PARENTAL WARNING: AMC Theaters forcing Socialism on your children

I recently went to my local AMC theater to watch the film Goosebumps. It is a film that attracts children and their families. Before the film began an advertisement sponsored by The Global Goals for Sustainable Development appeared on the screen.

I understand that AMC Theaters runs ads to increase its revenues, however, this is the first ad that I have seen that targets children and promotes Socialism, sustainable development, fighting climate change, promoting social justice and gender equality. Perhaps AMC should review their advertising policy?

The ad (below) is titled “Project Everyone.” It targets young children.

According to Project Everyone the ad, “Is founded on the principles of ending injustice, ending extreme poverty and fighting climate change. In preparation of the UN’s Global Goals announcement in September, world renown ad agency, BBH and animation studio, Aardman have joined forces to create the first global cinema campaign for worldwide release.” This and other ads by Global Goals are playing in theaters world-wide.

This socialist propaganda must be understood for what it is – the destruction of freedom and capitalism. Parents must be forewarned to tell their children that the United Nations Agenda 21 is not in their best interests and will lead inextricably to tyranny.

PARENTAL WARNING: This ad is rated “S” for Socialism.

The Global Trade in Child Rape by Lori Handrahan

Last Thursday The Guardian reported on a United Nations publication, released in September, that described four U.N. staff fired for trading in images and/or videos of child sex abuse on their work computers. Journalists from Agence France-Presse to Al Arabiya followed this story and referenced that U.N. work computers were involved. The trade in child rape, aka child pornography, in the workplace is an all too common problem that few employers, the U.N. included, are handling properly.

Bloomberg recently profiled a Swedish software, NetClean, that scans workplace computers and reports child porn use to law enforcement. NetClean’s experts estimate one in every 1,000 people trade in child sex abuse images/videos at work. My research suggests this may be a conservative estimate. From pediatric oncologistspolice chiefssenior military staffdaycare and preschool teachers to professors, my research shows that those arrested for child porn in America almost always commit the crime at work.

In August and September, an average of two professors per week in America were arrested, arraigned or sentenced for child porn crimes almost all committed on university and college computers. One example: University of Minnesota professor Christopher DeZutter told law enforcement officers who arrived at his home to arrest him for child pornography, “You are not going find a lot of this at home. I do most of this at the office.” Investigators said his university laptop was “full” of child sex abuse files. This included, as is common, the rape of infants.

Read more.

ABOUT DR. LORI hANDRAHAN

Dr. Lori Handrahan has worked for the United Nations, on and off, for the past 20 years. Her forthcoming book, Child Porn Nation: America’s Hidden National Security Risk, details America’s child sex-abuse epidemic. Her Ph.D. is from The London School of Economics. She can be reached on Twitter @LoriHandrahan2

VIDEO: Free Stuff for Syrian Muslims Coming to America!

This video was prepared by Liberty News Media about Syrian Muslims coming to America.

Steven Camarata, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies released a new analysis today.

As Americans continue to debate what to do about the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, this analysis attempts to estimate the costs of resettling refugees from that region in the United States. Although we do not consider all costs, our best estimate is that in their first five years in the United States each refugee from the Middle East costs taxpayers $64,370 — 12 times what the UN estimates it costs to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries.

The cost of resettlement includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance.

Costs also include processing refugees, assistance given to new refugees, and aid to refugee-receiving communities. Given the high costs of resettling refugees in the United States, providing for them in neighboring countries in the Middle East may be a more cost-effective way to help them.

camarota-refugees-15-t1

Continue reading here.

Ted Cruz: It’s In His Heart

A frustrated hopeless patriot wrote…

Unfortunately Mr. Marcus, it’s not only the left but also the right that is out to destroy America. Wicked people in high places, the elite if you will, control both parties. That is why no matter who is elected that nothing changes.”

This patriot brother’s discouragement explains why I want Ted Cruz in the driver’s seat as president. On numerous occasions, Ted Cruz has proven that he has no problem being odd-man-out in regards to Washington politics. Cruz desires the same for our country as We the People.

I have made the following point numerous times. Politicians promise the moon on the campaign trail. The 64,000 dollar question is who will have the cojones and core conservative instincts to follow through if elected? Atop my list is Ted Cruz.

A gospel classic is titled, “It’s in My Heart.” Folks, Ted Cruz has proven that conservatism is in his heart. Our only hope of liberating ourselves from the “Washington cartel” (both parties conspiring against the people) as Cruz perfectly described it is to select a presidential nominee with conservatism in his/her heart.

Cruz is well experienced in being hated by both political parties and the media. He acts like a duck, allowing their relentless venomous rebukes to roll off his back. Cruz stays laser focused on doing what is right for God, country and We the People. That’s what has me standing up and cheering for Ted Cruz.

I love Dr Ben Carson. However, early in his campaign, I wrote an article praising Dr Carson for standing firm on a non-PC comment he made. My publisher informed me he could not publish the article because Dr Carson apologized. As I stated, I highly respect and love the man, but that action scared me folks. Early in his campaign, political inexperience prompted Dr. Carson to imply that he may be open to controls on owning a semi-automatic weapon depending on where one lives. Dr Carson now stands strong for the Second Amendment.

Trump’s success at slapping PC in the face has emboldened other presidential contenders to do the same, including Dr Carson. Will Dr Carson stand strong for conservatism if elected president?

Donald Trump has been a huge blessing, voicing the frustrations, outrage and desires of millions who long to see America made great again. It is quite remarkable that because of racial guilt, we have allowed an anti-American regime to dethrone us as the world power and transform us culturally, morally and economically for the past seven years. But I digress.

Unquestionably, if elected, Trump will make positive changes regarding our economy and immigration. On social issues extremely critical to who we are as a people, I do not sense much passion, urgency or commitment from brother Donald.

Ted Cruz is the total package.

Here are just a few of Sen Cruz’s greatest hits standing up for America and conservatism. With facts and common sense, Cruz crushed can’t-we-all-just-get-along-with-the Left John Kasich in debating Obama’s insane Iran Nuke deal

Cruz fearlessly called out the CNBC debate moderators, exposing them as “left-wing operatives.” 

Cruz blasted Obama for supporting sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law; endangering the lives of Americans.

Democrats arrogantly refuse to obey laws they do not like such as immigration law. This same bunch of Democrats/Leftists jailed Christian clerk Kim Davis. Davis refused to betray her faith by issuing same sex marriage licenses. Some Republicans/conservatives faltered. Cruz sent out a clarion call to “constitutionalists and lovers of liberty” to stand with Kim Davis. 

Cruz promises his first day as president will be extremely busy. He will “rescind every illegal executive action taken by Barack Obama,” including his “executive amnesty.” Cruz will instruct the DOJ to investigate Planned Parenthood and prosecute any criminal conduct uncovered.

Obama has been using the DOJ and IRS as his personal hit-squads against anyone opposing his transformation of America. Cruz promises to instruct both agencies to “cease persecuting” individuals for standing up for their rights.

Remember the Catholic nuns that have been helping the poor and elderly since 1839 bullied by Obama for not signing on to birth control against their faith? Cruz said as president he will send the Little Sisters of the Poor a letter dismissing their case. Cruz would also invite them to the WH to tell the world their story.

Continuing his first day in the Oval Office cleaning house, Cruz will end Obama’s catastrophic Iran Nuke deal. Ending day one as president, Cruz will begin the process of moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Cruz said moving our embassy to Israel’s “eternal capital” sends the world the message that we stand with our allies. 

Folks, any one of our GOP presidential contenders is far superior than soulless politician and sociopath Hillary Clinton. Hillary in the White House would be a continuation of the Barack Obama nightmare. The only difference is the MSM would characterize opposing Hillary’s far left radical policies as sexism rather than racism. You know the drill folks.

Therefore, I will wholeheartedly rally behind our GOP nominee; Dr Carson, Trump or any of the others.

But the candidate who checks all of my boxes for not giving a rat’s derriere about what the Washington cartel and media thinks of him; the candidate who places America and her people first; the candidate who is unapologetic regarding his Christian faith; passionately defends liberty and honors our Constitution is Sen Ted Cruz. Will Cruz remain the same person when elected? You betcha!

Drug Overdoses Killed More Americans Than Car Crashes or Guns

Susan Jones from CNS News reports:

“Drug overdose deaths are the leading cause of injury death in the United States, ahead of motor vehicle deaths and firearms (deaths),” the Drug Enforcement Agency announced on Wednesday.

In 2013, the most recent year for which data is available, 46,471 people in the United States died from drug overdoses, and more than half of those deaths were caused by prescription painkillers and heroin.

That compares with the 35,369 who died in motor vehicle crashes and 33,636 who died from firearms, as tallied by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Sadly this report confirms what we’ve known for some time: drug abuse is ending too many lives while destroying families and communities,” Acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg said as he released the 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment.

“We must stop drug abuse before it begins by teaching young people at an even earlier age about its many dangers and horrors.”

Read more.

VIDEO: How to Stop Violent Crime

In a strongly worded five-minute video, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre is calling on Barack Obama and other politicians to help stop violent crime by focusing on prosecuting violent criminals—not further restricting law-abiding gun owners.

“We’ve lived through the Clinton administration’s utter lack of federal gun prosecutions, and the Obama administration is following suit, while the country suffers,” LaPierre said. “And we know that a second Clinton administration will just mean more of the same.”

LaPierre added that gun-banners—whether politicians or media—won’t silence the men and women of the NRA.

“No organization has been louder, clearer or more consistent on the urgent need to enforce the federal gun laws than the NRA,” he said. “And in the face of mounting political and media pressure to demean, shame and silence us … we will fight.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Georgia Became a Haven for Violent Illegal Immigrants

Congress Shouldn’t Ground Air Marshals Amid Current Threats, Their Boss Says

George Soros: National Borders Are The Enemy

Multi Billionaire Soros a major financial supporter and benefactor of Obama and Hillary Clinton believes National Borders should be eliminated in total disregard of the fact that Europe and its culture is being over-run by massive and practically uncontrollable emigration from Muslim countries by people who will not assimilate and intend to set up their ‘Islamic Sharia’ laws.These immigrants intend to set up a ‘parallel’ society until they become a majority and ultimately will displace Christianity and European culture.They also expect the host population to support them in this endeavor. So far this is what’s happening.

It is unlikely Europe will remain a Western civilization in 25 to 50 years from now.

Soros anti border philosophy has been adopted by Obama and his Democrat followers including Hillary Clinton as evidenced by Obama’s executive immigration actions to change U.S. demographics. Obama has demonstrated his disregard for U.S. immigration laws by adopting much of Soros philosophy. Clinton is also a follower of the Obama and Soros philosophy.

President Ronald Regan said , “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”

Soros, Obama’s and Clinton’s benefactor are proving Reagan was right.


SOROS: NATIONAL BORDERS ARE THE ENEMY

The radical billionaire denounces his native Hungary for protecting its borders and culture.

By Matthew Vadum

The preeminent funder of border-busting campaigns in the U.S. and overseas now openly admits his efforts in Europe are aimed at destroying national borders on that continent.

The unusually frank statement from frequent coup kingpin George Soros comes after Hungary’s prime minister accused him of helping to orchestrate the ongoing invasion of the landlocked nation and the rest of Europe by illegal aliens. Soros is arguably the biggest mass migration-promoting coyote on the planet. He is also an admitted Nazi collaborator, described by David Horowitz as a “deracinated Jew,” who argues that Muslims are treated so badly in the West that they are the new Jews. Soros doesn’t care that these migrants and Syrian war refugees are largely Muslim men and that intelligence agencies fear that many of the new arrivals have connections to Islamic terrorism.

Besieged Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán said the ongoing invasion of his country is “driven, on the one hand, by people smugglers, and on the other by those [human rights] activists who support everything that weakens the nation-state.”

“This Western mindset and this activist network is perhaps best represented by George Soros.”

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

George Soros admits he’s toppling EU borders

Khamenei Orders Blocking of Imports from U.S.

Khamenei: Talks with U.S. on Regional Issues Are Pointless

Iran Not to Implement Nuclear Deal until Sanctions Repealed, Iranian Lawmakers Say

Why Tennessee Forces Seventh Graders to Learn Islam by Kevin Currie-Knight

How big is the distinction between education and indoctrination? Not terribly, if you ask some Tennessee lawmakers. They are pushing to remove any mention of religion from Tennessee’s State Academic Standards. At issue is an apparently controversial unit in seventh grade world history class that spends some time exploring Islam. At some point, the students even need to commit the five pillars of Islam to memory.

Needless to say, this issue has generated a lot of heat on all sides. State Representative Sheila Butts (R) believes that exposing students to Islam threatens to indoctrinate them. Others argue that students can’t effectively learn about world history without developing an understanding of the religions that shape that history, which includes Islam. (And for the record, the Tennessee State Academic Standards cover Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Shinto; it just so happens that in seventh grade world history, students cover Islam before other religions.)

Let’s put aside the question of what the right way to teach history is, at least for a moment. What worries me, as a school choice advocate, is that within a public school system, whatever decision is made will be a political one, and the results will apply to all public schools across the state. There will be a winning side and a losing side, and the losing side — throughout the entire state of Tennessee — will have little choice but to send their children to public schools that teach in a way they see as unsatisfactory. And who will choose what side prevails? The state’s department of education.

Within a public school system, whatever decision is made will be a political one, and the results will apply to all public schools across the state. 

Religion has always been a thorny issue in US schools. In the early 1800s, American “common schools” were very Protestant, which led to a stand-off in New York by Catholics who understandably didn’t want their tax money going to Protestant public schools. (Eventually, many frustrated Catholics formed their own private Catholic schools.)

In 1922, the state of Washington outlawed all private schools (a law the Supreme Court found unconstitutional), largely motivated by a desire to eliminate Catholic schools. Since then, we’ve had legal battles over school- led prayer and student-led prayer, over whether schools can or should teach creation accounts of human origins in biology classes, and even over whether schools can allow “released time,” where students can leave school premises to learn about a religion of their choice during the school day.

Few of these controversies would have been as heated in a system of private schools. With markets, what goes on within one firm doesn’t dictate what must go on in another. If Chick-Fil-A wants to stay closed on Sundays, that doesn’t mean that Burger King can’t choose to remain open. Back in the days when video stores were a thing, Hollywood video could choose to carry “racy” films, but that didn’t mean that Blockbuster (which took a “family values” approach) had to. People are free to shop at stores that are most in line with their values.

But that is not how disagreements play out in public schools. In the government’s school system, curricular and other decisions apply across a large territory, usually the entire state. When textbooks for science classes are chosen, all public schools in the state must use those textbooks. When the courts decide that schools cannot lead students in prayer, that decision applies to all public schools across the state. And when curricular standards for seventh grade world history are revised for the state of Tennessee, the resulting standards apply for all public schools in the state.

In a private market, these decisions could be what economists call non-zero-sum situations. If you are appalled that your child must memorize the five pillars of Islam in our children’s history class and I am not, you can decide to take that up with the school and, if you still don’t get your desired result, you can try to find a school that better aligns with your values. But that won’t negatively affect other families who are fine with their children learning about Islam. Neither of us is in a position where a central department of education makes those decisions for everyone. All of us are free to find or start schools in line with our values.

These differences turn into heated conflicts when you and I disagree in a public school system, because for either of us to get our way, the other will have to lose. Instead of taking the issue up with the school, we take it up with the school board for the entire state to see who can garner the most favor.

Imagine if Chick-Fil-A could only close on Sundays if it got enough support to sway the Board of Rapid Dining Establishments to force Burger King and all other restaurants to do the same.

Historian of education Charles Glenn has written about the noisy history of religion’s place in America’s public schools. He writes of the difficulty American public education has had in finding one approach that accommodates all of our rich religious and cultural diversity. He concludes, “We have reason to hope that America may achieve a degree of pluralism in its schools, but important changes are needed. American public education should be disestablished and demythologized.”

But wait, critics might say; if we disestablish public education and allow for robust school choice, doesn’t that mean that some will choose educational forms that I regard as abhorrent?

Yes, I am sure that will happen. But in the world we inhabit, there is vast and persistent disagreement about what the proper elements are for a good education, a very complex issue. Until the day when we reach a truly voluntary consensus on what a good education looks like (not, as we do today, a consensus forced on us by legislation), the better path is to allow individuals to opt out of schools they believe teach inconsistently with their values.

That means you can go your way, I can go mine, and the state department of education never has the thankless task of deciding who is right.

Kevin Currie-Knight

Kevin Currie-Knight

Kevin Currie-Knight teaches in East Carolina University’s Department of Special Education, Foundations, and Research.

Vassar College Professor: ‘The Constitution is an oppressive document’

Assistant Director of Equal Opportunity at Vassar College caught on hidden camera shredding constitution and “The Constitution is an oppressive document” says Carol Lasser, Professor of History-Oberlin College.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Winston Churchill Thought the American Constitution Was Important

EDITORS NOTE: The music used in this Project Veritas video is provided by international Hip Hop sensation Murdakkh. You may follow Murdakkh on Twitter and Instagram. To learn more about Project Veritas go here, donate here, like them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

George Soros: Europe Must Take in One Million Muslim Migrants a Year

We told you about the role of Hillary pal George Soros here the other day.  But, since everyone is talking about it, be sure to see Soros’ manifesto on how to bring down European borders forever.

Out of his own mouth (hat tip: Skip).  The asylum seekers are the victims!

The European Union needs to accept responsibility for the lack of a common asylum policy, which has transformed this year’s growing influx of refugees from a manageable problem into yet another political crisis. Each member state has selfishly focused on its own interests, often acting against the interests of others. This precipitated panic among asylum seekers, the general public, and the authorities responsible for law and order. Asylum seekers have been the main victims.

[….]

First, the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly – a principle that a qualified majority finally established at last Wednesday’s summit.

Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs – and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states.

By the way, for those of you thinking that Soros is an old man and we don’t have to deal with him for much longer, remember he has children who I am told are ready to continue his ‘legacy.’

Go here to see a 2013 post we wrote and see Soros, son Jonathan and David Miliband (former British Foreign Secretary who heads one of our nine major resettlement contractors) at awards ceremony for Soros.  You (the American taxpayer) give over $300 million to the International Rescue Committee which honors Soros who works day and night to destroy borders around the world!

George Soros is a Hungarian-born American business magnate, investor, author, and philanthropist. He is chairman of Soros Fund Management. Wikipedia:

Born: August 12, 1930 (age 85), Budapest, Hungary

Spouse: Tamiko Bolton (m. 2013), Susan Weber Soros (m. 1983–2005), Annaliese Witschak (m. 1960–1983)

Children: Alexander Soros, Andrea Soros, Jonathan Soros, Gregory Soros, Robert Soros

Organizations founded: Open Society Foundations, More

RELATED ARTICLES:

WND: 100 cities vying for immigrants (legal and illegal) expecting them to boost local economy

UNHCR estimated daily European arrivals

York County, SC resolution fails, but public gets educated!

The Enemy of Affordable Housing by Sandy Ikeda

Will restricting housing options for the wealthy benefit the poor? Is more regulation the solution to problems created by past regulations? And how can we avoid the interventionist cycle that Ludwig von Mises warned us about?

Critics of Airbnb are not asking these questions. In California, they have proposed stringent regulations to reign in the Internet-based, home-sharing business.

Aligning Interests

One of the marvels of the unhampered market is the way it aligns the interests of buyers and sellers. If the price is too high, a potential buyer is better off keeping her money; if the price is too low, a potential seller is better off keeping his product. When the price is right, trade happens because both expect it to make them better off.

Even when economists note possible exceptions to this harmony of interests — such as market power, asymmetric information, externalities, or behavioral “irrationalities” — most recognize that entrepreneurial competition in a free market will limit or even eliminate their negative effects over time.

In this case, which would be better? Having the government regulate the behavior you disapprove of, or getting rid of the bad rules that prevent people’s own choices from regulating it? When there is public outcry over certain entrepreneurial practices, the political reaction is to compel an outcome that those with political power approve of. In contrast, the scientific approach is to listen to the objections but then try to find the underlying source of the problem.

What Is Seen

From the economic point of view, Airbnb serves to significantly lower the costs of listing, finding, or renting lodging to the general public. Other things equal, it improves the well-being of those involved. In San Francisco, Proposition F would considerably tighten regulations on this popular service.

Among other things, as the ballot initiative reads, Prop F

would restrict all such private rentals to 75 nights per year and impose provisions designed to ensure such private rentals are paying hotel taxes and following city code. It would also require guest and revenue reports from rental hosts and “hosting platforms” every three months.

Prop F’s advocates argue that in San Francisco, wealthy, profit-hungry owners use Airbnb to charge high rents to short-term customers for their vacant residences. They contend that this practice takes much-needed units from an already extremely tight, long-term housing market. That, in turn, shrinks the pool of housing available to lower-income families who are already having trouble renting in one of the most expensive areas of the country. So it appears that the relatively wealthy are profiting at the expense of the relatively poor.

Similar disputes are happening in other cities, such as New York.

Those who support Prop F and call for regulation apparently believe they have the moral and intellectual high ground.

No reasonable and compassionate person likes to see low-income families struggle for housing. Unfortunately, if you question the effectiveness of some cherished public policy, there are too many people who reflexively question your motives, your intelligence, or both.

But a win-at-all-costs attitude in political debate is not conducive to rational and civil discourse.

What Is Unseen

Why don’t entrepreneurs in San Francisco respond to sky-high rents, as economics suggests, by increasing the supply of housing instead of using Airbnb? What’s hard to see in the heated, off-the-cuff political debates are the consequences of rent regulations in San Francisco. According to journalist Meagan McArdle, San Francisco’s rent regulations have meant that “a growing number of landlords don’t want to rent their places at all; it’s too much hassle for too little reward.” Under the circumstances, Airbnb brings at least some of that housing supply into a segment of the rental market.

Also, as Business Insider recently pointed out:

Since San Francisco is located on a peninsula, there’s pretty much only one way for the city to add new housing units: by growing vertically. With taller buildings, San Francisco would be able to fit more housing and thus lower rents. But as Y Combinator partner Garry Tan pointed out in a tweet this weekend, that’s not even an option under current city zoning regulations.

And there’s more.

The surrounding cities and suburbs of San Francisco are also subject to strict building codes. Those who might like to live on the outskirts of San Francisco, and redirect some of the high demand from the city, have fewer options because residents in outlying areas support building codes they think will protect the value of their homes.

Indeed, a housing advocacy group is trying to sue the East Bay town of Lafayette to force it to relax building restrictions on housing density. (See my February 2015 Freeman article, “Shut Out: How Land-Use Regulations Hurt the Poor,” on the regressive effects of building restrictions.)

The Political Economy of Housing Regulations

Passage of Prop F would mean a significant loss of business to Airbnb, which is why the company is reportedly spending millions of dollars to fight it. On the other side, concerned citizens and organizations have reportedly been getting help from the hotel industry, which is anxious to restrain the competition from the sharing economy.

Airbnb, Uber, and other “gap economy” businesses are themselves attempts to address markets that are underserved because of overregulation.

The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises described the cycle this way: profit-seeking entrepreneurs respond to the incentives created by bottlenecks and shortages that prior interventions have artificially created. Political activists in turn respond with more regulations. It’s an almost endless cycle that history teaches us usually doesn’t end well.

What’s the best way to improve housing options for low-income families? Taking time to scientifically question the wisdom of Prop F doesn’t make us bad people, and it’s not irrational to refrain from imposing political solutions on problems created by prior political “solutions.” Indeed, looking behind what is obvious and beyond the passions of the moment is the only way of breaking that vicious cycle.

Sandy Ikeda
Sandy Ikeda

Sandy Ikeda is a professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism.

Government Is Why the Rent Is Too Damn High by Randal OToole

Rising home prices and apartment rents have been in the news lately, but almost no one is looking at the real causes behind these problems.

Instead, they are proposing band-aid solutions that will do little to help most people afford housing but will greatly benefit special interest groups.

According to the news, BostonLos AngelesMiamiNew YorkPortlandSan FranciscoOaklandSan JoseSeattle, and Washington, DC, among other major urban areas, are all suffering from housing crises. Economists who have studied these regions know why their housing is becoming less affordable.

First, urban-growth boundaries and other land-use regulations in most of these regions have limited the amount of land available for new housing. Urban planners say these regulations are needed to control the externalities caused by urban sprawl.

However, as New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister recently noted in a speech about a similar housing crisis in Auckland, urban planning itself “has become the externality” that is making housing the most expensive.

Second, in many of these regions — specifically, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco-Oakland, San Jose, and Washington — rent control has only made housing less affordable for everyone not lucky enough to live in a rent-controlled apartment.

Even though some of these cities exempt new developments from rent-control rules, developers know that such exemptions could be eliminated at any time and are wary of investing in new housing.

Many of these and other cities have also passed “inclusionary zoning ordinances” that force developers to sell or rent 10 to 20 percent of the new housing units they build at below-market rates, which both discourages new development and increases the cost of the market-rate units that are built.

Although these problems are obvious to anyone who understands the rudiments of supply and demand, they are almost completely ignored by politicians, housing officials, and low-income housing advocates.

Instead, the almost exclusive focus is on building government-subsidized (or, in the case of inclusionary zoning, developer-subsidized) housing. Yet this does nothing to solve the problem for the vast majority of homebuyers and renters.

California has the nation’s second-least affordable housing (after Hawaii), and probably has some of the most aggressive subsidized housing programs. Yet a recent report from the state legislative analyst’s office found that these programs have produced only about 7,000 subsidized housing units per year, or about 5 percent of new housing.

In a state that has nearly 14 million homes and apartments, adding 7,000 subsidized units per year will have no measurable influence on overall prices, especially in the face of growth boundaries and other factors that make housing expensive.

So why is so much emphasis placed on a policy that won’t work while a policy of deregulating land markets is ignored? The answer is that long-standing federal subsidies to housing have created an affordable-housing-industrial complex that thrives on subsidies in unaffordable housing markets and whose reason for existence would be severely diminished if those markets were deregulated.

Take, for example, Enterprise Community Partners (ECP), whose mission (as described on its IRS Form 990) is “to create opportunities for low and moderate-income people through affordable housing.”

ECP is heavily funded by your tax dollars to promote affordable housing, getting much of its tax support through Section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993, which specifically designates ECP as a grant recipient.

Enterprise Community Partners has certainly found the business of promoting a few units of affordable housing, as opposed to making all housing more affordable, to be quite lucrative, at least for many of its staff.

According to its tax form, only a quarter of the organization’s $58 million annual expenses went to grants aimed at making more affordable housing, while 62 percent went for salaries, benefits, and professional service contracts. (The rest went for things like conferences, travel, rent, and office expenses.)

More than two dozen of its staff members earned more than $200,000 in salaries and benefits in 2013. The United States of America gets along with just one vice president; ECP has sixteen of them, half of whom make more than the $230,700 per year taxpayers pay to Joe Biden.

The organization’s tax form also admits that it spent nearly $600,000 on lobbying in 2013. Thus, groups like ECP that focus on creating a few units of affordable housing, while they ignore the real problem, become self-perpetuating. They use taxpayer dollars lobby to continue their tinkering at the edges of affordability while they and the people who listen to them do nothing about the overall affordability problem in regions with strict land-use regulation and rent control.

This post first appeared at Cato @ Liberty.

Randal OToole
Randal OToole

Randal O’Toole is a Cato Institute Senior Fellow working on urban growth, public land, and transportation issues.

China’s Crazy New Five-Year Plan by Richard Lorenc

Earlier this week, the Chinese Communist Party rolled back one of the most egregiously illiberal vestiges of its bloody recent past by replacing the one-child policy with a new and improved limit of two children. Going forward, urban Chinese are permitted legally to grow their families slightly larger than before, even if their first child is a boy. (Rural Chinese were previously allowed to “try again” if their first child was a girl.)

The one-child policy was implemented in 1979, nominally, to allay social and environmental concerns that would supposedly be caused by “overpopulation.” China’s population had reached a level just shy of 1 billion. One of the policy’s originators calculated China’s optimal population to be 700 million; he estimated that a one-child policy would reduce the number of Chinese to that level by 2080 without famine or genocide.

It was an abrupt reversal of Mao’s decades-long encouragement to grow the Chinese labor force by having as many children as possible.

As times changed, so did the trendy Communist policies. By the time Deng Xiaoping took over as China’s dictator, he opened China to foreign trade, dismantled the farm commune system, and permitted greater freedom for peasants to bring their goods to market.

Beijing wanted to plan economic growth, so it expanded freedom in the market and drastically reduced freedom in the family. Reducing the birthrate, they thought, would automatically increase per capita GDP as previous generations faded.

Of course, the Chinese economy during Deng’s time did grow dramatically, thanks to its opening to the world and economic liberalization, setting the stage for the Chinese economic powerhouse of today.

The Futile Hamster Wheel of Planning

Despite implementing market-oriented reforms, Deng remained a central planner at heart. His policies were part of a new kind of five-year plan used by China for decades and modeled after Stalin’s controlled-economy approach in the Soviet Union. Five years at a time, the government would announce its economic goals and how it planned to reach them.

Soviet five-year plans were infamous for their ludicrous precision, including setting quotas for output of nails. When evaluated by quantity, Soviet factories would produce minuscule nails. When evaluated by weight, they would produce gigantic, heavy nails. Both varieties were useless to people who needed nails, but that was irrelevant to the economic planners seeking to reach their arbitrary goals, and the bureaucrats who sought to appease them.

The five-year-plan approach remains a mainstay of China’s government’s policies, and at the Communist Party conference this week, the state announced the 13th five-year plan — the shi san wu, literally meaning “13 five.”

No one outside of the Chinese Communist Party really knows what the 13thfive-year plan contains (another unveiling is scheduled for March 2016), but speculation is that it will focus on welfare-state reforms, environmental policies, and subsidies for local government spending.

To generate buzz for the plan outside of China, the government commissioned a flashy video that extols the virtues of experts and planning.

One of the most revealing parts of the video is its focus on experts and consultation. A segment of dialogue highlights this approach.

But how do they make all the plans?

First there’s research, views collected. Then discussion and views projected.

Reports get written and passed around. Then there’s…there’s actually more research, and more discussion, more research, and more discussion. Like, at every level! Over and over, like, through hundreds of rounds.

Like, through hundreds of rounds!

Ok, we got it! Hundreds of rounds!

Oh, my God.

Crazy, right?

Yes, crazy.

Just ask F.A. Hayek.

The Curious Task of Economics

Hayek understood the market as a process for gathering all of the tiny bits of constantly changing information dispersed among all the individuals in an economy. He saw experts as overly confident in their information and completely unequipped to make decisions on behalf of people they don’t even know.

In his great book The Fatal Conceit, Hayek articulated one of the most blistering critiques of those who would plan the lives of others: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

He expounded on this provocative idea by explaining how economic order is not so much a state to be reached as a constantly evolving flow, changing by the moment as it responds to the needs, wants, and desires of individuals.

To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.

Instead of five-year plans (or central, top-down plans of any duration), Hayek argued the only way to “plan” an economy would be to decentralize economic decision making to the lowest possible level. In most cases, that would mean permitting individual decisions to accumulate into an emergent economic order, moment by moment.

Despite the best-laid plans of Chinese Communist Party leaders, an unplanned order emerges, based on what individual Chinese people value. A five-year plan doesn’t prevent market forces from acting, but it does make them less effective in serving people well.

When fully announced, the shi san wu will probably include some good market-based ideas, but it continues the Chinese Communist Party’s admittedly crazy notion that it can forcibly design an economy for normal people based on the ideas of experts.

Richard Lorenc
Richard Lorenc

Richard N. Lorenc is the Chief Operating Officer of FEE and Publisher of the Freeman.

U.S. State Department Denies Middle East Christians Refugee Status

iraqi christiansThe NER November edition interview with U.S. Iraqi Christian leader Joseph T. Kassab, “Iraqi Christians Face Extinction” is illustrated by the experience of Syrian Christians  Nina Shea of the Center for Religious Freedom writes about them in a National Review on-line article published, today,  “The State Department Turns Its Back on Syrian Christians and Other Non-Muslim Refugees.”  Shea’s bottom line tells why so few imperiled Iraqi and Syrian Christians and other non- Muslim minorities have been admitted by our State Department for asylum as humanitarian refugees. They are largely ‘urban refugees’ as Kassab pointed out in our Iraqi Christian interview. They don’t qualify under UN rules that our State Department slavishly adheres to. One of our first NER articles in January 2008 drew attention to that problem, “Why Is the UN Determining Who Becomes Humanitarian Refugees in the US?

Note this exchange with Kassab in our interview about the quandary facing Iraqi Christian ‘urban refugees’ in the Kurdish Regional Government:

Gordon:  What are the current conditions of Iraqi Christian refugee camps in the Kurdish Region and what kinds of assistance are they receiving?

Kassab:  The current conditions for Iraqi Christian IDPs are very chaotic and horrific. The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) is doing its best to provide for them. However, they are unable to absorb more than 3 million refugees from Syria and Yazidis in their region. The Iraqi government has done nothing for its citizen IDPs. Corruption is very high among the Iraqi government officials and that by itself makes distribution of relief to its IDPs very poor. The UN and humanitarian local and international NGOs are unable to function properly due to lack of coordination and efficient capacity. Therefore people are losing hope and are availing of any opportunity to escape abroad. Christians are urban refugees-IDPs meaning that they do not live in UN refugee camps. Instead they seek shelter with relatives, in unfinished buildings, parks and churches. Overall, this support can be very short lived because volunteering always has a sunset.

Shea cites the paltry admissions of Syrian Christians and other minorities by the State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration:

Over the past five years of Syria’s civil war, the United States has admitted a grand total of 53 Syrian Christian refugees, a loneYazidi, and fewer than ten Druze, Bahá’ís, and Zoroastrians combined. That so few of the Syrian refugees coming here are non-Muslim minorities is due to American reliance on a United Nations refugee-resettlement program that disproportionately excludes them. Past absolute totals of Syrian refugees to the U.S. under this program were small, but as the Obama administration now ramps up refugee quotas by tens of thousands, it would be unconscionable to continue with a process that has consistently forsaken some of the most defenseless and egregiously persecuted of those fleeing Syria.

The gross underrepresentation of the non-Muslim communities in the numbers of Syrian refugees into the U.S. is reflected year after year in the State Department’s public records. They show, for example, that while Syria’s largest non-Muslim group — Christians of the various Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions — constituted 10 percent of Syria’s population before the war, they are only 2.6 percent of the 2,003 Syrian refugees that the United States has accepted since then.

Here is the explanation given by a State Department official concerned about religious minorities:

In an e-mail to me, Knox Thames, the State Department’s new special adviser for religious minorities, wrote that “many minorities have not entered the UN system because they are urban refugees.” That is, because they live far from the remote U.N. camps and aid centers, they lack the information and access to register. And, as is widely known, many non-Muslim refugees try hard to avoid these camps.

Like Iraqi Christians who opt for church-run camps over better-serviced U.N. ones, Syrian minorities fear hostility from majority groups inside the latter. According to British media, a terrorist defector asserted that militants enter U.N. camps to assassinate and kidnap Christians. An American Christian aid group reported that the U.N. camps are “dangerous” places where ISIS, militias, and gangs traffic in women and threaten men who refuse to swear allegiance to the caliphate. Such intimidation is also reportedly evident in migrant camps in Europe, leading the German police union to recommend separate shelters for Christian and Muslim migrant groups.

Shea noted the response by the current UN High Commissioner for Refugees at a recent Washington conference:

At a discussion of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on October 27, I directly questioned U.N. High Commissioner António Guterres, an otherwise ardent advocate of diversity, about the short shrift that his office has given all Syria’s non-Muslim minority communities. His rambling reply failed to reassure. He said that, while some individuals should be resettled, as a Catholic he felt that Christians should not leave, because they’re part of the “DNA of the Middle East”; moreover, he said, Lebanon’s former president asked him not to resettle the Christians. Was he revealing a policy of religious bias and unlawful geo-political calculations for U.N. refugee determinations? Or was his sentiment a smokescreen behind which he was trying to flick off an issue he regarded as insignificant?

Like Iraqi Christian advocate Kassab, a prominent Chaldean Bishop in the Western US, Sarho Jammo, is “imploring that Christians be included in the new allotments for humanitarian refugees from the Middle East issued by the Administration.

Shea concludes:

According to a recent UNHCR posting, 19,000 Syrians picked straight from “refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan” have received U.N. approval and are awaiting resettlement in the U.S.  In October, President Obama ordered their expedited admission. Without further action, however, only token numbers of non-Muslim minorities will be among those rescued. George Carey, former archbishop of Canterbury, called it right about the Christian refugees and his words equally apply to Syria’s other non-Muslim communities: They are being “left at the bottom of the heap.”

It is clear from both our NER interview with Kassab and Shea that without Congress amending the Refugee Act of 1980 the State Department is fostering the extinction of Middle East Christians by adhering to UNHCR allotment criteria. If they cannot be provided sanctuary and asylum in the US, under the current UNHCR definitions, then special waivers should be granted lifting those restrictions to utilize the special P2/P3 Family Reunification Visa program.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

The Texas Estates Code – Weapon of Mass Destruction

“Money Talks, Disability Does Not.”  

The Texas Estates Code qualifies the disqualified and disqualifies the qualified for Cash.

Cause No. 415959; In re Andrew Stephen Keith Guardianship (Probate Court 3)

I am a licensed Texas attorney (1998) and certified attorney ad litem (AAL) bythe State of Texas. I graduated in the top 1% of my law school class and worked at top Texas law firms until founding a non-profit for disabled children, Attorneys For Special Needs Children, in 2010. In 2013, ElderLaw Advocates was formed and our Radio Program expanded its scope to the elderly and disabled in guardianship.

I am also a pre-med major with three years of training at the University of Texas Austin Health Science Center and later, studied to become a psychotherapist at the University of Houston program pre-doctorate. I understand dementia, autism, Alzheimers, and medical / psychological conditions more than most, although my true expertise is special education.

My journey in disability law began under the mentorship of Texas Education Agency Hearing Officer James Holtz. James Holtz is without question on a short list of special education hearing officers. Mr. Holtz served 25 years as a mediator and Judge for the State of Texas, charged with the duty to determine whether children receive a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”), the minimum required by federal law under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). This became my job as well.

The IDEA mandates that disabled students be tested in every area of suspected disability every three years unless the parent waives this right. Andrew’s father was so cruel and incompetent, he waived Andrew’s testing for 7 straight years before my client, Sharon Keith, had the opportunity to help her son by having the benefit of knowing what was going on. Her ex husband made sure that the school district kept her in the dark until I got involved when Andrew was a free agent at 18.

Andrew’s father waived testing for 7 years, rendering his program absolutely deficient. His father removed him from medically necessary speech and occupational therapies because the multimillionaire, Randall Keith, did not want to be inconvenienced by his son’s need to acquire the simple ability to communicate. Denying medical care to a disabled child is criminal medical neglect and contempt of Court when one has been ordered for 7 years to take Andrew to therapy and PAY FOR IT. Randall did neither because “it was a waste of time.”

ISN’T IT IRONIC? DON’T YOU THINK?

In terms of special education, I qualify as an expert under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 702. Judge Rory Olsen, 20-year probate judge, does not. Nor did the two ad litems he appointed to represent Andrew’s best interests and make the life changing decision that sealed his fate–choosing his wealthy father over the qualified mother–who was HANDS DOWN, AN EXPERT FAR EXCEEDING MY KNOWLEDGE.

In my expert opinion, all of the foregoing individuals were incompetent despite being Board Certified in Probate Law and on the Legislative Committee writing the Law or sitting on the Bench in front of me. It is also my expert opinion that not one person knows an autistic or speech impaired child or adult than the family member closest to that person.

Like a baby, one who cares simply knows how to read the subtle cues strangers miss. Moreover, private paid guardians and lawyers simply don’t care because they aren’t invested in the person’s future. Out of sight, out of mind? Not for me. I have a child with special needs who has remarkably overcome, so I understand and I care.

The appointed lawyers were board certified, meeting State of Texas requirements for certification as an attorney/guardian ad litem and decide a person’s best interests, but then could not tell me what is in their best interests when on the stand. In fact, I was informed that I had no right to even call them to testify, which would be such such a denial of due process as to be laughable–if any of this were funny.

DISQUALIFYING THE QUALIFIED AND QUALIFYING THE DISQUALIFIED

Harris County disqualified the only qualified applicant and qualified the disqualified abuser for MONEY because, as I would learn, nothing else was relevant. The expert mom had insufficient funds to hire the number of experts needed but a speech therapist was retained, who secured a medical prescription for speech therapy as “medically necessary.” This did not move the ad litems to even allow us to take Andrew to speech therapy so that he could TELL THE JUDGE whom he wanted to be his guardian in violation of Section 689.

His lawyers told us up front there be no experts because we had no money, ignoring their duties to even put on a case for 2 ½ years. Harris County had insufficient funds, so no one even bothered to get an interpreter, statutorily required, despite conceding that the two board certified lawyers had no idea what he wanted after 2 1/2 years. Andrew clearly stated what he wanted, but it was irrelevant because the ILLEGAL BOND was the only relevant factor.

Linda Goehrs, Andrew’s temporary guardian, wrote the bond provision in the estates code and knew in 2012 it was not effective, but she wrote a motion to be paid $375/hour in violation of Harris County fee guidelines. Andrew was never declared incompetent, his lawyer did not introduce one exhibit or call one witness, and the lawyers ILLEGALLY objecting to my own client paying me, so I worked for free for 2 1/2 years for Andrew.

Ironic that I am the only attorney representing what Andrew wants or needs and the other two want over $100,000 while I get zero from Harris County or my own client. My client was only interested in helping her son speak so he could tell the Judge what he wanted, but his temporary guardian and attorney would have no such thing.

Linda would not allow speech therapy or require it until 2 weeks before trial. Then, she quashed my subpoena and would not allow him to testify. In what was clearly an effort to make me think we were getting due process, the Judge, took Andrew into chambers with donuts and an iPad–at which time Judge Olsen said (off the record) that Andrew said he wanted to live with his father. Andrew would do (or say) anything for a donut or an iPad. Funny how Linda always complained about the iPad before–I had a language app on it that was purchased by a Georgia businessman for Andrew. It was meant to help Andrew speak.

Ironically, I pled via emergency petition 2 1/2 years prior that if the Judge did not remove him from Randall Keith’s house, Andrew would parrot those very words. I suppose I should not have tipped him off. Judge Olsen ultimately stated, off the record, that Andrew didn’t know the truth from a lie. Is anyone really surprised?

The Judge was not competent because he asked during the hearing “what is an ARD meeting?” I was left in the position of trying to qualify a board certified lawyer in probate who was incompetent to testify as an expert by an incompetent judge who never read Andrew’s educational or medical records since age 3–as I cried because I understood. They did not.

2 1/2 YEARS AND STILL DIDN’T HAVE THE TIME

Linda Goehrs and Fatima Breland either did not read the summaries of 864 pages of Andrew’s medical and school records I provided, a ten year vicious family court file of abuse and neglect from family court, or a two year stream of emails about child abuse, hoping against hope that a light bulb would turn on, knowing time was running out. All had 2 1/2 years but ultimately, did not have time…

Linda testified that she did not allow us to get Andrew speech because she did not understand autism. Judge Olsen stated on the record “Wouldn’t it be nice if Harris County had the money?” Yes, it would. Andrew would have possibly be given due process. Oh well. Too bad for Andrew.

He was denied a jury trial and Judge Olsen disqualified my qualified applicant and qualified a disqualified child abuser. And at the end of the day, representing Andrew and my client in a system that cared only about the bond was my job. I lost and Andrew is a hostage being abused with no hope of us helping him escape because of these reckless people.

When the case began, I prayed Charles Bearinger, would make it to testify. He volunteered pro bono for me when his rate is $700/hour. Charles is Board Certified in Special Education and Psychology/Counseling with a combined total of more than 50 years of experience. He wanted to testify for Andrew, but was afraid.

I offered him to Linda and Fatima and they never even called him. As fate would have it, at 82 and no stranger to legal abuse in courts, he could not testify for Andrew. He explained by written report to those too lazy to read Andrew’s records that special education is warehousing and autistics regress if they are not moving forward.

Sharon was disqualified in violation of 681 for $2000 in child support owed to Randall Keith not Andrew and not allowed to have a jury trial or stay in the case and pay the debt later because Rory Olsen is the ultimate arbiter of fact.

WILLIE JO MILLS, DECEASED (Probate Court 4)

In December of 2013, I sought a TRO to save the life of Willie Jo Mills— notifying the Judge that death was imminent if the TRO was not granted. Willie Jo Mills died being starved with only spoonfulls of water as she was given morphine in hospice, along with Haldol and Valium when she had only a urinary tract infection and the Doctor hired to terminate her life was the Doctor who placed Willie Jo in guardianship illegally with a rule 11 agreement and no finding of incompetency. She never had a jury trial despite my two TRO’s and three pleas for jury trial as she cried, “why are you doing this to me”?

Willie Jo was dying for a drink. Willie Joe DIED WHILE THE COURT DENIED MY PLEAS TO HELP HER. I filed two TROs and three motions for a jury trial but after being threatened to get out, Sherry learned that speech is not free. Sherry happened to be present at the recusal hearing in Sharon Keith’s case. She was critical of the Judge, but fair. I don’t know if I will ever get over thinking that the affidavit she filed against Judge Rory Olsen to recuse him cost her Willie Jo.

Sherry almost felt as if her mother’s death was intentional and she was the “expert” and only person who knew her mother and how to help her, as demonstrated by her saving her mother’s life with nutrition in 2012 when David Dexel tried to put her on hospice. The Doctor has been sued for handing out pills too generously for money and almost had his license removed and has a conflict of interest because he is the Director of Hospice.

He put her on hospice because of “family conflict” and admitted that on tape. Sherry was denied guardianship because of family conflict and her power of attorney ignored because of family conflict. Willie Jo Mills was never evaluated by a physician who wasn’t biased against her for continued payments from her own money–and Harris County’s decision that Willie Jo was profitable.

Lawyers made hundreds of thousands of her money from a Section 867 Court Created Trust, benefitting the lawyers, County, Judge and Willie Jo to some degree. Her guardian sold her home for almost 1/2 its value at illegal interest rates for profit. David Dexel bought pre-need funeral services and made 5% going in and coming out as he threatened the daughters to not get in his way–or they would never see their mother again.

The Judge created the trust before she was even in guardianship and sold her house. The Judge refused to honor the estate planning documents naming Sherry and her sister Cindy as guardians and power of attorney–because of family conflict. Isn’t there always family conflict? Larry Mills, the son, did not even have standing to contest, but was given carte blanche because his lawyer was an insider.

Larry never had standing because he stole his mother’s estate and the district court ordered him to give it back. The Judge knew this and ignored it, allowing Larry Mills’ power of attorney to control and blocked the caring daughters from access to information to even help their mother. Willie Joe was taken to Methodist ICU, at which time medical records were shredded which stated what foods, liquids and medications she was given.

Willie Jo had to sign herself into the Methodist Hospital as she was left with a note on her stomach from her guardian and Sherry was by her side. She briefly got better and was handed back over to her guardian, Ginger Lott, a prior court coordinator who was so incompetent, I have hardly ever witnessed a more reckless guardian being in charge.

Reports of abuse, exploitation and neglect were made to the Department of Aging and Disability, who has jurisdiction over assisted living facilities. It was at this time I learned that out of 78,000 Texas facilities, only 11-actions were pursued by the Attorney General, suggesting that Texas’ elderly were doomed without even knowing it.

I saw Willie Jo within days of her death and will never forget the feeling that she was blind. She was terrified and her eyes did not track my movements, so I quietly stepped away. I later learned that her official cause of death was multiple organ failure involving untreated diabetes, all of which puzzled everyone because she did not have diabetes. The pain of watching your mother die slowly and painfully is inconceivable but for watching it in Realtime. After the attorney, Howard Reiner, realized he had consented to taping of Willie Jo for months, I was threatened “GET OUT OR ELSE,” SO I DID BRIEFLY and re-appeared but was ignored. Willie Jo died September 27, 2014 and never got a jury trial.

Cause No 427298, RUBY PETERSON, DECEASED (Probate Court 1)

In July of 2014, I filed an application for emergency TRO and Temporary Injunction to save the life of Ruby Peterson. After 4 days of testimony, establishing that she was being falsely imprisoned and assaulted via illegal chemical restraints (Seroquel, FDA black box warning), the injunction was summarily denied. The emergency that took Ruby’s life was Seroquel, which is NOT to be given to elderly patients with dementia— particularly if they had cardiac complications, which Ruby did.

Despite my pleas, the Court ignored Ruby’s screams for help and she died January 2015 after being ill a mere three days. In the life of an elderly individual, three days can be fatal. I can hardly describe the emotional suffering her children (my clients) have endured.

I was sickened to see lawyers sit around waiting to be paid after not even pretending to comply with their duties as ad litems. Russ Jones, the attorney ad litem and Jill Young, the guardian ad litem, did nothing for Ruby but mock her suffering, children and me as they taunted and threatened Ruby’s “real lawyers” and the only doctor who cared enough to try to save her life–with TRESPASS AND ARREST.

The expert retained by Sarah Pacheco, Dr. Chris Merkl, testified on the stand that he was retained to create a legal document stating that Ruby was incompetent (when the Code says she is presumed competent and the doctor admitted not knowing the law). Dr. Merkl testified that he “just gets together” WITH SARAH PACHECO and decides whether people are incompetent or competent, stating that a few occasions, Sarah had the idea that no guardianship was needed, so he found them competent and SARAH was perfectly happy with that. I have no doubt she was.

Our Doctor was extremely qualified and the Judge almost did not let him see her. He denied subsequent visits to follow up on Merkl’s gross negligence of not treating Ruby’s cardiac insufficiency, which caused death. The heart problems also caused her to fall–with one fall at Silverado Senior Living almost fracturing her skull. Dr. Merkl did a fellowship in Cardiology. He also testified he and Dr. Lalani were looking to see if the cause of Ruby’s confusion was her heart. Dr. Merkl knew it was but did not treat it because Sarah decided Ruby was never getting out.

Ruby wanted to disown Sarah’s client from inheritance and so she was locked up and my clients were threated by the police and told they would be arrested if they came back, when all they did was bring a power of attorney on the premises to get her out of lock down as she asked them to. Ruby asked her sons to hire two lawyers and they complied. The two lawyers were Phil Ross and I–threatened and sanctioned for daring to challenge the system.

Ruby’s guardian ad litem, Jill Young, was appointed to determine what Ruby’s “best interests” but refused to do her job–even after I pointed out via several motions that she was not doing her job, but aligned with Sarah Pacheco. Jill never once even spoke to me or Phil Ross, regarding Ruby. Jill blocked my email address along with Sarah because I pointed out to the Judge how Sarah was lying to him. Jill sat with the Defendant, Carol Ann, giggling like sorority sisters. Sold out to Sarah, Jill categorically refused to even hear a contrary point of view.

We retained a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. John Tennison, who wrote a 9-page expert report concerning Ruby’s heart problems and dementia. Had Jill merely read it, she could have summoned a Cardiologist and saved Ruby’s life. But, she wasn’t interested in knowing what any other expert said–well aware that she wasn’t an expert. Far from it, Jill Young, a school teacher, admitted she knew nothing about dementia or powers of attorney.

Carol Ann was exploiting Ruby’s finances with a power of attorney and Jill thought that made it a “power of attorney” account. When I asked her on the stand why she believed without further investigation what Dr. Merkl opined, she said “because I have worked with him many times.” She refused to even read our expert report because she “didn’t have time” to read 9 pages. Apparently her lawyer was too engrossed in the book he read during our emergency hearing to care either.

At one point, my cross exam became almost painful in terms of exposing her ignorance and the Judge interrupted me, stating on the record his stipulation that “Jill is not an expert.” I responded, “I know that. I’ll represent that I’m not an expert but I know this and so should she.” In other words, how do you make a decision on someone’s best interest if you don’t even understand their disability–or care? You cannot.

So, what I see in every case are greedy lawyers who care only about getting paid and going to play golf, while the disabled suffer. Jill testified that she never bothered to read our expert’s report and now I know why–it did not matter. Jill’s mind was made up before I ever filed the lawsuit. She was sold out to Sarah Pacheco. Evidence of this became clear when she filed joinders in every motion Sarah filed.

Ruby’s lawyer Russ Jones did the same thing. I predicted to the Judge that every motion Jill and Russ would file would go along with Sarah Pacheco and really wondered at that point why I had to fight 4 lawyers in every case to save the life of a disabled person only to watch them die and the lawyers get paid? It’s the worst nightmare you can imagine because before probate court, I never lost one case except my son’s special education case, which was similarly “rigged” before I ever began.

THE SYSTEM DESIGNED TO PROTECT KILLS

Ruby was presumed competent until proven uncompetent by a jury trial that never came and she died being falsely imprisoned and assaulted with dangerous drugs. Ruby was drugged by Seroquel which is fatal for heart patients and denied a pacemaker which would have saved her life. Apparently, that was not the goal. Dr. Merkl testified under oath that it’s okay to lie to elderly patients to get them to take drugs that are dangerous for them.

Her son testified that “if you gotta lie, you gotta lie. Bill Clinton did it.” We tried to introduce the fraudulent Will and Testament of Fannye Bell, David Peterson’s aunt–when we were accused of witch hunting. If the shoe fits? David Peterson, Ruby’s son, admitted as he bragged to his sisters and brothers that he stole his cousin’s inheritance by having a disabled aunt with dementia change her will at 98 for $300.

RUBY PETERSON’s medical records (entered into evidence by her own lawyer) demonstrate false imprisonment and repeated assaults—crimes. Ruby was found screaming and crying to leave SILVERADO or drugged to the point of being passed out in her wheelchair and not once did any of DEFENDANTS’ five+ lawyers and guardian ad litems deem their crimes problematic!

Russ Jones mocked Ruby as he entered her records and sealed her fate—and left for golf. Her lawyer threatened our doctor with arrest for trespass and never read the medical records he introduced into evidence against his own client because they had instance after instance of falls for the low blood pressure and blood pressure low, high and everywhere because it was not regulated. No one cared who treated her. She died in 6 months and the Judge punished me $15,000 for blogging and asking for help because I brought on too much publicity to get her out of Silverado Senior Living–where they were killing her.

Within six months of the Court’s denial of my EMERGENCY TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, RUBY DIED! RUBY PETERSON DIED OF NEGLECT WHILE SURROUNDED BY MEDICAL CARE PROVIDERS. Ruby’s COURT APPOINTED lawyer charged with representing what she wanted told the Court that Ruby’s screamed to go home were apparently the screams of a woman desiring her “childhood home” with no credentials to make such a ludicrous, self-serving statement. Why would Ruby’s lawyer threaten a Doctor from seeing his own client or a guardian ad litem not care what a doctor thought? Keeping Dr Tennison away probably killed her.

How can experienced probate lawyers be so ignorant? RUBY PETERSON was a person in need of protection while in the protection of Harris County probate courts. RUBY was isolated in a predictably lethal combination of circumstances. Ironic is the fact that the entire system designed to protect RUBY killed her.

Res Ipsa Loquitur: In the absence of proof, with res ipsa loquitur- the person who had custody, control, and possession of Ruby is presumed to have done it. SUGARLAND POLICE–those entrusted with her protection protected her from a Doctor. Ruby was Little more than the Property of Harris County and was not even in guardianship ever because she died first in the protection of the guardianship program. The Code kind of agrees, so it’s a civil matter. Absurd results: the lawyer that Ruby told to hire was sanctioned for making too much noise to get her out of Silverado!

I went to probate court and everyone died or was held hostage. It wasn’t a nightmare. It was real. Jury trials are denied because as Sarah Pacheco put it, “the Constitution doesn’t apply in probate court” that is–unless the right to privacy is concerned to hide exploitation of the ward. I have watched mothers die and an autistic boy be taken hostage with not one ward “protected” from anything but their money 100% of the time. The work is not fun but I cannot stop trying. I cannot understand how decent people can do this to one another, but then, I am dealing with lawyers.