Let the Little Children Come Unto Me: What is Behind the Humanitarian Crisis on our Southern Border?

This morning on Fox and Friends I watched  a segment  with Texas Governor, Rick Perry.  He  drew  attention to the spike in Central American, Syrian and other Middle Eastern illegal immigrants seeking asylum . The Washington Times quoted as  saying:

That the Obama administration has dropped the ball on border security and must improve diplomatic relations with Central American nations to stem the surge of illegal immigrants trying to cross the nation’s southern border.

This president is totally and absolutely either inept, or making some decisions that are not in the interest of American citizens, particularly from the public safety standpoint.

The federal government must step up because Texas does not have the money or manpower to protect its 1,200 mile southern border.

Then Perry went on to express an abiding concern about illegal immigrants harboring possible terrorist threats:

There are a record number of illegal immigrants that are being apprehended at the border that come from countries that are home to groups that pose a threat to the United States.

These people are coming from states like Syria that have substantial connections back to terrorist regimes and terrorist operations. It is a huge problem and a great concern.

Last week Fox Latino there was a report on radioactive materials in Mexico stolen by armed gun men at  the National Construction Lab. They seized Cesium 37 and  americium-beryllium  that could be used for  creation of  a terrorist device. Last December some thieves in Mexico stole a vehicle with deadly Cobalt 60 virtually assuring their demise from radiation sickness.  Then we recall the 2011 episode involving  a Mexican drug cartel,  Iran’s Qud Force working with an Iranian American plotting to kill the Saudi Ambassador to Washington.  The Iranian American was convicted in June 2013 to 25 years for his role in the assassination plot.

Governor Perry’s comments come in the face of a veritable onslaught of unaccompanied alien minors and women and small children from Central America swarming our borders.  There are daily reports news stories about youngsters being warehoused, and given medical treatment.  They are given bus tickets to stay with alleged relatives on the promise to show up for a Immigration court  to hear  their petition for asylum.  They are threatened with physical harm by the rampant drug related murders in Central American countries like Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

The Wall Street Journal investigated the concerns expressed by Texas Governor  Perry in an article yesterday, “Migrant Surge Jams Border”.

Frustration is mounting along the Texas border as federal officials struggle to check a surge of Central Americans illegally crossing into the state—an influx critics say is being aggravated because the Obama administration is allowing more migrants, primarily women traveling with children, to be released into the U.S. pending deportation proceedings.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) hasn’t disclosed statistics on how many immigrants it has released. But the agency has confirmed that due to a shortage of detention space in Texas, it has shipped hundreds of immigrants recently apprehended in Texas to Arizona for processing, and subsequently dropped some off at bus stations there, allowing them to travel to locations around the country until they can be deported.

Texas US Democrat Congressman Henry Cuellar  was cited in the WSJ report  pointed  to the  11,000 illegals who were effectively let go in the Rio Grande Valley and other border locations.  The numbers are staggering.  The DHS has stepped up deportations from 235,093  last fiscal year, up from 151,893 four years earlier.

The major concern are those unaccompanied alien minors as the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement calls them.  The number doubled over the previous fiscal year to more than 47,017 and federal officials expect that to double to in excess of 90,000.  Last Tuesday, the Senate Appropriation Committee authorized  $2 Billion to address the problem,  a billion more than the Obama Administration requested.  The Federal government has an obligation to handle unaccompanied minors separately.

The reality is the current surge is literally swamping the Immigration Courts system used to handle asylum and deportation matters.  Currently the backlog exceeds 350,000 pending cases.

Watch this CNN news video on the crisis in unaccompanied minors illegal immigrants on the Southern border:

The Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted to comply with international standards for handling humanitarian refugees which meant complying with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees program.  The Act has resulting in over 3 million refugees  being settled in the US,  granting them temporary cash benefits, Medicaid eligibility and a Green Card leading to US citizenship in five years. The refugee resettlement program has been fraught with fraud especially among Somali and other African refugees. It has allowed asylum for Iraqi terrorists in Kentucky  and on April 15, 2013, the refugee  Tsarneav Brothers  from Dagestan committed the Boston Marathon Massacre. Then there are Somali émigrés who  returned to their country to fight and die for Al Shebaab, an Al Qaeda affiliate.  The current crisis in the Middle East looms large on the refugee program with the prospect of more than 20,000 Syrian refugee eligible for settlement here.

The Refugee Act is overdue for an overhaul that a number of critics have suggested requires Congressionally sponsored Government Accountability Office audits and  special investigative hearings. The estimated administrative cost of the Refugee Resettlement program exceeds $2 billion annually, not counting the recent Senate Appropriations aimed at dealing with the influx unaccompanied alien minors.  Add to that state welfare and Medicaid costs and some immigration experts maintain that the annual costs could well exceed $10 to 12 billion annually.

The late Sen. Ted Kennedy was a sponsor of the 1980 Refugee Act.  The co-sponsor of that was then Sen. Joe Biden. Vice President Biden  was on  a trip  this week to Central American countries endeavoring to stem the tide. As the WSJ article noted one Administration official said “that they were looking at ways to “enhance”  their support to these Central American countries.   Further they are urging parents to ‘think twice’ about sending children on such a dangerous journey that doesn’t result in long-term residency in the U.S.”

So who is fomenting the current humanitarian crisis on our southern border? Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch suggested in a recent article that may be the same religious groups that were behind the so-called Sanctuary Movement of the 1980’s in the Southwestern US that sent illegals across the country, “Invasion on the border: religious groups telling them to come!

Corcoran cites a Border Patrol officer reflecting the comments of unaccompanied alien minors as to who told them to come here:

Cueto (Art Del Cueto, president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 in Tucson) says when he asked a group of children about their motivation, they spoke of the “announcer on the radio” who encouraged them to head for the United States. Cueto says Central American radio, television, other media, and religious groups have all encouraged people to move north to the United States.

Who are those religious groups suggesting that these Central American children come here? The beneficiaries of the recent Senate emergency appropriation to take care of these children, Voluntary Agencies authorized by the federal Refugee Resettlement programs. They are:

This surge is indicative of the Cloward Piven strategy espoused by two Columbia University social work theorists in the 1960’s. Their thesis was swamping the system would result in a crisis and force transformation to benefit the least able among us.  Thus, the voluntary agencies in the Refugee Resettlement community are simply following the Parable of Matthew 14:19 : Let the little children come unto me. Jim Holt of the Gateway Pundit blog tells the whole story with this headline, “Obama’s Cloward Piven Strategy floods Southern US with Illegal Immigrant Children.

RELATED ARTICLE: Texas Ranchers Under Attack, Overrun by Illegal Immigrants

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Florida: Fort Lauderdale Commission to vote on “Sodomy-Based Marriage”

Tonight at 6:00 p.m. the Mayor and four Commissioners of Fort Lauderdale will vote on a resolution offered by the lone gay commissioner, to support “marriage equality.” One  Broward County resident states, “All day yesterday and today I have been emailing, calling each commissioner to NOT sign the resolution. And I have been contacting friends to do the same.”

In an email Broward resident Jack Gillies states:

Dear Honorable Mayor & Commissioners,

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t want to stand before God and say “I voted for sodomy-‘based’ marriage”.  Please do not fall into the trap set by the bully homosexual movement that goes against The Word of God.  I will be attending the meeting tonight, with several others, in support of your vote against this legislation.

“I’ve known and worked with Equality Florida for years and am proud to stand with them in support of full equality for Florida’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community,” said US Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Supporters of Equality Florida include: US Senator Bill Nelson. US Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Alcee Hastings, Ted Deutch  and Frederica Wilson; former Representatives Ron Klein, Kathy Castor, Corrine Brown and Kendrick Meek; Florida State Senators Nan Rich, Jeremy Ring, Chris Smith, Eleanor Sobel, Larcenia Bullard and Maria Sachs; and former Florida Senator Gwen Margolis.

Representing the Florida House of Representatives: Ari Porth, Gwyn Clarke-Reed, Evan Jenne, Marty Kiar, Hazelle Rogers, Perry Thurston, Joe Gibbons, Franklin Sands, Daphne Campbell, Darryl Rouson, Elaine Schwartz, Ron Saunders, Jim Waldman, Irving Slosberg and Dwight Bullard.

Representing Broward County: Property Appraiser Lori Parrish, Sheriff Al Lamberti, State Attorney Mike Satz and Clerk of Courts Howard Foreman. From the Broward County Commission: Sue Gunzburger, John Rodstrom, Lois Wexler, Stacy Ritter, Dale Holness, Chip LaMarca, Kristin Jacobs, Barbara Sharief and Ilene Lieberman.

Representing the Broward County School Board: Robin Bartleman, Nora Rupert, Laurie Rich Levinson, Ann Murray, Katie Leach, Donna Korn, Maureen Dinnen, Ben Williams, Patty Good and Superintendent Robert Runcie.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

A Majority of Young Adults Are Having Kids Outside Marriage. Why That Hurts Kids’ Futures.
Marriage and the ‘wrong side of history’ – The Boston Globe

Virtual Worlds, Real Economics by Matthew McCaffrey

Video games rot your brain and teach you econ.

Video games are playing an increasingly large role in pop culture. Whether you play or believe they are art, gaming will no doubt continue to be a major player in the entertainment industry. More importantly, libertarian ideas seem to be popping up everywhere in gaming. Criticism of government is on the rise, for example, and there is new emphasis on the importance of free thought and action.

To cite just two examples, Bioshock Infinite criticizes militarism and jingoism, while Assassin’s Creed 4: Black Flag is largely a celebration of pirate anarchy. Astute gamers may even notice that an animator forGears of War 3 put Mises’s motto, Tu ne cede malis (“Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it”) in the game’s credits sequence.

This is all good news not only for libertarian ideas generally, but also for economic education. Gaming culture is a vibrant new arena of action where sound economic ideas have a real chance to take hold. There is already discussion about how in-game economies emerge and evolve—particularly how they deal with money and inflation. But games incorporate economics at even more basic levels. Indeed, gamers are already using the economic way of thinking without even knowing it. Games are all about basic economic concepts: scarcity, choice, trade-offs, opportunity cost, trade, and entrepreneurship. If we think of games like this, we see how their virtual realities imitate real-world economic decisions.

For instance, essentially all resources in the gaming world are scarce—that’s where the challenge comes from. If resources or experience points or time were unlimited, there wouldn’t be much of a game to play. But because gamers routinely face these kinds of scarcity, they are already familiar with the limitations they impose and have taken a first step toward economic understanding.

Scarcity means we have to make choices, and in this area games are pushing boundaries. Improved production values in the gaming industry have increased the immersive qualities of gameplay, to be sure. But it’s the economic simulations that make the experiences so real. Consider games like The Walking Dead, which takes scarcity to an extreme by using the zombie apocalypse as a backdrop. Instead of combat, The Walking Dead game centers on difficult economic decisions, like how to ration dwindling food supplies among survivors. Players become emotionally involved in the story by confronting scarcity and tough choices every step of the way.

Players’ decisions in turn imply trade-offs and opportunity costs. Anyone who has ever played a role-playing game (RPG) knows this territory well; choosing to allocate money or experience to a certain skillset means forgoing other skills. And it’s a short step from there to realizing that the true cost of skills is not the resources you spend to obtain them, but the alternative abilities you could have acquired.

Because players have different opportunity costs, not everyone is equally suited to all tasks: Enter the importance of specialization and social cooperation. Cooperation on a grand scale features in many massively multiplayer online RPGs such as World of Warcraft and EVE Online, where the most important quests can only be completed if a large number of diverse character types work together. Each member of the party specializes in enhancing the strengths or offsetting the weaknesses of the others, producing intricate networks of interdependence.

Trade is another vital form of social cooperation, and through the interactions of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of players, MMORPGs rapidly develop complex systems of barter and monetary exchange. The teaching moment comes when players get to experience the benefits of the division of labor; even better, the benefits of specialization and trade are more obvious than in some ordinary market exchanges, where economic logic might seem too abstract.

Lastly, gaming showcases some of the best of the entrepreneurial spirit. Being a gamer is about crafting and controlling virtual worlds while at the same time learning to think creatively to overcome obstacles. Entrepreneurs do the same thing when they control productive resources in the constant drive to satisfy consumers. It’s not a surprise then that the gaming industry is growing and innovating in ways similar to Silicon Valley and other focal points of entrepreneurial energy; the two go hand in hand.

The idea that gaming conventions are reflections of economic principles is just one example of the many opportunities for economic teaching presented by the mass appeal of gaming. We’re bound to see more as the industry continues to thrive, so let’s be ready to show gamers that the experience they crave is not just good fun, but good economics.

ABOUT MATTHEW MCCAFFREY

Matthew McCaffrey teaches economics as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Liberal Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield, and is editor of Libertarian Papers.

Imam made a Mockery of Pope Francis at Vatican Ceremony

On June 8, 2014 at a ‘Peace Gathering’ in Vatican City, prayers from a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish cleric that were meant to draw different faiths together, got horribly derailed by the truth.

Watch the Palestinian Imam’s remarks:

The Palestinian Imam, in Arabic, who called for “victory over the nation of unbelievers” knowingly made a mockery of the Pope’s attempt at interfaith dialogue and reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians.  The Imam quoted the last Ayat of Surah Baqara which calls for Islam to reign supreme over all the non-Muslims.

This Palestinian Imam did us all a huge favor by spelling out in clear Arabic what the definition of Peace is for the followers of Islam.  When Islam is victorious over the non-Muslims, then and only then, will there be Peace between the Christian, Muslim, and Jews on earth.  That my friends is a call for domination and submission not equality and tolerance.

imam at vatican 2The Vatican Response

On June 10th, Jesuit, “Fr.” Bernd Hagenkord, SJ, editor at the German-speaking offices of Vatican Radio, says the claim that the Muslim cleric ended his prayer with a quote from the Koran or with a petition against infidels is “nonsense” (source here )

On June 12th, Vatican Radio acknowledges the Palestinian Imam recited the controversial Qur’an passage but said it doesn’t matter one has to understand how Muslims pray. 

Conclusion

Hamed Abdel-Samad who originally exposed what the Palestinian Imam said in Arabic explains what happened this way.

“Pope Francis had invited two political leaders in a prayer of “prayer for peace” in the Vatican gardens, 8 June 2014…by using the usual ploy when Palestinian say they want peace when they speak English, and war when speaking in Arabic. The Imam did not produce the text in English that he knew would be refused. The Imam expressed to the world who speaks Arabic he was not about peace with Israel, but to ask that Allah gives victory to the Palestinians. 

Palestinian Arabs have benefited from the international forum that offered them the Pope to advance peace, and they have deceived, betrayed, and planted him in Arabic, a knife in the back.” 

I am sorry to have to tell you this, but there is no separation of religion and politics in Islam.  This fact was validated less than a week ago when Sunni Islamic terrorists ran their successful offensive Jihad taking over Iraq and replacing it with the Black Flag of Islamic Jihad and strict Shariah Islamiyya (Islamic Law).

RELATED ARTICLE:  Gates of Vienna Reveals Cover Up of Imam’s Prayer at Vatican

The only thing separating the Palestinian Imam truth teller in this story and the violent Jihadis are tactics.  This Palestinian Imam may not be carrying an AK-47 at the moment but he is advancing the Civilization Jihad against the non-Muslims.

Benedict Obama’s Illegal Alien Invasion of America

If millions of soldiers from south of the border were flooding our nation for the purposes of colonizing our land, we would easily recognize the threat. And if some amongst us were aiding and abetting this invasion — purposely lowering border security to facilitate it — we’d know what to call them. And we’d know how they should be dealt with.

This comes to mind when considering the flood of humanity that does continually pour across our border, a phenomenon whose most recent manifestation is the children’s crusade (which includes many teens, some of whom are gang members) currently in the news. Oh, the people trespassing on our land aren’t wearing uniforms; they aren’t wielding cold steel. But this isn’t always necessary. As Muammar Gaddafi once pointed out, some invasions are prosecuted “without sword, without gun, without conquest.” “We don’t need terrorists; we don’t need homicide bombers,” he said. “The 50 plus million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into the Muslim Continent within a few decades.” Of course, in the waning West, we call this “diversity” and “demographic change.”

And as we’re being diversified into a country definitely.

There are those amongst us aiding and abetting this invasion.

We can start with the fact that Barack Obama and his fellow travelers have sparked this most recent human wave with promises of amnesty for young illegals. Obama has also hobbled immigration enforcement, which itself is a euphemistic way of saying that he has, like a fifth column, cleared the way for an invading force. Adding insult to injury, not only is there no effort at deportation, but his administration’s first response to the children’s crusade was to provide lawyers for the illegals — paid for with your tax money — to help make these reinforcements permanent.
In fact, Obama is so intent on aiding the invasion that he has served notice that if Congress won’t be complicit in his scheme, he will use an executive order to help the foreign boots on the ground.

Question: what do you call such a person?

Of course, this is nothing new. We have had seven amnesties in recent decades, and all the way through there were promises to secure the border. It never happened. Fool me once, shame on you. And if they can fool you seven times?

You’re a doormat.

There’s only one thing foreign boots on the ground do to doormats, mind you — and it isn’t to show respect and gratitude.

It’s obvious why leftists such as Obama have long facilitated immigration: they are importing voters. Upwards of 80 percent of the new arrivals will vote Democrat upon being naturalized. And is this any surprise? Most all illegals — and a majority of legal immigrants — hail from Hispanic nations, which are notoriously socialist (only the degree varies). And people don’t suddenly change ideology just because they change location.

This brings us to Republicans who claim that Hispanics are a “natural conservative constituency” and that all the GOP need do is offer the olive branch of amnesty. Theirs is an imagination that could put Gene Roddenberry to shame.

While Hispanics do generally favor amnesty, the main thing the majority of them want is what they voted for in their socialist homelands: big government. Don’t believe me, Karl? Just consider recent Pew research (hat tip: American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson) showing that only 19 percent of Hispanics favor a smaller government while a whopping 75 percent prefer a bigger one. Of course, assimilation is the answer, right? Take a gander at the rest of the Pew data:

And what does this equate to once Hispanic majority status is reached (along with the leftward drift of non-Hispanic whites)?

  • 19- 75 = government of Venezuela
  • 36-58 = government of Mexico

In other words, modern immigration = death of America.

And to reiterate, this doesn’t mean just illegal migration. Ever since Ted Kennedy’s immigration act of 1965, 85 percent of our legal immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia. So in terms of demographic and ideological change, there is no difference between legal and illegal migration.

Yet it isn’t just Hispanic immigrants. One reason I favor a moratorium on all immigration is that we face a largely socialist world. Where would we find immigrants amenable to authentic Americanism? Europe? China? Africa? The Middle East? The only exception may be Russia, but I wouldn’t want to bet my culture on that, either.
While I’ve framed this ideologically, it can be defined culturally and racially (gasp!), too. And I won’t shrink from this since it is exactly what the left is doing.

There’s an old saying, if you can’t get the people to change the government, change the people. Here’s a simple fact: what we call traditional conservatism is a phenomenon of Christian, European-descent people (modern Europeans no longer qualify because of their secularism). One can debate the reasons for this, but it is plainly true. It’s why almost 90 percent of GOP voters are white and almost 90 percent are Christian; it’s why church attendance is one of the best predictors of voting patterns. Mind you, this doesn’t mean that other groups won’t contain some conservatives, but the fact is that no other major group is majority conservative.

Then there is that uncomfortable truth: Obama and many other leftists hate what they see as “white America”— Obama described white culture as “alien” in his book Dreams from My Father — and they want to destroy it as fast as possible. This is why, while giving the 1998 commencement address at Oregon’s Portland State University, Bill Clinton spoke glowingly of the day when whites become a minority in America (to the uproarious cheers of the mostly white students).

Of course, this is where Obama, Clinton and the rest of the fifth column will say that if you’re not cheering, you’re a bigot.

Yawn.

If the Joneses were somehow gaining access to the Smith’s home, squatting there and slowly taking over while the police refused to enforce trespassing laws, no one would wonder if the Smiths objected. The fact that Joneses aren’t Smiths would be explanation enough. Or let’s say that millions of Chinese were flooding the Ivory Coast, were supplanting African culture and threatening to soon outnumber the Africans. Would we be surprised if the Ivorians were up in arms? Would anthropologists call the transformation anything but cultural genocide?

Again, though, we call this diversity. But there’s a funny thing about that oh-so necessary quality:

  • It’s only encouraged in Western lands.
  • If diversity is such an imperative, why don’t we push it in Saudi Arabia, Japan, Tunisia or Rwanda? And don’t tell me we’re just minding our own business, as Obama thought nothing of parading around Africa last year preaching about homosexual rights.

The truth is that when liberals say “Our strength lies in our diversity,” they really mean their strength. They’re building a solid socialist majority that won’t blink at leftist corruption because these new arrivals are inured to it — corruption is status quo in their native lands.

And what else can we say about these migrants? Most are just coming to the US to make money, while some have criminal designs. But what is certain is that even if they were capable of shedding deep-seated socialist instincts, they’re not coming here to become American — in spirit. And they’re casting votes Americans won’t cast.

Back in 2009, a former Labour (Britain’s liberal party) speechwriter created a firestorm by revealing that the UK government had encouraged unfettered immigration “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.” This prompted The Telegraph’s Ed West to call the leftists’ plan “borderline treason.”

Borderline? I think that’s another border that was brazenly crossed. And does this kind of behavior deserve any less damning a characterization on our side of the pond?

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

Florida Medical Marijuana Amendment 2: The Devil is in the Details

NoOn2.org is a grassroots campaign bringing the truth about Amendment 2 to the voters of Florida. The coalition includes members of law enforcement, business leaders, constitutional law attorneys, Doctors and other medical professionals, parents and Floridians from all walks of life.

Jessica Spencer Ed.D., CAP, CPP, Statewide Coalition Director for NoOn2.org states, “We know that Amendment 2 is simply a guise to legalize pot smoking in Florida and our goal is to point out the loopholes in the proposed Amendment.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/fKS37A_S0MM[/youtube]

Dear Members of Congress: Why do you only mention the 1986 Amnesty?

The amnesty of 1986 was supposed to be a “one time only” amnesty. Yet since 1986 through 2000, Congress passed a total of seven (7) amnesties or adjustments for illegal aliens:

1. The Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty of 1986 – the “one-time only” blanket amnesty for some 2.8 million illegal aliens.
2. Section 245(i) The Amnesty of 1994 – a temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
3. Section 245(i) The Extension Amnesty of 1997 – an extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994.
4. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty of 1997 – an amnesty for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.
5. The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA) of 1998 – an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
6. The Late Amnesty of 2000 – an amnesty for approximately 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty.
7. The LIFE Act Amnesty of 2000 – a reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty to an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens.

An amnesty is a reward to those breaking the law. Issuing an amnesty to illegal aliens only encourages more illegal immigration into the United States.

An amnesty benefits neither our society nor those being amnestied.

An Immigration and Naturalization Service study found that after living in the United States for 10 years, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and earned less than $9,000 a year.

By enacting an amnesty, Congress places a staggering financial burden on American taxpayers to support those amnestied.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Opens Borders to Mexican Gang Members
AZ threatens legal action on Fed’s immigrant dumping…
Teenage Latin Horde…
Obama Admin Forbids Lawmakers From Taking Photos Of Facility…

Two Peer Reviewed Studies find Mom & Dad better than Mom & Mom

It appears fathers do make a difference. “Two peer-reviewed research articles in the social sciences, released June 10, 2012, challenge the claim made by same-sex parenting researchers over the last decade that parents engaged in same-sex relationships do just as well as other parents at raising children. This claim, that there are ‘no differences’ in outcomes between the two kinds of parenting, is undermined by new evidence that these papers present,” reports Ana Samuel.

The first study was done by Professor Loren Marks of the Louisiana State University’s School of Human Ecology. Professor Marks’ findings are published in Social Science Research, July 2012 edition, Volume 41, Issue 4. Professor Marks reviewed 59 American Psychological Association (APA) studies done in 2005, which found no differences between same sex couples and traditional couples. Professor Marks concludes that “not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Marks’s study casts significant doubt upon the older evidence on which the APA brief, and thus the ‘no differences’ paradigm, rests.” [My emphasis]

Specifically Professor Marks found:

  • 26 of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups.
  • In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group.
  • No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size.
  • Definitive claims were not substantiated by the 59 published studies. [My emphasis]

The 2005 APA studies were used in 2012 by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Ninth Circuit Court, in part as the basis to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Yahoo News reported, “The [Ninth] Circuit Court backed up District Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled in August of 2010 that the state of California has no “rational basis” to single out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage.” That rational basis may no longer be valid with Professor Mark’s findings.

The second peer reviewed research article is by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin. The Regnerus New Family Structure Study (NFSS) may be found here. NFSS is, “a comparative project which seeks to understand how young adults (~ages 18-39) raised by same-sex parents fare on a variety of social, emotional, and relational outcomes when compared with young adults raised in homes with their married biological parents, those raised with a step-parent, and those raised in homes with two adoptive parents.”

The children of lesbian mothers (see below chart) are:

  • Four times more likely to have been on welfare when growing up.
  • Ten times more likely to have been touched by a parent or other adult.
  • Nearly four times more likely to have been “forced to have sex unwilfully”.
  • Over three times more likely to be unemployed.
  • Twice as likely to be recently or currently in therapy.
  • Nearly four times more likely to be on public assistance.

Chart courtesy of the Washington Times.

For a larger view click on the graphic.

The NFSS is unique among gay parenting research in three ways:

First, it compares the outcomes of children who reported having a mother who had a same-sex relationship with another woman (LM for short) or a father who had a same-sex relationship with another man (GF for short) with the outcomes of children who reported coming from an intact biological family (IBF for short). Most gay parenting research compares gay and lesbian parenting to single, divorced, and step-parent parenting, or conversely compares a select, and often socio-economically privileged, population of gay parents to a broad, representative sample of the general population.

Second, the NFSS focuses on the responses of young-adult children. Other current studies on gay parenting focus on what is going on inside the households of lesbian and gay parents at present, while the children are still under their parent’s care. Moreover, these studies most typically interview the parents for their point of view about what it is like to be parenting as a gay man or lesbian woman.3 This research does not tell us how the children turn out as adults. Indeed, no study has explored that question until now. The NFSS interviewed the sons and daughters of parents who had a same-sex relationship after they had grown up and matured into young adults (ages 18–39), and most of them had already moved out of their parent’s home. These children spoke for themselves about their experiences at home when they were younger and were able to report on how they are doing now as young adults.

Third, the NFSS drew from a large, random sample of the U.S. population of young adults ages 18–39. This third point is a significant strength of the NFSS because, to date, there is only one other gay parenting study that draws from a large, random sample, that of Michael Rosenfeld of Stanford University, who relies upon 2010 U.S. Census data. Every other gay parenting study thus far relies upon small or non-probability samples, which do not allow for generalization and are thus inadequate for drawing conclusions about the population at large.4 For example, the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study used a “convenience” sample, and recruited respondents entirely by self-selection (from announcements posted in lesbian newspapers, women’s bookstores and lesbian events in Boston, Washington, and the San Francisco areas).5 While these types of studies are valuable for gathering information about the specific lesbians who demonstrate those kinds of behaviors (that is, who attend book stores, read newspapers, and are “out” enough to attend lesbian events) they are problematic when the goal is to generalize to the general population of lesbians, some of whom may not have the social, economic, or behavioral patterns of the former group. Any claims about the general population that are based on a group that does not represent it will be defective, because the sample will be less diverse than what a truly representative sample would reveal.

RELATED COLUMNS:

America’s Families Need Strong Fathers By Senator Marco Rubio – The Daily Caller
Recovering the meaning of marriage – Not a scheme for alienation, it’s the purpose of creation
President Obama supports Same Sex Marriages – White House website
Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting: Stark gaps in ‘gold standard’ data set
Same-Sex Ceremony Held on Military Base

Planned Parenthood Childhood Sexualization Lesson Grounded in Indiana History

Headshot_Gov.-elect_Pence

Governor Mike Pence

The families of the State of Indiana must call upon Governor Mike Pence, his wife Karen, and every Indiana elected official to denounce the recent actions of an Indianapolis Midtown Planned Parenthood counselor, who graphically and zealously instructed a 15-year-old child (decoy) in how to perform sado-masochistic acts with ropes, whips, and handcuffs, while dressed in leather.  The “health education” counselor, caught on videotape in her office at 3750 North Meridian Street, was exuberant in promoting pornography and pain to the girl.

Although some have sought to dismiss the advice from Planned Parenthood as “an aberration” (Indianapolis Star, June 12, 2014, “Planned Parenthood: Sex counseling on undercover video an aberration”), there is fertile soil for such sexualization of children in Indiana, beginning even before the horrific experiments conducted on infants and minors who were used as subjects to collect sexual data published by the Kinsey Institute in the 1940s and reprinted in the 1990s, in celebration of its 50th anniversary.

Like Alfred Kinsey, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an avid advocate of the eugenics movement, which forcibly sterilized untold thousands of “undesirables” – poor, disabled, and minority victims.  In 1907, Indiana became the world leader in eugenics by passing the very first law legalizing forced sterilizations of “dispensable’ human beings, who were permanently prevented from ever reproducing their kind.

In 1927, the esteemed Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the following words which precisely sum up the mentality of the progressive eugenics movement that lived in Indiana for 67 years until its eugenics law was finally repealed in 1974:

It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind …. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. – Buck v. Bell, U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion

Indiana’s soil is soaked with blood from innocent victims of legal and illegal sexual experiments.  It is not “an aberration” that a counselor at an Indianapolis office just a few miles from the Statehouse feels perfectly at ease in “selling” sado-masochism to a child, by displaying a full array of gestures to accompany her vivid instructions on what to use and how to dress to “enjoy” the pain.

Having reported childhood sexual abuse to Indiana authorities, I am personally aware of their indifference to the excruciating and life-long pain children experience as captives of adult predation.  Why is the photograph of an Indiana Jewish teenage boy in a leopard woman’s lounging outfit and fur hat with pigtails posted on the Internet?  Is he a “dancing boy,” as the young male victims are called?  Why were hundreds of boys between the ages of 13 and 15 being used as prey in Indianapolis and elsewhere for predators in the massive child trafficking operation uncovered in March 2014?

Who pays for indifference to the theft of children’s innocence?  What difference does it make?  It is only “an aberration” deep-seated in the heart of the Heartland.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Another Elementary School Brainwashing Our Children With Homosexual Deviancy

RELATED VIDEO: Gay Pride Assembly for Kindergartners where “[T]he Glenview Elementary School in Oakland, California presented their students with a perversity-pushing “Family Pride Celebration” which taught kindergartners as young as five and six years old to embrace homosexual deviancy.” Read more.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/vbENfOKi5AM[/youtube]

 

Flag Day: June 14, 1777 – 2014

The 237th anniversary of Flag Day falls on Saturday, June 14th. It is both fitting and proper to pledge allegiance to the flag, as is done in classrooms, at public gatherings and in public building across the United States. This 1969 video explaining the pledge by Red Skelton, American comedian, TV and movie star, has become a classic and a must view for those of all ages:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/2HGHdFmu5GU[/youtube]

 

The pledge is codified in 4 U.S. Code § 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag and th manner of delivery:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”, should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces not in uniform and veterans may render the military salute in the manner provided for persons in uniform.

In the Absence of Private Property Rights by Dwight R. Lee

Why Do People See Property Rights as the Source of Economic Problems?

We commonly benefit from things we neither understand nor appreciate. Obviously there are advantages in benefiting from a wide range of things without having to give them much thought. But the danger is that such neglect can often cause us great harm. Good health is an example. For most people, good health is easy to take for granted, and this often results in harmful patterns of behavior. In the case of health, however, most people know something about the risks of unhealthy behavior, and recognize the advantage of healthy habits even if they don’t practice them.

Unfortunately, this is not true for maintaining a healthy economy. The productivity and cooperation essential to economic progress depend on things that are not only easily neglected, but also commonly denounced. Private property is a good example. Instead of recognizing private property as the foundation of economic cooperation and progress, people commonly see it as the source of economic problems actually caused by the lack of well-defined and enforced private-property rights.

Pollution and Private Property

Pollution is widely blamed on capitalism, with its emphasis on profits and private property. According to this view, private property rights should be restricted to prevent firms and individuals from putting their private gain ahead of the public’s interest in a clean environment. But pollution is actually a problem caused by too little reliance on property rights, not too much. Pollution problems should teach us how much we benefit from private property by illustrating the inevitable breakdown in social cooperation in its absence.

Pollution problems would not exist if we could divide up the atmosphere, rivers, and oceans into separate units owned and controlled as private property. There would still be pollution, but not excessive pollution. If I wanted to discharge pollutants into the air that belonged to others, they would prevent me from doing so unless I paid them a price that covered the cost my pollution imposed on them. So I would pollute only as long as the value I realized from discharging an additional unit of pollutant was at least as great as the cost to others. Private property and the market prices that result would motivate people to take into consideration the environmental concerns of others.

Pollution problems exist because without private property in air sheds and waterways there are no market prices to make polluters mindful of the cost of their polluting activities. The result is that people pollute excessively; pollution continues even though the benefits from additional pollution are less than the costs.

Although we cannot easily imagine treating the atmosphere and waterways as private property, the lack of cooperation that underlies pollution problems would extend to all aspects of human action if private property were absent. Instead of seeing pollution problems as an indictment of private property, these problems should give us an appreciation of the wonderful advantages we realize from private property. And once the power of private property to promote cooperation is realized, one can see how pollution policy can be improved through the creative establishment of private property.

Instead of having political authorities dictate how, and how much, polluters have to reduce their discharges (as they do now), it would be far better to create a form of private property in the use of the environment for waste disposal. This private property would take the form of transferable pollution permits specifying how much their owners could legally pollute. These permits would establish the total allowable pollution, but not how much each polluter reduces his discharges or how he does so. With transferable permits, market prices would emerge that force polluters to consider much of the cost of their discharges. Those who could reduce discharges cheaply would reduce a lot, releasing permits to be used by those facing higher cleanup costs. The result would be a pattern of pollution reduction that yields any given level of environmental quality at far less cost than the command-and-control approach that dominates current policy. (A more detailed discussion of the advantages of such a market-based approach to pollution control has to await a future column.)

Private Property and Patience

Another common misconception is that the profits from private property motivate people to ignore the long-run consequences of their actions. Actually, the lack of private property is the biggest threat to future concerns. Consider the captain of a whaling ship who has a whale in the cross hairs of his harpoon. The captain is about to pull the trigger when his first officer points out that the whale is pregnant and if they let it live there will be two whales within a few months. Will the captain save the whale on hearing this information? Not likely. He will correctly conclude that since he has no property right in the whale, if he doesn’t kill it today someone else soon will. Being patient and allowing the whale to give birth requires an immediate sacrifice, without permitting him to benefit from that sacrifice in the future. If somehow whales were privately owned, it would then pay the captain to take the future value of the whale and her offspring into consideration, since that future value would be his opportunity cost of killing the whale today.

It is no wonder that many species of wild animals are overexploited, and in some cases threatened with extinction. The situation is very different with domestic animals that are privately owned. There is no worry that chickens, pigs, cows, or goats will be driven to extinction. The future value of these animals is fully considered by owners who can profit from maintaining them. Indeed, the more of these animals we kill, the more of them we have. In the United States alone, approximately 25 million chickens are killed and eaten every day. It has been said that the difference between chicken hawks and people is that when chicken hawks eat more chickens there are fewer chickens, but when people eat more chickens there are more chickens. The more fundamental difference is that people establish private property rights and, as a result, take the future into consideration; chicken hawks don’t.

Unfortunately, legislation such as the Endangered Species Act attempts to protect species by undermining private property rights, thereby reducing the motivation of land owners to provide suitable habitat for wildlife, endangered or not.

Private property allows us to solve problems by taking into consideration the present and future concerns of others. Unfortunately, people with good intentions but little economic understanding often call for solving problems stemming from inadequate private property by subverting rights to private property with political restrictions and mandates.

ABOUT DWIGHT R. LEE

Dwight R. Lee is the O’Neil Professor of Global Markets and Freedom in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

CLICHES OF PROGRESSIVISM #9 – Human Rights Are More Important Than Property Rights by Paul L. Poirot

(Editor’s Note: This essay was first published in 1962. Paul L. Poirot was a long-time member of the staff of the Foundation for Economic Education and editor of its journal, The Freeman, from 1956 to 1987.)

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government.

Our society is inundated with half-truths and misconceptions about the economy in general and free enterprise in particular. The “Clichés of Progressivism” series is meant to equip students with the arguments necessary to inform debate and correct the record where bias and errors abound.

The antecedents to this collection are two classic FEE publications that YAF helped distribute in the past: Clichés of Politics, published in 1994, and the more influential Clichés of Socialism, which made its first appearance in 1962. Indeed, this new collection will contain a number of essays from those two earlier works, updated for the present day where necessary. Other entries first appeared in some version in FEE’s journal, The Freeman. Still others are brand new, never having appeared in print anywhere. They will be published weekly on the websites of both YAF and FEE: www.yaf.org and www.FEE.org until the series runs its course. A book will then be released in 2015 featuring the best of the essays, and will be widely distributed in schools and on college campuses.

See the index of the published chapters here.

#9 – Human Rights Are More Important Than Property Rights

It is not the right of property which is protected, but the right to property. Property, per se, has no rights; but the individual—the man—has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property…. The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave. 

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland

Tricky phrases with favorable meanings and emotional appeal are being used today to imply a distinction between property rights and human rights.

By implication, there are two sets of rights—one belonging to human beings and the other to property. Since human beings are more important, it is natural for the unwary to react in favor of human rights.

Actually, there is no such distinction between property rights and human rights. The term property has no significance except as it applies to something owned by someone. Property itself has neither rights nor value, except as human interests are involved. There are no rights but human rights, and what are spoken of as property rights are only the human rights of individuals to property.

What are the property rights thus disparaged by being set apart from human rights? They are among the most ancient and basic of human rights, and among the most essential to freedom and progress. They are the privileges of private ownership which give meaning to the right to the product of one’s labor—privileges which men have always regarded instinctively as belonging to them almost as intimately and inseparably as their own bodies. Unless people can feel secure in their ability to retain the fruits of their labor, there is little incentive to save and expand the fund of capital—the tools and equipment for production and for better living.

The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution recognizes no distinction between property rights and other human rights. The ban against unreasonable search and seizure covers “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” without discrimination. No person may, without due process of law, be deprived of “life, liberty or property”; all are equally inviolable. The right to trial by jury is assured in criminal and civil cases alike. Excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments are grouped in a single prohibition. The Founding Fathers realized that a man or woman without property rights—without the right to the product of his own labor—is not a free man.

These constitutional rights all have two characteristics in common. First, they apply equally to all persons. Second, they are, without exception, guarantees of freedom or immunity from governmental interference. They are not assertions of claims against others, individually or collectively. They merely say, in effect, that there are certain human liberties, including some pertaining to property, which are essential to free citizens and upon which the State shall not infringe.

Now what about the so-called human rights that are represented as superior to property rights? What about the “right” to a job, the “right” to a standard of living, the “right” to a minimum wage or a maximum work week, the right to a “fair” price, the “right to bargain collectively, the “right” to security against the adversities and hazards of life, such as old age and disability?

The framers of the Constitution would have been astonished to hear these things spoken of as rights. They are not immunities from governmental compulsion; on the contrary, they are demands for new forms of governmental compulsion. They are not claims to the product of one’s own labor; they are, in some if not in most cases, claims to the products of other people’s labor.

These “human rights” are indeed different from property rights, for they rest on a denial of the basic concept of property rights. They are not freedoms or immunities assured to all persons alike. They are special privileges conferred upon some persons at the expense of others. The real distinction is not between property rights and human rights, but between equality of protection from governmental compulsion on the one hand and demands for the exercise of such compulsion for the benefit of favored groups on the other.

Paul L. Poirot
Freeman Editor, 19561987

Summary

  • You own yourself and you own those material things you’ve created or traded for freely with others. These are rights to property—property in yourself and in your possessions—and they cannot be separated from human rights.
  • America’s founders made no distinction between human rights and property rights for good reason: There aren’t any. They are one and the same.
  • Your right to what’s yours is very different from a claim on the person or property of others.
  • For further information, read these articles:

“Human Rights Are Property Rights” by Murray Rothbard: http://tinyurl.com/k7q28wj

“The Primacy of Property Rights and the American Founding” by David Upham: http://tinyurl.com/k8ymp24

“The Property Basis of Rights” by Clarence B. Carson: http://tinyurl.com/knha534

“Freedom or Free-for-All?” by Lawrence W. Reed: http://tinyurl.com/ks94kt4

ABOUT PAUL L. POIROT

Paul L. Poirot was a long-time member of the staff of the Foundation for Economic Education and editor of its journal, The Freeman, from 1956 to 1987.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Truth Revolt: The Left’s Hypocrisy About ‘Right-Wing Terrorism’

Over at Truth Revolt I expose the latest attempt by Leftists and Islamic supremacists to deflect attention away from the grim reality of Islamic jihad.

In covering the killings in Las Vegas by Jerad and Amanda Miller this week, mainstream media commentators once again displayed their hypocrisy and double standard regarding Islamic terrorism and terror attacks that are supposedly “right-wing.”

CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen wrote Tuesday the Millers “appear to have been motivated by extreme far-right views. The couple left a flag at the scene of the crime with the words ‘Don’t Tread on Me,’ a Revolutionary War symbol used by some anti-government extremists.”

Bergen went on to emphasize that “countering violent extremism cannot simply be a demand placed on Muslim communities to prevent jihadist violence. In the decade since 9/11 right-wing extremists have demonstrated their ability to be just as deadly as their homegrown jihadist counterparts.”

Yet while Bergen is ready to equate “right-wing terrorists” with jihadists, he is much less ready to examine the motivating ideology of the latter. While he readily ascribed the Millers’ murders to “extreme far-right views,” when writing in 2006 about the root causes of the 9/11 jihad attack, Bergen stated:

In the many discussions of the “root causes” of Islamist terrorism, Islam itself is rarely mentioned. But if you were to ask Bin Laden, he would say that his war is about the defence of Islam. We need not believe him but we should nevertheless listen to what our enemies are saying. Bin Laden bases justification of his war on a corpus of Muslim beliefs and he finds ammunition in the Koran to give his war Islamic legitimacy. He often invokes the “sword” verses of the Koran, which urge unprovoked attacks on infidels. Of course, that is a selective reading of the Koran and does not mean Islam is an inherently violent faith, but to believers the book is the word of God.

He has demonstrated no similar anxiousness to exonerate “right-wing” beliefs from responsibility for the violence supposed committed because of them. And at the Daily Beast, “Muslim comedian” Dean Obeidallah went even farther in a piece entitled “Home-Grown, Right-Wing Terrorism: The Hate the GOP Refuses to See.” Obeidallah was certain that conservative views led to violence, and that that was why Republicans had ridiculed the idea of “right-wing terrorism” when the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a warning about it in 2009. “The actual reason Republicans won’t investigate right-wing extremists,” Obeidallah claimed, “is that it would not only anger their base, it would actually indict some parts of it. Let’s be honest: In a time when establishment Republicans are concerned about getting challenged in primaries by more conservative Tea Party types, calling for hearings to investigate right-wing organizations could be political suicide.”

This is the same Dean Obeidallah who recently wrote this about the jihadists of Boko Haram, the Congregation of the People of the Sunnah for Dawah and Jihad: “The Nigerian terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls has nothing to do with Islam, and it’s grotesquely irresponsible of the media to suggest it does.”

So an avowedly Islamic group that has repeatedly proclaimed that it is fighting in order to establish an Islamic state is not Islamic, and it’s “grotesquely irresponsible” to suggest otherwise. The leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau, must have been “grotesquely irresponsible” when he declared: “The reason why I will kill you is you are infidels…The Koran must be supreme, we must establish Islam in this country.”

Obeidallah, who has produced and starred in a “comedy” film about “Islamophobia,” claims that the jihadists are twisting and hijacking his peaceful religion, and that only non-Muslim “Islamophobes” would dare think that anything they do has any justification in Islamic texts and teachings. But the possibility that murderers such as Jerad and Amanda Miller are twisting and hijacking peaceful conservative principles that do not in any essential or legitimate way incite to violence does not cross his mind.

Bergen, Obeidallah and others like them also believe that those who sound the alarm about Islamic terrorism are motivated by “hatred” and “bigotry.” Are they, then, also motivated by hatred and bigotry when they sound the alarm about “right-wing terrorism”? Obeidallah claims that when Republicans passed anti-Sharia laws designed to protect Americans from a political system that subjugates women and non-Muslims and destroys the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, they “intended to demonize Muslims.” So if legislation designed to protect Americans from “right-wing terrorism” were passed, could its framers and advocates be characterized as “intending to demonize conservatives”?

Why, yes, of course. That is the goal of this hysteria about “right-wing extremism” and “right-wing terrorism”: to demonize and marginalize legitimate opposition to the Obama agenda, as well as to minimize the real threat of jihad terror. Likewise, the goal of the hysteria about “Islamophobia” is to demonize and marginalize legitimate opposition to jihad terror, so that terror can advance unopposed and unimpeded. To trumpet both these hysterias, however, entangles Leftists like Bergen and Islamic supremacists like Obeidallah in a contradiction: they say that the stated beliefs and goals of Islamic terrorists are of no importance whatsoever, and it is “hateful” to point them out. Yet at the same time, they maintain that the stated beliefs and goals of “right-wing terrorists,” or even beliefs and goals that are ascribed to them by analysts and have no connection to what they actually believed, matter a great deal, and it is the nation’s duty to address them and institute remedies.

The hypocrisy is as obvious and stunning as the mainstream media’s cheerful and unapologetic eagerness to traffic in it.

Florida: “Am I Free? Am I Free?” Pleads Holocaust Survivor Marie Winkleman

Why is Florida resident and Holocaust survivor Marie Winkelman still in guardianship?

This is the sixth in a series of articles about the landmark guardianship of Holocaust survivor, Marie Winkelman, in Sarasota, Florida, established by a mediated settlement agreement without any evidence presented or records made.

After dozens of tests administered to her, dozens of hours of examinations and multiple positive evaluations of her capacity, 89-year-old Holocaust Survivor Marie Winkelman is still steel-trapped in Florida’s black-hole guardianship system, with her life in limbo and her assets at stake.  Every court hearing costs Marie’s assets thousands of dollars.  Every mediation costs Marie’s assets thousands of dollars.  And every day costs Marie heartache as she aches to be free.

Why were Marie’s positive evaluations withheld from the court?  Why did Marie’s attorney, Audrey Bear, not file the first positive evaluation of Marie with the court until May 30, 2014, almost four months after its completion in early February?

Why was Marie’s second positive evaluation from another psychiatrist not filed with the court until May 28, 2014, when the report was already signed by the psychiatrist nearly one month earlier on April 30?  Under Florida law, a positive evaluation from a physician can restore a Ward’s rights, but Marie’s rights are not restored despite positive evaluations from two psychiatrists.

To date, Marie Winkelman’s assets mean gainful employment for:

  1. Attorney Rebecca Proctor and at least one other attorney from her firm, Kirk Pinkerton
  2. Attorney Audrey Bear
  3. Attorney Christopher Likens
  4. Attorney Kim Bald
  5. Attorney Barry Spivey
  6. Attorney Erika Dine
  7. Nurse Lori Gaetano
  8. Psychiatrist Miguel Rivera

What Is Restoration of Capacity?

In Florida, any “interested person” can file a petition with the probate court to restore the rights of a person in guardianship.  After the petition to restore capacity is filed, Fla. Stat. 744.464 requires the court to “immediately appoint a physician to examine the Ward,” and his report must be filed with the court within 20 days after his appointment.  In sum, the process to restore a Ward’s civil rights should be short and simple, but Marie has never had an evidentiary hearing to remove her rights and never had an evidentiary hearing to restore them.

Although Marie’s restoration petition was filed on March 7, 2014, Marie has never had any hearing to restore her rights.  The short and simple process mandated by Florida State law used to restore Marie’s rights is now in its fourth month, months behind the statutory schedule.

Rutgers Administrator Brings Marie to Court

Since early July 2013, Marie Winkelman’s step-son-in-law Robert Szychowski, long-time fiscal administrator for Rutgers University and the New Jersey University of Medicine and Dentistry, has caused an avalanche of legal bills to crush Marie’s lifetime of savings for her retirement.  She is a woman alone, buried in a tsunami of bills she did not make; while Szychowski awaits  millions of dollars that his wife and sister-in-law are guaranteed to receive from Marie’s Trust, which was court ordered to be irrevocable, making Corrine Szychowski and Diane Winkelman the Trust’s permanent primary beneficiaries.

In the meantime, Rutgers officials refuse to accept any ethical complaints filed against Robert Szychowski’s breach of fiduciary duties owed to an elderly Holocaust Survivor remotely “related” to him, upon whose life force he has stomped for nearly one year.

Two Holocaust Survivors Trapped in Fraudulent Guardianships

On July 10, 2013, nearly one year ago, vivacious Marie Winkelman was living independently in a life full of meaning, especially for an 88-year-old Holocaust Survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto, author, and recognized painter.  The next day, Marie was immersed in court proceedings about which she knew nothing and was assigned a court-appointed attorney, Erika Dine, who had previously represented an agency, Aging Safely, that placed another Holocaust Survivor, Al Katz, into an infamous Florida guardianship.  Now, it was Marie’s turn to lose her civil rights, assets, independence, and sense of stability – the dearest facets of a Survivor’s life.

Marie’s case is a landmark one in guardianship history, as Marie never was given an opportunity to present evidence on her behalf.  She lost her civil rights and became a Ward of the State of Florida through a mediation that she never attended, which produced a settlement agreement that she never signed or saw, and was adopted by the Sarasota Probate Court without notice to her.  Marie’s step-son-in-law, Robert Szychowski, sought through fraudulent filings in the Sarasota County Probate Court to remove all of Marie’s civil rights – to vote, sign contracts, choose her residence, pick her physicians, and write a check, among many more – and was successful in obtaining a mediation agreement that put all of Marie’s Revocable Trust, worth millions, into an irrevocable Trust at Sabal Trust, which place Szychowski insisted upon, keeping Marie’s Trust totally out of Marie’s control.

In order to file his petition against Marie and place her into involuntary guardianship, Szychowski hired Dr. Miguel Rivera to accompany nurse Lori Gaetano to Marie’s apartment in a gated complex to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of Marie.  On July  2, 2013, Rivera with Gaetano knocked on Marie’s door unannounced, sat at her dining room table, and asked Marie dozens of questions without revealing the purpose of their visit.

According to the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association, “Psychiatrists are often asked to examine individuals for security purposes, to determine suitability for various jobs, and to determine legal competence. The psychiatrist must fully describe the nature and purpose and lack of confidentiality of the examination to the examinee at the beginning of the examination.” Although Section 4, No. 6, of the Principles of Medical Ethics quoted above requires proper notification for such an evaluation to be conduced, Rivera’s refusal to notify Marie did not impede his caustic evaluation of her that he provided to Szychowski, even criticizing a small stain she had on her blouse, which she was wearing while cleaning house and preparing a meal just moments before Rivera and Gaetano arrived.

With Rivera’s evaluation in hand, Szychowski’s lawyer, Christopher Likens, previously involved in the Al Katz guardianship, filed a petition for Szychowski to become Marie’s guardian and for Marie to be declared totally incapacitated by the court.  Days later, Likens filed another petition for the court to appoint an Emergency Temporary Guardian, Dawn Van Beck, who was appointed immediately by Judge Deno Economou.

In August 2013, Marie obtained a new attorney to replace Ericka Dine, Barry Spivey, who signed the mediated settlement agreement later adopted by the court, placing Marie into guardianship without an evidentiary hearing on her capacity or on the need for a guardianship.

Who Were the Signatories to the Mediated Settlement Agreement Controlling Marie’s Life and Millions in Trust?

On November 25, 2013, five lawyers (including the mediator charging Marie $450.00 per hour for his services) and three distant relatives of Marie signed an agreement which Barry Spivey never shared with Marie and Marie never signed. For Spivey’s work on the Mediated Settlement Agreement and other legal work, Judge Economou ordered Marie to pay Spivey $100.00 per hour more than the Sarasota rules permit guardianship attorneys to be paid. Spivey charged Marie $350.00 per hour for a total of approximately $40,000.00.

Although Marie has never had an evidentiary hearing to restore or to remove her rights, Spivey charged Marie for him to hold his own evidentiary hearing on his fees charged to Marie.  On May 1, 2014, an expert witness, Russell Snyder, testified that Spivey’s extraordinary rate of $350 per hour (versus the Sarasota cap on guardianship attorney fees of $250 per hour) charged to Marie was “reasonable” and then charged Marie $1700 for his testimony.

Attorney Rebecca Proctor, a Director of the now-bankrupt agency that put Al Katz into guardianship, has been paid approximately $50,000.00 from Marie’s assets for representing Marie’s two court-appointed guardians, Raymond Millman and Alina Koren, Marie’s cousin, whom Marie rescued as a baby after the Holocaust.

A Private Meeting of Attorneys Seeking More Money from Wards

Both Rebecca Proctor and Audrey Bear, Marie’s current attorney, met in a private meeting on June 2, 2014, at 1:30 PM, with Judge Economou in his courtroom with approximately two dozen other Sarasota attorneys to obtain the Judge’s agreement to raising their hourly fee cap for guardianship cases.  Also among the attorneys present was Edwin Boyer, who filed a bill in the Al Katz guardianship for $40,000.00 in legal fees “for [his] services rendered [from August 25, 2010, to December 14, 2010]… for the benefit of the Ward,” who passed away on July 11, 2010.  The attorney arranging the private meeting with the Probate Judge was a good friend of Edwin Boyer, Gerald O’Brien, who is being sued by Al Katz’s Estate for exploitation of a vulnerable adult while Al Katz was in guardianship.

On the day following the private meeting with Judge Economou, attorneys Audrey Bear and Rebecca Proctor, who are close friends, held a hearing in front of Judge Economou to obtain Marie’s financial accountings from Szychowski.  Both of these attorneys plus Christopher Likens and Szychowski’s other attorney, Kim Bald, all knew well before the hearing that Marie had been determined in multiple reports to be capacitated, but the result of the hearing was to schedule another expensive mediation without any evidence presented or records made.

Meanwhile, dear Marie asks “Am I free?  Am I free?  When will I be free?”

NOTE:  On Friday, June 6, 2014, Beverly Newman filed a motion pro se to have Robert Szychowski removed as agent pursuant to Marie’s Durable Power of Attorney, due to his continuing abuse of POA powers and fiduciary duties.

RELATED ARTICLE: Incapacitated: Florida’s Guardianship Program – ABC News

Planned Parenthood Staffer Tells 15-Year-Old to be a Dominatrix, Have BDSM Sex

In the first video released in its new expose’ of the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Live Action has caught a counselor for the abortion giant urging a 15-year-old to have BDSM sex and to engage in sexual relations as a dominatrix.

The entire video series catches the Planned Parenthood abortion business teaching teenagers about S&M-based sexual relationships and concepts such as gagging, whipping and asphyxiation. In a series of undercover audits, Live Action investigators documented Planned Parenthood counselors and nurses advising our investigators, who the Planned Parenthood staffers thought were minors, on how to practice torture sex.

In this and forthcoming videos, Planned Parenthood counselors encourage undercover investigators posting as 15 and 16-year-old teens, to engage in the sadomasochistic practices, telling the underage teens  “if it’s consensual, it’s OK… it’s totally OK.”

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXPOSED: Planned Parenthood Goes a Step Too Far
ObamaCore Emerges As a Major Issue As Education Takes An Orwellian Turn – The New York Sun