed wrote about in his short book, Are We Good Enough for Liberty?— traits he regards as critical to the flourishing of a free society.

Each week, a new essay will be added to the table of contents. When the series runs its course, the collection will all be published in multiple digital-book formats.

Hope and Change, Yikes!

/in , , , /by

When president Obama was running for office, he promised hope and change.  Since I was well aware of his philosophical bent, a number of questions came to mind.  The first was, hope for what?  After all, this is the United States of America.  The greatest nation in history.  Not many years ago, she was the number one nation in the world for economic opportunities. America symbolizes hope, for those who desired to utilize sweat equity and their brains to work and achieve their dreams.  America was the beacon of hope to the world and a place where one could change their lot in life.

So I could not help but wonder what kind of hope and change was Obama referring to?  Was he hoping to change America into a giant progressive inspired downtrodden version of Detroit, Michigan or Camden, New Jersey?  Was the president giving hope to the muslims who for many years have Been striving to take over America?  Was he hoping to facilitate a rapid overall decline in our international stature as a nation? (Something he has achieved by the way)  Was Mr. Obama in his own unique way offering hope and change to enemy nations who once feared and respected the United States, but now view her as a paper tiger?

President Obama did say to the world that the United States was not a Christian nation.  So I wonder if he was giving hope to atheists and muslims who are seeking to wipe Christianity off the map throughout our republic?  When it comes to hope and change Obama style, one has to wonder what hope is there for the medical industry in America unless government healthcare is overturned?

When one observes the various conditions present throughout America and the world, they cannot overlook how president Obama has acted on his promise of hope and change.  Now I did not mean hope and positive change for America, mind you.  But when since the Revolutionary war have so many enemies of our republic have so much hope?  Iran had hoped to have nuclear missiles for many years.  But now, thanks or no thanks to the Obama changes in United States foreign policy Iran will very soon have nuclear missiles that can reach U. S. cities with ease.

Because of the president’s hope and change, there were recent midnight police raids on conservative Wisconsin homeowners who support the policies of Governor Scott Walker.  After the police ransacked their abodes a liberal judge threatened to hold them in contempt of court if the dared to tell the media about the incidents.  Wisconsin prosecutor, John Chisholm ordered the raids according to Fox News.  I am in no way saying that the Obama administration ordered or supported the raids.  But the atmosphere the regime has orchestrated over the past six years has emboldened progressives who only believe in liberty for those that agree with them.

Since the hope and change Obama era began, it is the thugs and other dregs of society who in much greater numbers are encouraged to either kill or steal from fellow Americans.  Locations like New York City and Chicago are becoming more difficult to live in, due to mayors who reflect the progressive philosophy of Mr. hope and change.

In recent months, more Christians have been beheaded, burned, raped, and enslaved than during the persecution the early church under the Roman Empire.  I believe that the overall increase or change in such activities is a direct result of the attitude against the Christianity displayed by the Obama regime.  Thus giving the dedicated muslim bigots hope that they can get away with tremendous brutality of historic proportions against non-muslims, especially Christians, Blacks and Jews.  The hope and change Obama has espoused only gives hope to the enemies of America, freedom, Christianity, women, children, Israel, our military, the American economy, healthcare, etc.

If the United States is to be rescued from the firm grip of destruction within the Obama interpretation of hope and change then his hope and change will have to be reversed.  Meaning: Rather than providing hope to our enemies like illegal immigrants, dedicated muslims, American street thugs and more, we must regain hope for ourselves and our nation through Christ Jesus.  The same one who gave hope to our founding fathers, including George Washington and his brave soldiers at Valley Forge.

Then “We the People” will make the right change to reestablish America as what Ronald Reagan called, the last best hope for mankind.

Hillary Takes The Family Out of Education

/in , , , /by

Incredibly, Hillary Clinton, while talking about education this week, stated that education is a “non-family enterprise.”

Education is a non-family enterprise? How completely out of touch can a person be to make such a bizarre statement and then expect to lead the country? Here are a couple of questions for Hillary Clinton:

  1. Has Hillary Clinton ever sat down to do a science project with her daughter as most of us have with our sons and daughters?
  2. Has Hillary Clinton ever volunteered countless hours to put together a school spelling-bee like my wife just did?
  3. Has Hillary Clinton ever spent late nights studying with her daughter for a tough math test as we have with our sons and daughters?
  4. Has Hillary Clinton ever spoken at a Career Day at her daughter’s school as many of us have for our sons and daughters?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, only Hillary does, but I find it deeply troubling that we are looking at yet another Democrat presidential candidate who openly discusses education and the economy using far-left lingo which conflicts directly with the principles that made America that shining city on the hill. It’s our families, our sense of entrepreneurialism, our local communities, our neighbors caring for one another, our allegiance to human rights and human dignity granted to all of us by The Lord, and the fact that we did “build that,” that has made us great. It’s not the “collective;” the government, the bureaucracy, or any other government official, or their bizarre sense of entitlement to our kids and our money that has made us prosperous.

It’s not the “collective;” the government, the bureaucracy, or any other government official, or their bizarre sense of entitlement to our kids and our money that has made us prosperous.

Make no mistake, the party of JFK and Truman is dying. A Hillary Clinton presidency will be an Obama third term with more government, higher taxes, more bureaucratic healthcare, more Common Core, a degradation of the family, and buckets of new regulations. Every presidential candidate running for the Republican nomination needs to highlight statements such as this from Hillary Clinton to make the case to voters that WE are the party that supports educational excellence for EVERY American, regardless of their zip code. It’s disappointing to watch the far-left stand in the way of school choice for parents and children and if there’s one issue that should have crossed the partisan Maginot Line decades ago, it should have been education.   But, tragically, that was not, and is not, the case.

I read a piece by Jason Riley in the Wall Street Journal years ago which included a statistic that, once seen, is hard to forget. Riley states that, “Just 2,000 of the nation’s 20,000 high schools produce almost half of all high-school dropouts. But nearly half of all black high-school students wind up in one of these ‘dropout factories.’ The prospects for black males who don’t graduate are not good, quite aside from lower lifetime earnings.”

One can’t un-see this tragic, heartbreaking statistic and I personally do not care an iota about how the school choice issue polls. Regardless of the polls, it is up to liberty-loving, patriotic Americans to fight for the future of every American child if you are going to represent the Republican brand in this upcoming presidential election in 2016, and school choice had better be at the top of your list.

Hillary Clinton and the organized far left will fight us tooth and nail on the school choice issue because like the economy and healthcare, it is not about education to Hillary Clinton, it’s about control. The far left views parents as an unnecessary third-party in their one-way social contract with American school children and Hillary Clinton’s “education is a non-family enterprise” is not a verbal gaffe, it’s the ideological bedrock upon which she built her political house.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is courtesy of CR. Source: Charles Neibergall/AP.

Is the “Austrian School” a Lie?

/in , , , , /by

Is Austrian economics an American invention? by STEVEN HORWITZ and B.K. MARCUS.

Do those of us who use the word Austrian in its modern libertarian context misrepresent an intellectual tradition?

We trace our roots back through the 20th century’s F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises (both served as advisors to FEE) to Carl Menger in late 19th-century Vienna, and even further back to such “proto-Austrians” as Frédéric Bastiat and Jean-Baptiste Say in the earlier 19th century and Richard Cantillon in the 18th. Sometimes we trace our heritage all the way back to the late-Scholastic School of Salamanca.

Nonsense, says Janek Wasserman in his article “Austrian Economics: Made in the USA”:

“Austrian Economics, as it is commonly understood today,” Wasserman claims, “was born seventy years ago this month.”

As his title implies, Wasserman is not talking about the publication of Principles of Economics by Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian school. That occurred 144 years ago in Vienna. What happened 70 years ago in the United States was the publication of F.A. Hayek‘s Road to Serfdom.

What about everything that took place — most of it in Austria — in the 74 years before Hayek’s most famous book? According to Wasserman, the Austrian period of “Austrian Economics” produced a “robust intellectual heritage,” but the largely American period that followed was merely a “dogmatic political program,” one that “does a disservice to the eclectic intellectual history” of the true Austrian school.

Where modern Austrianism is “associated with laissez-faire economics and libertarianism,” the real representatives of the more politically diverse tradition — economists from the University of Vienna, such as Fritz Machlup, Joseph Schumpeter, and Oskar Morgenstern — were embarrassed by their association with Hayek’s bestseller and its capitalistic supporters.

These “native-born Austrians ceased to be ‘Austrian,'” writes Wasserman, “when Mises and a simplified Hayek captured the imagination of a small group of businessmen and radicals in the US.”

Wasserman describes the popular reception of the as “the birth of a movement — and the reduction of a tradition.”

Are we guilty of Wasserman’s charges? Do modern Austrians misunderstand our own tradition, or worse yet, misrepresent our history?

In fact, Wasserman himself is guilty of a profound misunderstanding of the Austrian label, as well as the tradition it refers to.

The “Austrian school” is not a name our school of thought took for itself. Rather it was an insult hurled against Carl Menger and his followers by the adherents of the dominant German Historical School.

The Methodenstreit was a more-than-decade-long debate in the late 19th century among German-speaking social scientists about the status of economic laws. The Germans advocated methodological collectivism, espoused the efficacy of government intervention to improve the economy, and, according Jörg Guido Hülsmann, “rejected economic ‘theory’ altogether.”

The Mengerians, in contrast, argued for methodological individualism and the scientific validity of economic law. The collectivist Germans labeled their opponents the “Austrian school” as a put-down. It was like calling Menger and company the “backwater school” of economic thought.

“Austrian,” in our context, is a reclaimed word.

But more important, modern Austrian economics is not the dogmatic ideology that Wasserman describes. In his blog post, he provides no actual information about the work being done by the dozens of active Austrian economists in academia, with tenured positions at colleges and universities whose names are recognizable.

He tells his readers nothing about the  books they have produced that have been published by top university presses. He does not mention that they have published in top peer-reviewed journals in the economics discipline, as well as in philosophy and political science, or that the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics consistently packs meeting rooms at the Southern Economic Association meetings.

Have all of these university presses, top journals, and long-standing professional societies, not to mention tenure committees at dozens of universities, simply lost their collective minds and allowed themselves to be snookered by an ideological sleeper cell?

Or perhaps in his zeal to score ideological points of his own, Wasserman chose to take his understanding of Austrian economics from those who consume it on the Internet and elsewhere rather than doing the hard work of finding out what professional economists associated with the school are producing. Full of confirmation bias, he found what he “knew” was out there, and he ends up offering a caricature of the robust intellectual movement that is the contemporary version of the school.

The modern Austrian school, which has now returned to the Continent and spread across the globe after decades in America, is not the dogmatic monolith Wasserman contends. The school is alive with both internal debates about its methodology and theoretical propositions and debates about its relationship to the rest of the economics discipline, not to mention the size of the state.

Modern Austrian economists are constantly finding new ideas to mix in with the work of Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, and Hayek. The most interesting work done by Austrians right now is bringing in insights from Nobelists like James Buchanan, Elinor Ostrom, and Vernon Smith, and letting those marinate with their long-standing intellectual tradition. That is hardly the behavior of a “dogmatic political program,” but is rather a sign of precisely the robust intellectual tradition that has been at the core of Austrian economics from Menger onward.

That said, Wasserman is right to suggest that economic science is not the same thing as political philosophy — and it’s true that many self-described Austrians aren’t always careful to communicate the distinction. Again, Wasserman could have seen this point made by more thoughtful Austrians if he had gone to a basic academic source like the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics and read the entry on the Austrian school of economics.

Even a little bit of actual research motivated by actual curiosity about what contemporary professional economists working in the Austrian tradition are doing would have given Wasserman a very different picture of modern Austrian economics. That more accurate picture is one very much consistent with our Viennese predecessors.

To suggest that we do a disservice to our tradition — or worse, that we have appropriated a history that doesn’t belong to us — is to malign not just modern Austrians but also the Austrian-born antecedents within our tradition.

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

B.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is managing editor of the Freeman.

The Prison Called Cuba

/in , , , /by
mandela-obama-castro

President Obama’s handshake with Cuban President Raul Castro, at a memorial service for former South African President Nelson Mandela in 2013. REUTERS TV/REUTERS

We are told we need to feel sympathy for the Cuban people who have suffered from a U.S. embargo and lack of diplomatic recognition. That ignores a long history of oppression in Cuba no matter who was in charge.

Prior to Fidel Castro, Cubans were in the grip of Flugencio Batista who overthrew the existing government in September 1933 and then dominated Cuban politics for the next 25 years until Castro’s revolutionary movement took control of the capitol in January 1959.

Fifty-six years ago in 1959, I was about to graduate from the University of Miami and among my friends were young Cubans sent there to get a degree. I have often wondered which among them returned to Cuba and which, like those who could afford it, were joined by their family who fled Cuba.

The U.S. had been involved with Cuba from the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898 when Spain ceded Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam for $20 million. We stayed in Cuba until it was granted independence in 1902 as the Republic of Cuba. Its first president faced an armed revolt in 1906 so we returned to briefly occupy Cuba to restore some stability, but they never really got the hand of being a democratic self-governing nation.

How much better it would have been for the Cubans if the U.S. had decided to make the island a territory like Puerto Rico. Then we could have let the island prosper without having to end up with becoming a Communist nation closely allied, first with the Soviet Union and after its collapse in 1991, with others like China and Venezuela.

The lesson we might be expected to draw from this is that Communism does not work. It is an utterly failed economic and social system that can only stay in power by jailing or executing anyone who resists. That is exactly what the brothers, Fidel and Raul Castro, have done since seizing power. One consistency of the past five decades has been the anti-America policies they have pursued.

The reason given by Obama was that U.S. policies toward Cuba “have not worked” and that it is time for a change. There is some truth in this and it should be noted that Canada has long had good relations with Cuba as have European and, of course, Latin and South American nations.

Even so, what are we to conclude from the report that Russia plans to join military drills with Cuba and North Korea that may also include Vietnam and Brazil? Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has left it sanctioned and isolated, so the military drills send a message that it still has nations friendly to it, but what nations!

Cuba was caught not long ago when it attempted to ship weapons to North Korea, so we are talking about two dedicated Communist nations. Over the years, it has more than demonstrated its anti-American hostility.

Generally, there is little to be gained by exchanging embassies or relieving Cuba. Lifting our embargo and other sanctions leaves the U.S. with even less leverage, if any.

What has been largely overlooked since Obama’s announcement is the fact that Cuba is still ruled by a Castro and is likely to remain so because Raul’s son, Alejandro Castro Espin, a colonel in Cuba’s intelligence apparatus is likely being groomed to take over after becoming a general and a member of the Communist Party Politburo, Cuba’s ruling body. As noted in an article in The Atlantic, it is the Cuban military not only that plays a major role in the Politburo, it also controls at least sixty percent of the island nation’s economy.

I have no doubt that reaching out to Cuba ranks just below reaching out to Iran as Obama contemplates his “legacy.” Both are notorious enemies of the U.S. Nor would it surprise me if Obama would try to unilaterally shut down Guantanamo. Failing that, he will do everything he can to empty it by the time he leaves office.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba has had to struggle to survive economically. Its earlier behavior got it banned from the Organization of American States that was not lifted until 2009, but which did not confer full membership until it was deemed to be “in conformity with the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS.” At the time, Fidel said he was not interested in joining.

Not much has changed in terms of the enmity the Castro brothers have expressed toward the U.S. but practical considerations to keep unrest among elements of Cuba’s population under control require them to ease some of the earlier control over being able to travel and likely who Cubans can do business with would improve whatever commerce will be permitted.

At this point, the only “winner” is Cuba.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

National Black Groups Should Stop Being Hypocrites

/in , , , /by

Republicans are often criticized, many times unfairly so, for using the “race card” when it comes to the Black community.  Liberals postulate that if Republicans treated the Black voter like any other voter; or treated Black groups like White groups; then the Black community would vote in their own self-interest.

Well, let me shock all my liberal friends by saying I agree 100%.  Let’s now apply this to the real world.

With the onset of summer, this marks the beginning of all the major Black national organizations annual conferences throughout the country.  Groups like the NAACP, the National Urban League (NUL), the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), and the National Newspapers Publishers Association (NNPA), just to name a few.

All these groups “claim” to be nonpartisan, but the reality is that they and their membership are mostly hardcore Democrats.  But what these groups have been masterful at is taking advantage of the Republican’s irrational “fear” of being called racist by the left.  A Republican being labelled a racist is akin to kryptonite to Superman, a cross to Dracula, or water to the bad witch, Evileen.

To my utter amazement, many Black Republican operatives and staffers have bought into this idiotic nonsense.  Most Black staffers throughout the party have the attitude that “we need these groups, so we can’t negotiate with them.  We should be glad that they at least invited a Republican to speak.”

Newsflash, you rarely ever win when you negotiate from a position of weakness.

Last week I received a press release from the National Urban League indicating they had invited all declared presidential candidates to address their upcoming convention this summer.

No Republican should agree to speak at any Black convention unless certain conditions are met.  The biggest, most non-negotiable condition that must be met is that these groups must have Black Republicans on various panels throughout the week of their conventions.

Reince Priebus, as head of our party, should encourage all of our presidential candidates and other party leaders to abide by this recommendation.  As chairman of the party, Priebus cannot force anyone to abide by this; but his recommendation would carry significant clout.

For each convention that our party leaders are asked to participate in, Priebus should put together a list of recommended panelists based on the mission of the particular group in question.

For example, I know for a fact certain that Priebus knows plenty of Blacks who could represent the party before the NAACP and Urban League; people who have a thorough  knowledge and understanding of the role and history of the Republican Party in Civil Rights.

Again, Priebus cannot force a group to accept his recommendation; but as in all negotiations, you must always be ready and willing to walk away if you don’t get what you want.

What is the logic behind having one of our presidential candidates or the chairman of our party address these groups only to have the rest of the week being devoted to panelists who are going to do the bidding of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with no one from our side to present a countervailing view?

If these groups refuse to accept the party’s terms, then there must be an unequivocal rejection of their invitation to speak to at their conference.

For example, the Urban League’s convention is in Ft. Lauderdale, FL this summer.  If they don’t agree to the party’s terms, then there should be no Republican leaders to address their convention. Then the RNC or some other Black Republican group should convene a one day conference to provide a “friendly” platform for Republicans to speak directly to the Black community.  The event should be in the same city as the group who refused to accept the party’s terms, in this case Ft. Lauderdale.

I would take this fight directly to the media and force these groups to answer the question as to why they have no Black Republicans on their various panels; but yet claim to be nonpartisan.

When it comes to the Black community, we must stop being afraid to say no to everything these liberal groups want.  And if we are going to give them something they want, then it must be on our terms.

These Black groups claim they are fighting for equality and diversity, then should we not expect them to practice what they preach?  Why is this equality of opportunity and diversity of thought within the Black community not on display at any of these national conventions?

In life, some things are urgent and some things are important.  It’s urgent that Republicans speak directly to the Black community; but it is important that it be on the party’s terms.

Liberals DO NOT believe in Freedom For All

/in , , , , /by

This past week end, I spent a lot of time outside working on my landscaping.  The long, hard winter of 2014/2015 looks to be over.  And I would just like to say thank you to Global Warming advocates who are still at a loss as to why this planets climate has not lived up to the desert like conditions promised.

I guess global warming equals record cold temperatures and record snow fall.  Well if that is what global warming is, then I will jump on board because I love living in New England and I sure don’t want another Alaska type winter to befall us.  Note the sarcasm.  But I digress.

While working in my yard this past week end, I got to see some of what makes America great.  The freedom of people to be who they want to be.  I saw people walking in shorts and tank tops. Mind you, although it is warm, to me it is far from tank top weather.

I saw folks riding their motorcycles, big ones and small ones.  Some had flags on the back.

Some were the noisy type.  Some were the fast type.  And some were the big, touring grandparent type. I saw folks taking their convertibles out for a week end joy ride probably for the first time this year.  I saw and heard the younger set with all their windows down and music blaring.  Yes, we can hear you a half mile away and you are going to kill your ears by playing music that loud. But at least in most communities, those young people have the freedom to play their music in their car as loud as they want.

And there it is.  The freedom.  I saw people enjoying their freedom.  Nobody telling them they could not walk in a tank top yet.  Nobody passing a law preventing motorcycles from being ridden at this time of year.  No overreaching ordinances telling young people that in order to be legal others cannot hear your music outside of your car at all.

Now this part of the article is for all of my Liberal friends and haters out there.  This is where I point out how hypocritical you are.  Lets take gay rights for example.  Now this is America.  As some would say, ‘Murica.  And this is the land of the free.  Which, you on the left say, means that gays have the right to live as they please.  They have a right to live in peace.  They have a right to love who they please.  They have the right to have a life just like a straight person.  To which many other Americans would agree. But then you turn the tables on everyone else.  You want laws dictating how others act and react around you.  You wish to stifle or take away the freedom and rights of others just to fit your own selfish desires.  You say you want to be free, but you want big government to dictate how we all live and interact with each other.

It would be like telling the person on the fast motorcycle that he is not allowed to go 65 mph on the highway while allowing cars to do that speed.  In other words, you are not asking for freedom.  You are asking for special privileges.  Privileges in which the rest of the population is not able to avail themselves of.  You are asking to separate the people in to classes and groups. Some classes and some groups get more freedom than others.

That kind of thought is straight out of the pages of the novel Animal Farm.  In this novel there is a passage that says, “some animals are more equal than others” which means some animals are not equal at all.

This is the same thought process used to own and keep slaves.  Blacks were not thought of as being equal to whites.  Now gays want to say that straights are not equal to gays.  And thus a straight person has no right to admonish gays in any way.  However, when you ask the question of gays should they be forced to make a T-Shirt for a Muslim that says “gays are infidels and must die” the fast and quick answer is no way.

Well if you have the right to tell a straight person they must make you a t-shirt that says “being gay is fab” then the Muslim has the right to tell the gay person to make him a t-shirt of his choosing. But in order to get around this, gays would say that what the Muslim wants is hate speech.  So you want to create a law that stops hate speech.  Even though, in this country, the Muslim is free to say what he pleases just like you and I.  But you wish to live your life of freedom by taking the rights of others away simply because you don’t like it.

This is not an issue with Muslims.  I need to say it because some of you out there would point out Muslims should not have a right to say what they say.  To which I reply with a query.  Why?  Sure I find a lot of what they say offensive.  But does that give me the right to deny his free speech rights simply because I don’t agree or like his speech? Does this mean that gays should censor straights because they don’t like the fact that some straights don’t agree with homosexuality?  Does it mean that we force the motorcycle to go only 55 instead of 65 because they are not wrapped in a steal cage?

Who decides who gets special rights and who gets their rights denied?  The point is when you deny someone their rights, you are most likely starting down that slippery road process of denying your own rights.  And frankly that makes us all less free.  And less freedom has no place in ‘Murica.

Soviet Fascism in the 21st Century: The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction 

/in , , , /by

Russia’s recent strategy worldwide is extremely alarming, showing Russia’s real aggressive face: Russian Government breaches the security of the White House and our State Department, it harasses NATO in the skies, and continues killing people in Ukraine. I have been warning America about Russian ideology for the last twenty years. Alas, all my writings about Stalin’s Doctrine of Soviet Fascism have been blocked by the White House. This is the reason why none of the Republican candidates to the Presidency in 2016 is addressing the threat of Russian ideology. Yet nothing can stop me from warning you as the harm done to us by Russia has brought America to a threshold of a point of no returns. Moreover, the Democrat Party and its left extremism have learned, embraced, and exploited Stalin’s strategy, tactics, and modus operandi in its fight against the Republicans. This is the time for the Republicans to go on the offensive and save America the Beautiful. Hence the awareness of Stalinism is a Must.

Stalin’s rules: Divide and Conquer

The motto of Divide and Conquer came from the ancient world and has been used many times and mostly successful. You saw it in the1950s –Stalin’s war against Korea and as a result Korea was divided. Then Vietnam, Afghanistan and so on–the wars against Western civilization were going on in the 20th century. Yet. as the history illustrates the motto has not always been successful. The victory of Benjamin Netanyahu is a stunning victory of Western civilization in the Middle East in March 2015. Israeli’s media called the election fateful or prophetic to Israel. They were right. The election was also no less a stunning defeat of our enemies, if you know who they are. For the last twenty years, I have been writing about the war against Western civilization waged, handled, and coordinated by our enemies– the Soviets, then Russia for many decades. Isn’t it strange that the American administration and the Democratic Party provided the leftists in Israel with money for the buses to transport the Arab electorate to vote. This exact fact makes Netanyahu’s victory in the 21st century equal to that of President Reagan’s victory over the Evil Empire in the 20th century. Reagan’s foreign policy “we win, they lose” is the litmus test, which produced an incredible result in 2015.

Don’t be shocked by my comparison, it has its logic. Both cases have defeated the same ideology–Stalin’s Doctrine of Divide and Conquer. Have you heard the term carousel (roundabout) used in the election to the Russian parliament Duma in2007? Do you know what it means? Hearing this word in Russian, I did not understand its application at first. The events that followed had given me the meaning of the word. The United Russia party together with the Kremlin administration had organized the youth movement’s groups providing them with a caravan of buses. I watched them on Russian TV. Young people, singing with enthusiasm occupied the buses and moved along the streets to the voting precincts one after another. The voting ballots were waiting for them and they all voted for United Russia Party. Then they left for other voting places where they voted again and again for United Russia. Reportedly, in several cities printing houses reported that 109 percent voted for United Russia. Do not be surprised. Welcome to the country of Soviet Fascism run by Stalin’s Soviet mafia! Look at the famous Reagan’s creed “we win they lose”–Western civilization won, Obama lost in the Middle East. This is the crux of the matter–the Republican idea has defeated Stalinist Doctrine the way Reagan’s victory over the Evil Empire–”we win, they lose.”

Middle East Yesterday and Today

Of course, there are some differences in the mechanism of application: in Russia everybody was aware of the organized buses, in Israel, it was an American covert, underground operation by a group of Democrats from Chicago that costs the Americans taxpayers $350.000. This is a typical Stalinist performance with blaming Netanyahu for the Palestinian issue. The war by America against Israel had begun. Both cases are analogous–Divide and Conquer. Yet, Obama’s war against Israel is also a conjunction with Stalin’s anti-Semitism. I won’t be surprise if the next American accusation of Israel will be espionage, also a Stalin’s obsession. Moreover, there is another caveat of Russian connection. As you know, recruited in 1957 Arafat is dead, but we have Arafat number 2–Mahmout Abbas; the connection with the Kremlin stays the same. He is literally a student of Moscow with Soviet “academic credentials”; his dissertation had denied the Holocaust. Look at Arafat’s corrupt people surrounding Abbas: the same corrupt structure plus Hamas and Hezbollah under Russia’s supervision, ready to wipe off Israel from the world map. Iran (another Russian proxy) is also there and can become our legal ally soon.

The troublesome events in the Middle East force me to return to the history of the region. Go back to the period 1960-1990 and recall the Soviet activities and actions in the region, particularly in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Iran. It was a time of overwhelming recruitment, infiltration, and radical indoctrination by the Soviet ideology. Stalin’s idea to use the hands of Islam in his war against the West has a long life. Research the time of birth of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Democratic Republic of Yemen building communism in the 1970s then put all the information together vis-a-vis with their connection to contemporary Russia–they are all a product of the same ideology–Soviet Fascism. Don’t be surprised that all terrorists groups, regardless of their names have the same behavior, modus operandi, and agenda. Reading Stalin’s bio, written by me, you will find the explanation for the idea. Stalin was brought up by the Muslim culture and had been an organizer of the Marxists groups in the Islamic part of the Russian Empire–the initial connection of Communism and Terrorism. Stalin had dealt with Sunnis and Shiites and managed to use both skilfully. He worked also in Iran and knew Middle East and Iran pretty well. His political Doctrine and the human capacity for evil have been inherited and used subsequently without any deviations by all Russian leaders who followed him, including Putin.

We, the former citizens of the Socialist countries were growing up in Stalin’s era of hate and bigotry, studying together with the people from Middle East and Africa in the Soviet universities and other educational facilities. The foreign students also got the special training, similar to that received by Arafat in the 1950-1960s. Arafat is dead, yet we have Mahmout Abbas; the connection with the Kremlin stays the same.  Arafat’s corrupt people surrounding Abbas: the same corrupt structure. Look at Yemen, the war started by the Soviet stooges building a communist state in the 1970s never ended there. I expect a more sophisticated global game by Putin with no substantive changes on those places.The only difference is a master-puppet: If it was the Russian supervision and coordination, in the 1950-90s now it is Iran’s–the Russian proxy. The rest is the same–Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestinians (Hezbollah and Hamas) under Iran’s supervision, continue threatening to destroy Israel. We have today what the Chairman of the KGB, Yuri Andropov ( a devoted Stalin’s disciple) had promised to create in the 1970s. According to Andropov:” The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against Israel and her master, American Zionism, would flow naturally from the Muslims’ religious fervor.” Russian Footsteps, by Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review Online, August 24, 2008.)

I have been writing about the future of the Middle East in two Chapters 7 and 8. giving the detailed activities and revealing illustration of Soviet Fascism in the 20 century, in my book What is Happening to America? Xlibris, 2012. The 20th century was Russia’s concealed and planned preparation for the Middle East in the 21st century.. Today the Middle East is on a fire and we are witnessing a multi-Russian aggression on the land, sea, and space, putting fear and pressure on the West. The Middle East is only one front of Russian aggression–Ukraine and Europe are the major task for Putin presently. The Middle East, under Iran’s supervision will play a role by diverting attention from the aggression in Ukraine–a typical Stalin’s double-game with the tricks and propaganda threat. “What’s been going on in Ukraine represents a monumental turning point in the balance of world geopolitical/military power. Why? Well, it’s simply this: Ukraine will very likely go down in history as the country where America, the supposed sole superpower in the world, was checkmated and met its match at the hands of the other superpower in the world – Russia.” April 12, 2015 | Authors: Michael Payne | Nation of Change | Op-Ed.This paragraph has some truth in it. I hope you grasp the predicament in the world–Iran is a player, but not the major player, Russia is. Today America is fully invested in the Middle East being challenged by the Stalinist Doctrine.

Who is to blame for the Escalation of Violence in the World.

Unfortunately, American politicians and media downgrade the importance of ideology. It is an elephant in the room and a tremendous force in contemporary politics, which is not being addressed. For twenty years I have been writing about Soviet Fascism and now I would like to add one crucial aspect of Nationalism–Chauvinism. Chauvinism in politics has been identified very clearly, it is an Ideology — “excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one’s own cause, group, or gender” Encyclopedia. Have you ever compared German National-Socialism and Soviet Stalinism?They are identical in cause and means to achieve the objectives. I suspect, you would argue that Stalin did not have gas chambers for Jews. Wrong! He had applied even more barbaric methods to Jews and Christians–66-80 million of innocent people were annihilated. His death in March 1953 had saved the Jews from genocide equal to that of Chechen, Crimean Tatars, and other groups of different nationalities. As you can see Nationalism and Chauvinism are the features common to both Fascist states. Please read my books and articles for a discussion on the subject of Soviet Fascism.

I have dedicated three books and dozens of articles to the subject. Yet, today we discuss Terrorism more than Ideology; that is the reason why I return to the subject of ideology. Moreover, we are not identifying and naming the enemy, therefore we are confused in the beginning with let alone to identify the Ideology. Stalinism is the foundation of contemporary terrorism–Soviet Fascism has animated Islamic terrorist movement. Hence knowledge of the ideology is a primary task to fight the enemy. Do not forget Stalin’s North Korea with nuclear missiles. As I was writing these words, I am hearing news on the radio that Russia was lifting the ban and shipping a contemporary developed defense-missiles system–S-300 to Iran. Now Russia’s real face described by me in my books, articles, and in this column, vividly exposes Stalin’s agenda of One World Government under the Kremlin auspices and WWIII. Putin is and has always been a devoted disciple of Stalin and Andropov: therefore knowledge of Stalin’s Ideology is a Must today.

The motto Divide and Conquer Stalin learned from Machiavelli and applied it also to already existing divisions. Historically the Muslim world was divided by a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites for centuries. Stalin was dealing with both very skillfully for many years. Putin continues the policy of using both, depending on the location. Look at Yemen today: Shiites, supported by Iran have freed members of Al-Qaeda from a prison and together are fighting Sunnis, supported by Saudi Arabia. And Obama together with Putin are making Iran a strong leader in the Middle East. Doesn’t it make my idea, expressed in this and other articles more and more legitimate? I’ll give you another event to think about. Do you remember who had committed the attacks on 9/11? There were 14 students from Saudi Arabia known to us as the perpetrators of 9/11. Don’t you think that another violent force behind the 9/11 had purposely orchestrated and coordinated the event to spoil relationship between America and Saudi Arabia? Consider the events at Yemen today and the correlation of forces: the answer is there.

Destruction of the Land and Humanity

You have already being informed by me about criminal methods of Stalinism: recruitment, infiltration, drugs, and assassinations. We also discussed the harms inflicted by the Agents of Influence inside and outside our country. To confirm the existential threat upcoming from Russia, let me give you another story, a story of Turkey and its leader. The geographic location of Turkey makes the country a strategical target for Russian objectives. And this story proves it. Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan 2003-2014, became the President of the country in 2014.Turkey had a very good relation with Israel in the beginning of the 21st century. However, the relation has changed dramatically somewhere in 2009-2015–Turkey had become an enemy of Israel, joining Hamas and the Palestinian cause.

Knowing the Russian methods, agenda, and a proclivity to mold a Soviet style charlatan-leaders around the world to engeneere the cadres for fifth column,I started researching the events happening in Turkey. I found out something that attract my attention. During a three year period 2002-2005,Turkey had suffered ten earthquakes. I went to the official statistics and got the dates:January 22,2002, January 27,2003, May 1,2003, March 1,2004, March 25,2004, July 1, 2004, July 30,2004,August 11,2004, January 25,2005, October 20,2005. For those who doesn’t understand the significance of the tragic events in Turkey and drastic changes in its foreign policy, I’d like to add that I have already discussed in my books the Russian ability to create and orchestrate earthquakes. The information will also identify the perpetrator of “climate change” mystery.

I hope you can grasp now my ideas of who is to blame for the escalation of violence in the world. Please, also watch the Democratic Party and especially Obama himself, minimizing the threat of ISIS and other terrorist groups and working in cahoots with Putin to make a major sponsor of International Terrorism Iran a legitimate member of the world community. To confirm the truth of my ideas, of this series and in all my books, please listen to the American Admiral talking about changes the course of History: “ The Obama administration has a strategy: it’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.” Former NAVY CINCPAC, Admiral “Ace” James Lyons, speaking February 11, 2015 in Washington D.C.

To save the American Republic and win WW III, awareness and knowledge about the enemy is imperative.

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com.

America, Land of Hope Amongst Elitist Hypocrites

/in , , , /by

The progressives are guilty of what they have often accused others of being. Hypocrites.

So now the elitist progressives have dubbed the support of traditional marriage between a man and a woman as bigotry equal to racism.  It is amazing how with a straight face at least publicly, the progressives actually equate marriage between a man and a woman with racism and bigotry.  Such an argument obviously borders on insanity.  But the mistake would be to laugh it off and act like it is just silly liberals with nothing better to do.

In fact, such statements are part of a massive orchestrated effort to fundamentally change every good aspect of our constitutionally limited republic.  It is the progressives who are actually the bigoted and hateful ones.  It is they who disdain God’s design for man and woman to come together in holy matrimony and raise children in a solid family unit.  One of the surest ways to maintain a strong, vibrant and blessed society is the continuation of the traditional family.  It was my own Dad who would often tell me that a nation is only as strong as it’s families.

The progressives know that to be true as well.  That is why they have burrowed their way into every sphere of influence throughout society.  They wormed their way deep into the entertainment industry, the education system, the news media, the sports industry, corporate America, the military and even mainline Christian denominations to fundamentally turn those institutions away from the more solid principles they had practiced for eons.  For example, someone in academia telling students that a natural marriage between a woman and a man who desire to be together equates to racism.

Thus, the progressives themselves are displaying their own bias against a successful way of life that has served mankind very well for dozens of centuries.  Those in opposition to the many positive institutions (such as traditional marriage) are on a deviant mission to wedge their more troubling progressive policies of destruction into our American society.  Recently, we witnessed in Indiana how big business, big media along with progressive political leaders use their significant power and influence to topple over good proven religious liberty protections.  This cultural cronyism is a coming together of those in power and influence, who like President Obama desire to fundamentally change America.

The elites are so united, that even though the same amount of amicus briefs have been file at the Supreme Court both supporting and opposing state marriage laws, not one single major law firm has filed a brief supporting marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (That little tidbit was supplied by noted writer, Ryan T. Anderson) Most homosexual, environmental and social justice activists all have one creepy thing in common.  That is the changing of the United States of America from a Christian professing constitutionally limited republic into a Christian loathing politically left of center, where big nanny goat government is god.

I must say, that while the leftist progressives has numerous issues they promote, with homosexual marriage being the hot flavor of the month of June for them, I have a question.  If homosexual marriage is so right and meant to be, why can’t they be fruitful and multiply by just mating alone?  ‘We the People” of America must unite and stand against big government abusing and penalizing sovereign citizens who simply seek to live their lives as they legally and morally see fit.  They must not be forced to travel down the progressive road that leads to destruction.

Have you noticed that the further America is dragged away from the building block principles that made her the one time envy of the world, the more she deteriorates in every aspect, including economics, military decision making, etc.?  For those who insist on comparing a Christian photographer choosing to pass on the opportunity to film a certain type of wedding, here is a news flash!  Whether you like it or not, the Bible affirms that marriage (as God intended) has nothing at all to do with race.  But rather it has everything to do with love between a man and a woman and procreation.  From Genesis to Revelation the Bible specifically deals with husbands and wives in many circumstances.

Thus it is most important not to allow the progressive elites to fundamentally change America in order to bully and go after us Americans who simply maintain our belief in the ONE who shed his grace upon our exceptional nation.  God Bless America and May America Bless God.

Open letter to Martin Dempsey from the mother of a fallen Navy SEAL

/in , , , /by
MARC-LEE1

Marc A. Lee, Navy SEAL

I am shaking and tears are flowing down my cheeks as I watch the news and listen to the insensitive, pain inflicting comments made by you in regards to the fall of Ramadi.

“The city itself is not symbolic in any way” oh really are you willing to meet with me and with the families who have lost a son, daughter, husband, wife, father, mother, aunt, uncle, grandson, or teammate?

My son Marc Lee was the first Navy SEAL who sacrificed his life in Ramadi Iraq Aug 2, 2006. His blood is still in that soil and forever will be. Remember that was when so many of our loved ones were taken from us. You said that “it’s not been declared part of the caliphate on one hand or central to the future of Iraq.” My son and many others gave their future in Ramadi. Ramadi mattered to them. Many military analysts say that as goes Ramadi so goes Iraq.

What about the troops who sacrificed their limbs and whose lives will never be the same. Our brave warriors who left a piece of themselves in Ramadi. What about the troops who struggle with PTS/TBI who watched their teammates breath their last or carried their wounded bodies to be medevac’d out of Ramadi.

I’ve traveled to Ramadi and visited Camp Marc Lee in 2007. I brought back soil from that city where Marc breathed his last. I interviewed Iraqi General Anwer in 2010 when I returned. I asked him “If you could say one thing to the American people what would you tell them? He paused and with deep emotion said “We will tell our children, our grandchildren, for generations to come we will tell them what Americans have done. There is American blood poured out on our soil.” It seems the Iraqis understand the importance more than you do sir.

You sir owe an apology to the families whose loved ones blood was shed in Ramadi. Ramadi matters to us and is very symbolic to us. You need to apologize to our troops whose bodies were blown to pieces from IEDs and bullet holes leaving parts and pieces behind, Ramadi matters to them. You need to apologize to our troops who endured the extreme temperatures and battled the terrorists in some of the worst battlefields in Iraq, Ramadi matters to them. They carry vivid memories of the battles and the teammates whose future is gone, Ramadi matters to them.

You and this administration have minimized that Ramadi could fall, now you are minimizing that it is falling, but you Sir WILL NOT minimize the sacrifice my son Marc Lee made or any of our brave warriors!

Awaiting an Apology

Debbie Lee
www.americasmightywarriors.org
Founder

Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski on Obama’s “No boots on the Ground” gutless tactics

/in , , , /by

Here is a terrific article on College Basketball’s winningest basketball coach, Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski, who just won his 5th NCAA championship last Monday (much to my chagrin. I was cheering for the underdogs, Wisconsin). What a terrific game! Anyway, Coach K hits it on the head with bold his comments towards our Commander in Chief when it comes to that term that turns so many American citizen’s stomachs – “No Boots on the Ground”. And, when I first heard our fearless leader proclaim that “al Qaeda was on the run and that ISIS was a J.V. team, and that we did not need to put boots on the ground to defeat them” – I about lost it…Most of us did…

As I said months ago – “Fighting ISIS without boots on the ground is like playing 18 holes of golf without getting out of your golf cart”. Obama can relate to the latter since that is all he appears to do, but has no clue what it is to go to war against Islamic militants who are destroying this world – one Christian at a time. He still refuses to use the term Islamic Radicals and confesses that Islam is a peaceful religion. But, since Obama is a Muslim, himself – he is afraid to offend our arch enemies in Iran; will not meet with our allies (Israel and Netanyahu); meets with ruthless communist dictators who should have never been taken off the “terrorist list” (Cuba and Castro); and he refuses to play 18 holes of golf without getting out of his golf cart – ISIS will continue to run rampant all over the Middle East, North Africa and will be coming to a theater or Christian church near you if we don’t come to our senses and put boots on the ground very soon…

Being a devout Pro-Lifer all my life, I hate war and any type of violence or torture that comes with it. My heart goes out to those innocent children who live in those war-ravaged countries who have suffered all their lives. I cringe at the mere thought of going to war, but if we are to defend our beloved nation from these radical extremists – whose alibi is that they are doing it for Allah – we will never defeat them by shooting two missiles or dropping a bomb from an airplane once a month on a hopeful target, while possibly killing innocent civilians. Like Coach K says, “You gotta play your best players and not sit out your big men”. Now it’s time to take care of business, put our best big men in, take off those Blue Devil Nike sneakers, lace up those combat boots and put them on the ground…This is not a basketball game, folks – this is a matter of life or death…yours and mine, and those to come after us…

Friends: Until I read this article, I never appreciated Coach K too much. I guess because he is too good a coach and I was always rooting for the underdog. He’s a true perfectionist. Maybe I never appreciated him because I am a former NCAA basketball referee. Maybe because my older brother, Felix, loves them…

Maybe it’s because I had not read this article until now and never realized what an American patriot Coach K truly is. Forget about his 1,000 plus wins and his 5 NCAA Championship rings. Remember and appreciate him for putting his “own boots on the ground” back in 1969 as a soldier in Vietnam so that you and I could live in freedom for all of these years. Fighting the Viet Cong 46 years ago in the rugged jungles of Vietnam was a lot tougher than going up against Wisconsin in the Finals in a beautiful, air-conditioned, state-of-the-art Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis.

Friends: Today, I have utmost respect for Coach Mike Krzyzewski as we need more role models in the NCAA and collegiate athletics who have their priorities right and care about their student-athletes like he has shown for his nearly 40-year coaching career. Having spent almost 20 years officiating college basketball myself (in the SEC, Atlantic Ten, OVC, TransAmerica Conference, etc.), I greatly appreciate those disciplined coaches, athletic directors and administrators who treat their players like family and care more about them graduating with a degree than winning with a ring. Coach K has done it for nearly 4 decades; has that winning formula down; has an overwhelming number of his players graduating with college degrees; and he does it with class, integrity, honesty and compassion. When you have your priorities right and you rely on GOD for a chance at success – victories will always follow…1,018 of them…

Thank you, Coach K. May GOD continue to watch over you and your beloved Blue Devils.

 

Obama Stunned When Duke’s Basketball Coach Makes This Humiliating Accusation

It’s not everyday you wake up to a story where one of the most successful men in all of sporting history decides he’s going to slam the President for being a major coward.

Coach Mike Krzyzewski has led the Duke Blue Devils to 5 NCAA championships. He’s also represented the stars and stripes internationally when he served as the U.S. Basketball team Olympic coach. That, and he’s the first coach in NCAA Division 1-A history to net 1,000 wins.

To say he knows what it takes to lead would be an understatement.

And even though he is no politician, he’s still uniquely qualified to speak on issues of foreign policy because of his brilliance as a basketball strategist (and because of his time spent in the military).

Coach K was set to receive an award at the Army awards conference when he decided he was going to use the podium to denounce how Obama has been leading our men and women in uniform.

He sympathized with our nation’s military leaders and acknowledged how frustrating it must be to have a commander in chief who isn’t willing to help keep our nation’s protectors safe by refusing to put boots on the ground to fight ISIS.

“I know it’s upsetting to many of you when you hear ‘no boots on the ground,’” Coach K said. “It upsets me too because that’s like saying I’m not going to play two of my best players.”

Taking a page out of his own book, he extrapolated how his time leading men’s basketball teams to outright victories parallels leading our military.

He articualted, “It’s about letting your opponent know that we are going to use our best players. Now whether you use them or not, that’s up to the coach. You never tell an opponent you are not going to use them.”

Read more.