Featured Archives - Page 338 of 381

“Oops-care” by George C. Leef

February 27, 2014/in Featured, Healthcare, News, Policy/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Obamacare victimizes Americans, but politics means never having to say you’re sorry.

Remember the glowing, utopian talk about the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” back in 2009–10? We heard constantly that it was the solution to a national crisis, carefully contrived to guarantee high-quality insurance for virtually everyone without making anyone worse off.

And so the great mountain of a bill was quickly passed while the Democrats held unchallengeable control. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi breezily said, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Now we know that she actually meant, “We have to pass this before people find out what it will do to them.”

Day by day, we discover what is in Obamacare—pain and angst for many ordinary Americans as the law’s numerous edicts kick in. The February 24 Wall Street Journal featured an article right on point, “Obamacare and My Mother’s Cancer Medicine” by Stephen Blackwood. (Disclosure: I know Mr. Blackwood, but this piece would be exactly the same if we had never met.)

The article shows how damaging the law has been to his mother, who is stricken with carcinoid cancer. She had been covered by a Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy for 20 years and it served her needs well. “It was expensive,” Blackwood writes, “but given that it covered her very expensive treatments, it was a terrific plan. It gave her access to any specialist or surgeon, and to the Sandostatin and other medicines that were keeping her alive.”

But then Obamacare came crashing down, requiring BC/BS to cancel Mrs. Blackwood’s plan last fall. Since that time, she has been through a nightmare trying to find new coverage. The plan she eventually had to go with seemed satisfactory, but just before she had surgery on February 12, she was informed that the insurer would not, in fact, cover her medications. Mrs. Blackwood is living on the precipice, and turmoil over insurance is the last thing she needs.

Why would the Congress and President Obama put a sick person through such difficulty? Why did they inflict what Blackwood aptly calls “a Procrustean disaster” on the many Americans who have had stable and satisfactory medical care arrangements shredded by government meddling?

Of course, none of the backers of the hilariously misnamed PPACA meant to harm people like Mrs. Blackwood. They meant well—or so they all say. They wanted to solve the problem of people who had to get by without health insurance. The bill simply had to be passed immediately.

Consequently, there couldn’t be any of the customary hearings on legislation that would have allowed experts to carefully examine the bill’s workings and think through the likely results—not just the nice-sounding intended ones. Slow, deliberate debate over the bill’s provisions would no doubt have revealed that it would have lots of harmful side effects, like the cancellation of plans that cancer patients were relying on.

Rushing Obamacare into law was the governmental equivalent of a doctor giving a patient a completely untested drug.

Any Democrat in Congress could have said, “I don’t care if my party’s leadership insists on this, I won’t vote for it until the bill has been carefully examined, and since it’s over 2,500 pages, that can’t be done quickly.” Too bad that there were no “profiles in courage” who stood up for caution and common sense.

Once the severe side effects began to manifest themselves, President Obama gave an interview in which he offered a wishy-washy pseudo-apology to the people victimized by his Great Leap Forward. “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurance they got from me,” he said. I’m sure that the Blackwood family and many others found those words to be soothing.

Let’s think about this situation from a different angle. Suppose that you had a problem at your house—a shaky shelf in your garage. Your neighbor noticed it one day while the two of you were talking in the driveway. The next day, unbidden, he came over, entered your garage, and tried to fix the shelf. But in doing so, he caused it to collapse on your car. Tools and cans of paint fell on it, doing considerable damage.

What would you expect him to do?

You would expect him to apologize sincerely for the intrusion, make amends for the damage he caused, then meekly promise not to bother you again. Most Americans, acting as regular people, would behave just that way.

Obamacare is like the busybody neighbor’s unwanted “help.” Unbidden, a group of arrogant politicians, supremely confident that they knew how to improve society through a maze of taxes and mandates and prohibitions, has harmed many of the people they supposedly represent. But don’t expect any apologies, much less a making of amends, and much, much less a promise to leave you alone in the future.

Politicians almost never act like, as Obama might say, “regular folks.” They don’t apologize and make amends. The President isn’t really sorry about messing up the lives of people like Mrs. Blackwood; all he is sorry about is that some Americans now realize they’re the eggs to be broken so he can make his omelet.

Other politicians responsible for giving us Obamacare are just trying to change the subject. Here in North Carolina where I live, Senator Hagan avoided Obama when he visited the state recently and is running smiley face ads telling voters that she’s in favor of “investing in education.”

I cannot remember any instance when a politician owned up to a mistake and said to his constituents, “I supported that bill (or that war, or that appointment), but now I can see what a blunder it was. I’m sorry and will try to undo the damage I have caused.”

Politicians almost never admit their mistakes and correct them, which is an excellent reason why we should keep politics out of as much of life as possible.

ABOUT GEORGE C. LEEF

George Leef is the former book review editor of The Freeman. He is director of research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Shutterstock on the Foundation for Economic Education website and is reposted with permission.

GENETICS: “Racial hygiene” in America one baby at a time

February 27, 2014/in Featured, Healthcare, News, Policy, Science/by Dr. Rich Swier

There are two ways to create a super race. The first is to eliminate those who are genetically inferior. The second is to create more of those who are genetically superior. The first was originally called negative Eugenics, the second labeled positive Eugenics.

Today the word “genetics” has replaced the word “Eugenics.” The goals are the same.

The United States was the birthplace of the modern Eugenics movement. The American Eugenics Society was founded in 1922, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) was founded in 1931. Modern genetics evolved from and was created by the American Eugenicists. The purpose of GSA and its members is to, “[W]ork to advance knowledge in the basic mechanisms of inheritance, from the molecular to the population level.”

Genetics has two branches – negative genetics and positive genetics. It is important to understand how both are creating a “racially hygienic” society in America today.

NEGATIVE GENETICS

Edwin Black in his book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race writes, “On January 19, 1904, the Carnegie Institution formally inaugurated what it called the Station for Experimental Evolution of the Carnegie Institution at bucolic Cold Springs Harbor, [New Jersey].” “The undertaking was not merely funded by Carnegie, it was an integral part of the Carnegie Institution itself,” notes Black, “[Carnegie Institute Chairman John] Billings and the Carnegie Institution would now mobilize their prestige and the fortune they controlled to help [Professor Charles] Davenport usher America into an age of a new form of hygiene: racial hygiene. The goal was clear: to eliminate the inadequate and unfit.”

No war, pestilence, genocide or government policy has done more to limit the numbers of defectives, feebleminded, poor and unwanted than the Eugenics (genetics) movement.

Edwin Black, author of War Against The Weak, writes, “The global effort to help women make independent choices about their own pregnancies was dominated by one woman: Margaret Sanger… Motherhood was to most civilizations a sacred role. Sanger, however, wanted women to have a choice in that sacred role, specifically if, when and how often to become pregnant.”

Black notes, “… Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior strains could multiply without competition from ‘the unfit.’ She repeatedly referred to the lower classes and the unfit as ‘human waste’ not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenic view that human ‘weeds’ should be ‘exterminated.’ Moreover, for both political and genuine ideological reasons, Sanger associated closely with some of some of America’s most fanatical eugenic racists.” Sanger stated, “My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”

“The feminist movement, of which Sanger was a major exponent, always identified with eugenics,” wrote Black.

Today we see that negative genetics has led to more black abortions than births in New York City and a 73% black abortion rate in Mississippi. Some have labeled this national birth control effort “Black Genocide. “Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black,” noted Erma Clardy Craven (deceased) Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader.

POSITIVE GENETICS

Positive genetics focuses on creating a racially pure and superior race to “improve the human stock”. It is not unlike creating a superior ear of corn or breed of cattle. The genetics movement finds its roots in the American Breeders Association. It is not enough to stop the breeding of inferiors, it is just as important to breed the right human. German biologist Johann Gregor Mendel (1882-1884) was the father of genetics.

Recent news has focused on the ultimate achievement of the geneticists – the racially hygienic baby, a.k.a. “designer baby.” The Washington Post reports:

The provocative notion of genetically modified babies met the very real world of federal regulation Tuesday, as a government advisory committee began debating a new technique that combines DNA from three people to create embryos free of certain inherited diseases.

The two-day meeting of the Food and Drug Administration panel is focused on a procedure that scientists think could help women who carry DNA mutations for conditions such as blindness and epilepsy. The process would let them have children without passing on those defects.

“The technology involves taking defective mitochondria, the cell’s powerhouses, from a mother’s egg and replacing them with healthy mitochondria from another woman. After being fertilized by the father’s sperm in a lab, the egg would be implanted in the mother, and the pregnancy could progress normally,” notes WaPo.

As CH Waddington, a British developmental biologist and geneticist, wrote in 1957, “It is of course a truism which has long been recognised that the development of any individual is affected both by the hereditary determinants which come into the fertilised egg from the two parents and also by the nature of the environment in which the development takes place.”

It now appears that American geneticists, under the guidance and with the approval of the FDA, may create a new “racially hygienic” baby.

All that is left to do if controlling the environment via government policy. How do you do this? You make full implementation of the Affordable Care Act the “work of God“. But whose God?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image “Example of local structural homology” is courtesy of Fdardel. The use of this image does not in any way suggest that Fdardel endorses the author or the work in this column. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

ABOUT JOHANN GREGOR MENDEL – THE FATHER OF GENETICS

Gregor Mendel, through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance. He deduced that genes come in pairs and are inherited as distinct units, one from each parent. Mendel tracked the segregation of parental genes and their appearance in the offspring as dominant or recessive traits. He recognized the mathematical patterns of inheritance from one generation to the next. Mendel’s Laws of Heredity are usually stated as:

1) The Law of Segregation: Each inherited trait is defined by a gene pair. Parental genes are randomly separated to the sex cells so that sex cells contain only one gene of the pair. Offspring therefore inherit one genetic allele from each parent when sex cells unite in fertilization.

2) The Law of Independent Assortment: Genes for different traits are sorted separately from one another so that the inheritance of one trait is not dependent on the inheritance of another.

3) The Law of Dominance: An organism with alternate forms of a gene will express the form that is dominant.

The genetic experiments Mendel did with pea plants took him eight years (1856-1863) and he published his results in 1865. During this time, Mendel grew over 10,000 pea plants, keeping track of progeny number and type. Mendel’s work and his Laws of Inheritance were not appreciated in his time. It wasn’t until 1900, after the rediscovery of his Laws, that his experimental results were understood.

NOTE: The American Eugenics movement was inspired by Mendel’s work on pea pods.

Integrity Florida calls for Investigation of Enterprise Florida

February 26, 2014/in Budget and Finance, Featured, News, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

Dan Krassner, Co-Founder and Executive Director Integrity Florida, and Ben Wilcox, Research Director Integrity Florida, in an email state, “The lavish travel and wasteful government purchasing practices of Enterprise Florida, a taxpayer supported entity serving as the privatized commerce department for the State of Florida, was detailed in an investigative report by Michael Buczyner, WPEC/CBS 12 titled ‘State-run agency accused of abusing taxpayers dollars‘ on February 25. The Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) is responsible for the state’s contract with Enterprise Florida, but it has clearly turned a blind eye to this waste and abuse of the taxpayers’ money.”

“Enterprise Florida travel guidelines do not comply with official state travel restrictions, even though the entity is using taxpayer funds allocated by the state legislature. According to an internal audit prepared on March 15, 2012 by McGladrey, only three Enterprise Florida executives, Secretary of Commerce Gray Swoope, Chief Operating Officer Griff Salmon and Chief Marketing Officer Melissa Medley, all former employees of the Mississippi Development Authority, gained ‘unlimited signing authority’ on February 7, 2012, to execute contracts and make significant purchases of non-economic development goods and services,” note Krassner and Wilcox.

Since the new authority was granted to these top three executives at Enterprise Florida, here is a sampling of the organization’s questionable expenses:

Nearly $22,000 spent on New York Yankee Luxury Suites and related purchases.
More than $13,000 spent at the San Diego Zoo.
$12,000 spent on Texas Rangers baseball.
More than $7,000 spent at Cowboys Stadium.
More than $4,000 spent on Atlanta Braves baseball.
More than $4,000 spent on limousine services.
Nearly $3,300 spent at Truluck’s Seafood Steak & Crab House in Austin, Texas.
More than $2,500 spent at the 21 Club.
More than $2,000 spent at 4Rivers Smokehouse.
More than $1,300 spent on a charter fishing boat.
Roughly another $30,000 per month spent on American Express credit cards for unknown expenditures.
Thousands more on airfare, luxury resorts and hotels, expensive meals and limousine services.

The people of Florida deserve accountability and transparency within every aspect of our government. Given the appearance of impropriety, an inspector general report is needed to determine whether the taxpayer resources that support Enterprise Florida are properly protected and whether corrective action is needed. A company this large, supported by hard-working Florida families, must be held to the highest ethical standards.

Additional Resources:

Integrity Florida letter to Governor Rick Scott “Eliminate government waste at Enterprise Florida, investigation needed” (read more)

“State-run agency accused of abusing taxpayer dollars” Story by Michael Buczyner / CBS 12 NEWS (read more) (watch video)

Enterprise Florida Internal Audit by McGladrey – March 15, 2012 (read more)

Enterprise Florida, Inc. Vendor Payments – January 1, 2012 to August 28, 2013 (read more)

Enterprise Florida receives more than 97% of its funding from taxpayers (read more on page 24) (watch video starting at 1:00:20 about an hour into the video)

$57.4 million total 2012-13 budget for Enterprise Florida
$56 million (97.6%) in government/public/taxpayer-funded sources
$1.4 million (2.4%) from the private sector

Bipartisan efforts to hold Enterprise Florida accountable with bills filed for the 2014 legislative session:

Applies state ethics code to Enterprise Florida staff – CS/SB 846: Governmental Ethics GENERAL BILL by Senate Ethics and Elections Commission; Senator Jack Latvala (read more)
Strengthening Enterprise Florida disclosure practices and fiscal accountability SB 1270: Economic Incentive Programs GENERAL BILL by Senator Eleanor Sobel (read more)
Strengthening Enterprise Florida disclosure practices and fiscal accountability HB 1103: Economic Incentive Programs GENERAL BILL by Representative Jose Javier Rodriguez (read more)

Dick Cheney: Obama would ‘much rather spend the money on food stamps’ than military

February 26, 2014/in Budget and Finance, Featured, National Security, News, Policy, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday accused President Barack Obama of cutting the defense budget because “he would rather spend money on food stamps.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/QMev7cfceG4[/youtube]

The Pentagon announced on Monday plans to shrink the U.S. Army to pre-World War II levels, in addition to eliminating the Air Force’s A-10 fleet and retiring the Cold War-era U-2 spy plane program.

“Absolutely dangerous,” Cheney told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “I, obviously, have not been a strong supporter of Barack Obama but this really is over the top. It does enormous long-term damage to our military.”

“They’re basically making the decision, the Obama administration, that they no longer want to be dominant on the seas and the skies and in space,” the former vice president added. “This notion that we no longer want to have a force that’s capable of any sustained occupation of a foreign territory, that’s a basic fundamental decision that drives — supposedly justifies this. But lots of times, you don’t get to make that choice. Circumstances will make that choice for you.”

Cheney said that his “old friends” in the Middle East had told him that they no longer trusted the United States to use military power when it was necessary.

“I think the whole thing is not driven by any change in world circumstances, it’s driven by budget considerations,” he insisted. “He would much rather spend the money on food stamps than he would on a strong military or support for our troops.”

“Pretty frightening,” Hannity agreed.

Greenpeace Co-Founder: Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears

February 26, 2014/in Environment, Featured, News, Policy, Science/by Marc Morano

Selected Highlights of Dr. Patrick Moore’s Feb. 25, 2014 testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee:

‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.

‘Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’

Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears: ‘The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming…When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.’

Obama Science Czar John Holdren’s testimony here.

Selected Highlights of Dr. Patrick Moore’s Feb. 25, 2014 testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee:

“Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears:

‘When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.’

On UN IPCC’s 95% confidence in man-made global warming: ‘Extremely likely’ is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.”

Full Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight – “Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

February 25, 2014

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.

There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5oC. This compares with a low of about 12oC during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22oC during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested.

Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950.

From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5oC over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57oC during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2oC rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.

Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.

Related Links:

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘Thank goodness we came along & reversed 150 million-year trend of reduced CO2 levels in global atmosphere. Long live the humans’ – Moore: ‘CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth…At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth’

Former Greenpeace co-founder turned climate skeptic Dr. Patrick Moore calls NAS ‘tipping point’ study ‘pure junk’: ‘Low point for US National Academy of Science. Warns of ‘tipping points’ in climate like ‘drunk drivers’

Former Greenpeace Founding Member Dr. Patrick Moore refutes warmist’s attack point by point:

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: Oil is the ‘most important source of energy to support our civilization’ – ‘If it is the aim of ‘environmentalists’ to stop fossil fuel production and use, end fracking, end coal mining, end use of oil, then they are promoting a policy that would have disastrous consequences for human civilization & the environment. If we stopped using fossil fuel today, or by 2020 as Gore proposes, at least half the human population would perish & there wouldn’t be a tree left on planet within a year, as people struggled to find enough energy to stay alive’

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore Rips Windfarms: ‘They are ridiculously expensive and don’t work half the time…The industry is a destroyer of wealth and negative to the economy’ –Moore: ‘And no matter how many are built, they won’t replace coal, gas or hydro or nuclear plants, because they are continuous and wind is not always reliable’

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore Questions Man-Made Global Warming, Calls it ‘Obviously a Natural Phenomenon’ – ‘We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people’

Elementary School Spiral: A Cautionary Tale by Jenna Robinson

February 26, 2014/in Education, Featured, News, Policy/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Vouchers are back in vogue, but higher ed offers us lessons about a K–12 tuition spiral.

Twenty-five years ago, education secretary Bill Bennett advanced the idea that government student aid was largely to blame for the steady increases in college tuition. Since then, higher education reformers have been sounding the alarm about the tuition spiral. The public has finally started to pay attention, now that average tuition and fees at private universities have topped $30,000 per year.

K–12 school choice proponents should take heed. With the increasing popularity of vouchers, it’s possible for the same problem to crop up in private elementary and secondary schools. There’s even a proposal before Congress to launch a federal voucher program for poor families that would allow them to send their children outside their designated districts.

Before jumping on board that proposal, though, voucher proponents should hear this cautionary tale from higher education.

Reformers have amassed considerable evidence for Bennett’s now-famous hypothesis in the past quarter-century. College tuition has increased more than 500 percent since 1985, compared with a 121 percent gain in the consumer price index during the same period. At elite schools, the problem is worse. Fifty years ago, the annual cost to attend Harvard was less than $2,500, which is about $19,000 in today’s dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A year at Harvard now costs nearly $60,000, including tuition, room and board, and fees.

The mechanics of college pricing are to blame. As the availability of student aid increases, either via grants or low-interest loans, demand for education increases—particularly at previously unaffordable “elite” institutions. Colleges then raise tuition enough to capture some of that aid. The problem is systemic; even colleges that are not “greedy” will eventually raise tuition to compete with peer institutions and bolster their reputations by hiring more prestigious staff and adding or upgrading facilities. Aid is then increased to “keep up” with tuition hikes, feeding the cycle.

But endless tuition hikes are not a foregone conclusion. Scholarly evidence shows that some types of aid and some segments of higher education seem to be somewhat “immune” to the tuition spiral. In Introducing Bennett Hypothesis 2.0, Andrew Gillen summarizes those findings.

First, he says, “Not all aid is created equal. . . . Aid programs that are restricted to low-income students are less likely to allow colleges to raise their tuition.” Most voucher proposals get this part right. But here again, K–12 reformers can learn from higher education’s mistakes. The federal Pell Grant program, which once served only students in poverty, has now been expanded to middle-class students—mostly due to political pressure. Voucher programs are susceptible to the same problems.

Second, Gillen shows that tuition caps weaken the link between aid and tuition. In the current market, the existence of “free” public education exerts considerable pressure on private schools to hold tuition down. “Free” public education acts as a tuition cap. Allowing parents to take their voucher money outside the child’s traditional neighborhood zone counteracts that tuition cap. If public schools can capture voucher money to then spend on teachers or programs, it will be that much harder for private schools to compete without raising their own tuition. (In reality, any additional funding poured into public schools exacerbates this problem—but that subject is beyond the purview of this article.) Allowing parents and students to choose their public schools would address the problem; giving them additional money to do so would introduce another.

Third, Gillen notes, “Price discrimination allows private colleges to raise tuition in response to aid at an individual level.” But in order for colleges to do this, he explains, they must know each student’s ability to pay. This means that providing colleges with students’ financial background, as the federal government does via the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), will lead to more aid being captured. “Ending [this] counterproductive practice,” Gillen says, “would curtail price discrimination, which would increase the effectiveness of aid in improving affordability.” The lesson here for K–12 is that parents’ financial information, which they will necessarily disclose to government officials in order to qualify for vouchers, should never be shared with private schools.

Ultimately, all schools, whether public or private, want to improve in order to better serve students and to bolster their reputations. The incentive to increase spending in pursuit of that goal is already very strong. Implementing vouchers in the wrong way simply gives schools another avenue to do so. Vouchers advocates should proceed with caution.

ABOUT JENNA ROBINSON

Jenna Robinson is director of outreach at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

How Social Security Makes Us Poorer by Brenton Smith

February 26, 2014/in Budget and Finance, Featured, News, Taxes/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

When you read that Social Security lifts 50 percent of seniors out of poverty, keep in mind that it was largely the cost of Social Security that put them there. It’s the perfect example of government incompetence creating higher costs and misguided incentives—and delivering exactly the opposite of what it promised.

The contradiction stems from the cost of Social Security, which has exploded. In 1950 Social Security cost 2 percent of the first $3,000 of income (in 2013 dollars, that would be 2 percent of roughly $29,000, according to the BLS calculator). In 2013, the retirement portion of Social Security cost 10.6 percent of the first $113,700. On top of this cost, the government now takes another 1.8 percent of your wages to cover the cost of disability benefits, which were added in 1958.

What’s more, you get a lot less bang for a lot more bucks. A couple retiring in 1960 expected to collect $8 of benefits for every $1 of contributions. Today the return for average Americans is actually negative.

The process of rising costs and declining returns has continued for 80 years. We are now at a point where the largest investment in retirement planning of the vast majority of Americans loses money. No one should be surprised to find that people who invest their retirement savings poorly wind up in poverty when they reach retirement.

The Urban Institute’s “Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits over a Lifetime” projects what a hypothetical worker will contribute to Social Security versus what they expect to collect. The “lifetime value of taxes” shows what would have happened if the accumulated taxes had been put into an account that earned interest. The research projects that an average worker who retires in 2030 will have lost more than $400,000 in savings in order to collect about $370,000 in expected benefits.

Here is where the system gets really ugly. The $370,000 isn’t guaranteed. In fact, the Trustees project that in a good economy this worker will only get 77 percent of his scheduled benefits because he will retire after the trust fund is exhausted. Mind you, the 77 percent of scheduled benefits is completely dependent upon the willingness of future workers to commit 12.4 percent of their wages to this system as it falls into collapse. Basically this worker only collects provided another worker gets a worse deal.

The government has compounded the impact of the problem by feeding the systemic dysfunction directly through our labor market. Social Security is financed with a tax on labor—so it penalizes work even though the best cure for poverty is a job. This tax also creates a disincentive to hire people and creates an incentive to move work to countries with a lower tax burden. Social Security introduces incentives to work less, such as early retirement.

Nobody wants to be poor in their old age. If workers did not have to spend their entire careers burdened with Social Security taxes, fewer would face that possibility.

ABOUT BRENTON SMITH

Brenton Smith is the founder of Fix Social Security Now.

US Army troop cuts: Hagel and Obama seem determined to decimate our military capability by Allen West

February 25, 2014/in Featured, National Security, News/by Allen West

Early this morning I received an email from Mrs. Annie Shyne, a former constituent, whose son Nicholas received a nomination from our congressional office to the US Naval Academy where he is now a plebe.

She was distressed over the intentions of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, former US Army Soldier, to decimate our military capability with deep US Army troop cuts. Her email expressed concern for her son and his future as a commissioned officer in the Navy or Marine Corps. She was even more disturbed over the abandonment our military families will receive by way of cuts to commissary services and pay freezes. We recently reported the level of food stamp usage by our military families and its unconscionable increase.

Then this morning, I tuned in to hear SecDef Hagel attempt to explain this ill-conceived budget decision — which certainly has our enemies cheering. It seems Hagel, in his insidious and dubious manner, fails to realize that the most technologically advanced weapon on the battlefield is a trained, resolute, and determined warrior.

Instead of “investing” in the most important task of our federal government — providing for the common defense — we shall now focus on “investing” in the expansion of the welfare nanny-state. There is no doubt where President Obama’s priorities lie.

We have departed from the maxim of “peace through strength” to a belief in “appeasement through weakness.” Obama somehow believes kumbaya is a strategic objective. And don’t give me the crap about drones, because we learned during Vietnam that a president should not be directing strikes from the White House – implemented by another failed progressive president, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

We should be examining how we create the capability and capacity to meet the challenges of the enemy globally. That means looking at each geographic AOR (Area of Responsibility; CENTCOM, AFRICOM, EUCOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM, NORTHCOM) and ensuring they have the appropriate level of force mix to meet the threats in their AORs.

We don’t need massive endeavors into new technologies, we need a massive focus on capability to meet and defeat the enemy by way of deterrence. Of course I support the defense industry, but the defense industry should not be the drivers of our national security strategy.

For Obama and Hagel to believe taking the US Army down to pre-World War II levels is a smart decision evidences their abject stupidity in comprehending the global conflagrations in which we are embroiled — the enemy has a vote. This whole inane statement about “pivoting to the Asian-Pacific rim” is more empty rhetoric as we decimate our US Naval strength while China builds theirs.

Barack Hussein Obama cannot be seen as a Commander-in-Chief and I will never refer to him that way. His fundamental transformation of America means weakening our nation and leaving our Republic less secure. I can just imagine how appreciative and elated his Muslim Brotherhood friends are at this point, to include Turkey’s President Erdogan, as well as the mad mullahs in Iran.

Why would any mother like Annie Shyne want her son or daughter to serve under this charlatan? The real “War on Women?” It’s the Obama vision to have more American mothers welcoming their children home in flag-draped caskets — as we’ve seen under his purview in Afghanistan, where deaths have skyrocketed.

This is my Army for whom I gave 22 years of honorable service and where I have a nephew and many a dear friend serving. I will be damned if I allow these progressive socialists to put their lives in danger. This, my fellow Americans, is why we need conservative American leaders who have served and are willing to lay down their life for this nation. Not some sorry Obama lapdog.

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

The Night Venezuela Finally Imploded

February 25, 2014/in Featured, National Security, News, Policy/by Bear Witness Central

Tonight, Venezuela is seeing a spasm of violence that’s unlike anything the country has experienced since 1989. Information is fragmented, since an almost complete media black-out is in place, but you don’t need the media to hear your neighbor’s screams.

LATEST VIDEOS FROM VENEZUELA IN OUR VENEZUELA TV CHANNEL CLICK HERE

Caracas, Valencia, Merida and San Cristobal in particular have become virtual war zones: National Guard units and National Police have been shooting tear gas canisters and buckshot sometimes directly at protesters, sometimes into residential buildings and, raiding any place they think student protesters may be hiding. Alongside them, the government backed colectivos (basically paramilitary gangs on motorbikes, a tropical basij) shoot at people with live ammo.

But of course, this is no war zone: in a war zone you have two sides shooting at each other. Tonight one side is doing all the shooting, the other side is doing all the being shot at.

The videos that are starting to come out are simply shocking. It’s as though the denouement we both sides have either feared or looked forward to for so long is finally coming to a head. See the arrival of the colectivos at Altamira square earlier tonight:

As these videos were being shot, president Maduro was on a live TV and radio cadena broadcast saying “I can give you guarantees that what those colectivos are doing is working, producing.”

Here we see the Tupamaros, perhaps the oldest and best established colectivo, at work in Los Ruices.

It gets worse. In this video, you can see the National Guard murdering a civilian in La Candelaria (at 1:52)

Here, we see National Guard troops shooting a civilian in Av. Panteon – there are conflicting reports about whether he survived:

Some Twitter streams are genuinely scary. JG Punto writes, while hiding from police and collectives in one a residential building in Altamira: “They found us”, his next tweets are mayhem and beatings of the students hiding with him.

Others post a picture of the National Guard beating down a building’s door:

Here is Catia tonight – the one glimmer of hope is that everyone has a camera ready phone these days – there will be plenty of evidence:

Here we see the guy shot at Avenida Panteon, above:

After midnight, a fire was set in an apartment in El Marqués , (Romulo Gallegos Ave.)

The Petare-Santa Lucia Road:

Here we see soldiers shooting into residential buildings in the Caracas neighborhood of Santa Monica:

And this is not Kyiv, not Baghdad…it’s Valencia tonight:

Here’s Barquisimeto earlier today:

And this was San Cristobal yesterday. (We’re hearing reports that the internet has gone down in San Cristobal now.)

Of course it’s not just the big cities. This is Acarigua tonight:

Ramon Muchacho is working with Polichacao to evacuate students from their hiding places. You read that right, the municipal police is scrambling to keep national security forces from killing protesters.

A grave line has been crossed. Real, physical violence is finally catching up with the huge reserve of pent-up rhetorical violence we’ve suffered through since 1999.

We’ve spent 15 years fearing this.

Now we’re living it.

LATEST VIDEOS FROM VENEZUELA IN OUR VENEZUELA TV CHANNEL CLICK HERE

Minding the Campus: “Slut Walks” to Pass USF Freshman Composition

February 24, 2014/in Education, Featured, News, Policy/by Dr. Mary Grabar

“Real learning takes place outside the classroom,” the late communist history professor Howard Zinn famously said. Zinn practiced what he preached and led his students at Spelman College and Boston University on marches and protests.

The 1960s saw plenty of teach-ins and marches by students and some radical professors. But even then it would have been hard to imagine how the staple of first-year coursework, Freshman Composition, would be used to turn students into activists, subverting the idea of “composition” itself and leaving some students free of any ability to write.

Little Writing, But Plenty of Activism

Indeed, as I learned from reading an article in the journal Hybrid Pedagogy, freshman composition provides an opportunity to display “bravery.” In “Social Action and the Status Quo: Bravery in First Year Composition,” Susan Gail Taylor refers to the Rhetoric in Action project at the University of South Florida where she was then teaching as a graduate student. The project asks students to engage in activism and then offer their “personal narrative of social action experience.” Although the website states that students should use the “writing process” and “academic conventions,” much of what they do seems to go far beyond “composition” as traditionally known. Students, instead, are asked to share first-person experiences in “multiple genres,” such as “letter, website, video, artwork, flyer, pamphlet, panel, demonstration.”

Taylor has given her students assignments at “Take Back the Night” and “Slut Walk” events. She has had them videotape themselves discussing how they have overcome personal challenges. Some students appear to resist, but Taylor tells colleagues, “I’ve developed a few ways to counteract possible hesitation and prepare my students to inspire others with their actions. For instance, I typically choose a social issue and have students organize and lead flash mobs in efforts to raise awareness.”

In “brief moments,” of flash mobs–90 seconds to 3 minutes–“students are faced with the power of their own voices (both literally and figuratively).” (One wonders about the “power of the voice” of the student who disagrees with such causes.) Students, Taylor claims, “are challenged to step outside of a traditional essay that discusses action and instead are tasked with becoming the action, thus inciting them to discover their own capacity for bravery and resistance.”

Bravery? In her YouTube video of the SlutWalk on September 16, 2011, her mostly female students chant, “what I wear does not mean yes.” The male voices make an odd counterpoint towards the end, as does the image of a couple guys reluctantly tagging behind a few paces. Taylor writes under the link: “They made awesome choices in their posters, they were loud and they were proud. Rhetoric was definitely in action! :)”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/TIP7GdBWzcw[/youtube]

She explains her pedagogical purpose: “I want to show students how the power of language and the power of action can intersect: they select our chants and the information we use, they design the posters (which I provide), and they choose the locations– all in an effort to have even one person be affected by their work.”

Well, yes, this is a form of persuasion, but certainly outside the bounds of legitimate rhetorical persuasion. Such an assignment seems to verge on illegality or coercion, and certainly has little to do with the “art of persuasion,” as described in Aristotle’s Rhetoric–the foundational text.

Taylor, however, does not seem to be outside the current academic mainstream. The 35,000-member National Council of Teachers of English publishes, among other books, Writing Partnerships by Thomas Deans, which tells composition teachers how to combine “writing instruction with community action.”

Deans traces the recent evolution of composition: “As a discipline, rhetoric and composition has adopted the broadly defined ‘social perspective’ on writing,” having “evolved from studies of the lone writer to more contextual understandings of composing; from a narrow, functional definition of literacy, focused on correctness, to a broader definition; from an exclusive focus on academic discourse to the study of both school and non academic contexts for writing; from presuming white middle-class culture as normative to analyzing and inviting cultural difference; and from gatekeeping at the university to facilitating the advancement of all students.”

Betraying the Original Purpose

Freshman Composition was intended to provide remedial help to students as campuses opened up to a broader mass of students–to the chagrin of traditionalists who wanted to maintain standards. It has been a service course, intended to equip college students with basic writing skills, to be transferred to other classes and then into the workplace. Advanced students could opt out by demonstrating their ability in writing tests, usually some variation of the standard five-paragraph essay. Increasingly, though, students have required remedial help for a course intended to be remedial. I know from teaching such courses that the remediation goes back to sentence-level grammar.

At the same time, I’ve seen the changes Deans notes: the emphasis on group work and peer review, the politically contentious topics almost exclusively from a leftist perspective, the addition of “visual literacy” as a category of literacy, and the multicultural sensitivities, not only in topics, but in language use.

The shift away from composition instruction to activism is evidenced in articles published in the organization’s journal, the College Composition and Communication and in the journal Pedagogy. Similar books, such as Composition and Sustainability: Teaching for a Threatened Generation, Rhetoric of Respect, about “academic-community writing partnerships” and S.U.N.Y. Press’s Making Writing Matter: Composition in the Engaged University, offer strategies for transforming classrooms into activist sites. A professor writes in the foreword to Affirming Students’ Rights to Their Own Language, “For many of us, the assertion of student language was inextricable from our national and international quest for social justice.” Major textbook publishers, like Bedford, are responding to market demand with single-themed readers on Sustainability, Money Changes Everything, Food Matters, and Composing Gender (the last with a cover photo of a female ballerina holding up a male ballet dancer). The upcoming annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication is filled with panel discussions on activism; a featured speaker is Black Panther-turned professor, Angela Davis. Her biography notes her “activism,” from when she was a “youngster” to her work today as an advocate of “prison abolition.”

The radicalization is finessed by statements like Deans’–that the field is expanding beyond a “narrow, functional definition” and shifting from “gatekeeping” to “facilitating the advancement of all students” (emphasis added). In plain English, this means that standards for writing are being eliminated. Furthermore, writing itself is being replaced by visual and auditory forms of persuasion, often in mobs. These are called “brave” actions.

Deans attempts to spread a patina of academic legitimacy over such activism by claiming there is a “coherent and substantial theoretical framework” for it. He cites the progressive education theorist and philosopher John Dewey and Marxist theorist Paulo Freire.

Deans also ludicrously claims that such activism goes back to the ancients. He states that Aristotle’s Rhetoric was intended to “intervene in the public sphere,” (maybe), and not necessarily be used in today’s “school settings,” but he ignores the fact that freshman composition is being to taught to young people who should be acquiring knowledge and skills. That is why they are in college in the first place. He also misleadingly refers to Isocrates, Cicero, and Quintilian in the same way of needing “to connect rhetorical practice to civic responsibility.” He even uses the “sweep of U.S. history–from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin to Jane Addams and John Dewey”–to support “experiential learning.”

Indeed, if we did go back to Jefferson and Franklin, two men who did have a sense of civic responsibility, we would find an opposite approach, one that values study, introspection, imitation, and debate before taking on the adult duties of “civic responsibility.” Franklin in his autobiography describes how he educated himself by imitating the master stylists in the Spectator, by reading widely, and by debating his peers in the Junto club. In such education, the effort is made to gain a perspective outside one’s own limited circle. Shouting in mobs is the opposite of what Aristotle, Jefferson, and Franklin had in mind.

We have radical professors promoting the idea that students’ own language is good enough, that there are no models for them to read and emulate, that they are to be change agents, participating in mob actions and demonstrating their “bravery” for credit. The end results are sure to be confused, narcissistic, indoctrinated illiterates.

EDITORS NOTE: The feature photo is from the “Slut Walk” Tampa Facebook page.

Oh No! Another Black Conservative Republican Running For Office

February 24, 2014/in Elections, Featured, News, Politics/by Lloyd Marcus

In the tradition of Sarah Palin, black tea party leader Katrina Pierson is a beautiful God, family, country and Constitution loving conservative Republican. Fearless and outspoken, Pierson’s inspiring life story nukes the Democrats’ mythical Republican War on Women.

Sad that I even have to go there, Pierson’s skin-color derails the Democrats’ deplorable narrative that Republican equals racist.

Pierson is running for office, Texas 32^nd Congressional District. After hurdling over establishment Republican Pete Sessions in the primary and defeating her Democrat opponent, Pierson will be the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/uE_6eOM2duo[/youtube]

The last thing Democrats want on the national stage is a black conservative Republican, anti-abortion, successful single mom who worked her way through college to achieve her American dream (without seeking government for answers). They do not want another non victim-minded black elected official out there touting traditional values; preaching that the rewards of hard work and self-reliance are self-respect and dignity. It would drive Democrats to drink.

Oh my gosh, what if women across America became inspired to emulate Pierson rather than the totally government dependent pathetic character in the Democrats’ Julia ad.

Pierson boldly stated, “Democrat policies keep women in poverty”.

Black politicians like Katrina Pierson, Sen. Tim Scott, Niger Innis, Allen West and others who view themselves as Americans rather than members of a victimized voting bloc, offering common sense solutions, will not be tolerated.

Prime examples are the Democrats’ relentless attacks on former Congressman Allen West and the NAACP’s campaign to destroy Sen. Tim Scott.

Pierson is sure to suffer a similar fate with every rise in her poll numbers and successes.

This is why it is vitally important that we bolster Pierson with our utmost support and encouragement.

Yes, Obama and the Democrats appear to be holding all the cards; a complicit mainstream media and a spineless GOP petrified of being called racist. Our ace in the hole is a diligent army of patriots armed with right, truth and a relentless resolve to restore liberty and freedom to America.

Staying focused on confidently espousing the virtues of Conservatism, getting conservatives elected and holding positive role models high and proud for all the world to see will produce results. When presented correctly, Conservatism speaks to the human spirit. Liberalism is counter to the higher nature of man. This is how we make a difference folks. This is how we defeat this evil Administration which encourages sloth and is attempting to transform our great nation. This is how we win!

GOP establishment pundits seek to disqualify Pierson saying she lacks experience.

I say Pierson has “the right stuff” and epitomizes the intentions of our Founding Fathers; sending concerned citizens committed to service to Washington rather than career politicians skilled in making deals solely for personal gain.

Five years ago, Pierson’s speech at a Texas tea party endeared her to patriots across America. She has been a rising star in the movement ever since.

Pierson is ready, willing and able to take the next step toward making a significant difference serving “the people” — Texas 32^nd Congressional District.

The tidal wave effect of a Pierson victory will reap national rewards; adding to the ranks of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and others; conservative warriors fighting for the rights, freedom and liberty of We The People.

Let Katrina Pierson know that we have her back. Be there for her folks.

Facebook event calls for execution of Operation American Spring organizer

February 24, 2014/in Elections, Featured, Gun Rights, News, Politics/by Save America Foundation

On Saturday, a complaint was filed with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center against Colorado resident Nathaniel C. Marshall over a Facebook event calling for the execution of Col. Harry Riley, the retired officer heading up Operation American Spring, a protest movement that seeks to remove President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden from power, along with congressional leaders of both parties, Col. Riley said in an exclusive interview.

The now-defunct event, titled “Operation American Spring Target: Citizens arrest trial and execution of Harry Riley,” had a total of four attendees, according to a photograph provided to Examiner. The photo also indicates Marshall allegedly established the event.

We reached out to all four individuals listed on the event page. Three said they never heard of the event, but Marshall did not respond.

Instead, he set up a petition at Change.org accusing Col. Riley of treason and demanding he, along with other organizers, be indicted for treason and given the death penalty.

“Colonel Harry Riley is committing treason,” the petition says. “His top Operation American Spring aides and he are organizing a coup to be held on May 16, 2014 in Washington DC. This is blatant treason and sedition and needs to be not just addressed but we need indictments and the death penalty!”

As of this writing, five people have signed the petition. The petition does not display the names of those who have signed.

An OAS volunteer who asked to remain anonymous told Examiner Marshall has caused problems before and was booted off the site.

Further research shows that a person by the same name with the same physical features was arrested in 2011 on charges of criminal impersonation and a computer crime in connection with a Craigslist scam involving a condominium.

“On March 17, 9NEWS spoke to Boris Umanskiy who tried to rent a Steamboat Springs condo the weekend of March 12. Umanskiy said he found a Craigslist ad from Marshall offering a condo in The Antlers,” Channel 9 News reported.

Christina Dickinson added:

Umanskiy said his friends paid Marshall $250 for the place, but they arrived at the condo and they learned it wasn’t for rent; it was for sale.

Marshall agreed to cooperate with investigators and promised to help identify victims who’ve not come forward so they can get their money back.Accord

According to the report, Marshall allegedly needed the money to help pay for medical bills.

Having served over 34 years in the military, Col. Riley is no stranger to danger, having received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal and a number of other decorations for his service.

The adversaries he faced in the military, he said, were soldiers worthy of respect.

But, he added, the individuals engaging in these attacks are something else.

“It’s quite amazing to me that a man, who I assume is a United States citizen, views any other citizen that wishes to exercise his/her constitutional rights of free speech, assembly in a non-violent, peaceful, unarmed status, challenging elected leadership, is an act of treason,” Col. Riley said in a statement to Examiner. “Leadership in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches have all violated their oath, and numerous examples of constitutional violation. Lawlessness abounds in Washington, D.C., individuals must be held accountable for unconstitutional and lawless behavior.”

Barack Obama and Pamela Geller win “Islamophobia” awards

February 24, 2014/in Featured, National Security, News, Policy/by Jihad Watch

Congratulations to my colleague Pamela Geller, winner of the Orwellian-named Islamic Human Rights Commission’s Islamophobia award. There must be weeping and gnashing of teeth at the White House over this: Obama has been unstintingly obsequious toward the Islamic world, even going so far as to declare his opposition to his own country’s Constitutional protection of the freedom of speech by declaring that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” But he has not acted against two vestiges of counter-terror programs that he inherited: Guantanamo (although he has freed jihad terrorists who were incarcerated there) and the drone attacks. And for that, he is now an “Islamophobe.” That shows that this Islamic Human Rights Commission, which no doubt enjoys a reputation in Britain as a “moderate” organization, wants all obstacles to jihad terror removed — and that is no surprise, since it is the goal of the entire propagation of the concept of “Islamophobia.”

“Barack Obama wins first prize at ‘Islamophobia awards,’” from Asian Image, February 21 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

US president Barack Obama has won first prize at the toung-in-cheek Islamophobia awards for for his nations unrelenting drone attacks.

Obama had been nominated by the public for “just about everything” – a charge that covers his continuation of drone strikes in the Muslim world as well as the failure to close the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention centre, and the introduction of the National Defense Authorisation Act that effectively ‘Guantanamises’ the whole USA.

Obama came in streets ahead of a gallery of fellow rogues which included other prominent politicians including French President Francois Hollande – cited for his country’s invasion of Mali – and the British Home Secretary Theresa May for a host of sins including extraditing Asperger’s sufferer Talha Ahsan to the United States, stripping Muslims of their citizenship, and most recently thinking about applying “anti-terror” ASBO-style punishments for British Muslims who are merely “suspected” of so-called terrorist activities.

As well as a chief Islamophobe award, an award is given to the worst Islamophobe in each of five geographical areas in line with the votes received from the participating public.

In the Americas the winner this year was Pamela Geller. Geller was nominated for her rise to fame as the USA’s Islamophobia Matriarch.

She has made a name for herself for opposing anything Islamic and particularly her opposition to the planned construction of a mosque near the site of the Twin Towers destroyed in the Sept 11 attacks in the USA.

First prize in the Europe and Central Asia category goes to the Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders. Wilders is the leader of the Netherlands’ Freedom Party, which continues to campaign on its virulently anti-Muslim platform and propagate fears of an impending Islamic takeover of Europe.

In Asia and Australasia, the top prize went to the unlikely figure of Burmese freedom and democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi.

The 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner was nominated for her continuing refusal to back citizenship calls by the country’s oppressed Rohingya Muslim minority.

The Burmese government’s denial of statehood to the Rohingya is one of the main reasons they are described by the UN as one of the world’s most persecuted peoples.

Along with her National League for Democracy party, Aung San Suu Kyi has tiptoed around the issue and has even refused to condemn the state-supported attacks that ravaged Rohingya communities in 2012.

The clear winner in The Middle East and Africa was Egypt’s General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the army general who conducted a bloody campaign to remove and then ban the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood and put the Arab world’s most populous nation firmly back on the road to military rule.

Although the Islamophobia Awards are intended to be a tongue in cheek poke at public figures of all stripes, they do carry a serious message.

Islamophobia is on the rise all over the world, particularly in the West, and the event serves to focus attention on the problem. Five genuine awards will also be given to people who have struggled against Islamophobia.

It will be interesting to see which tools, hacks, bottom feeders and jihad enablers get those awards. I do hope that Reza Aslan’s gunsel, the creepy little thug Nathan Lean, who cheerfully and repeatedly endangers innocent people by publishing what he thinks is my home address and the names of places I frequent, is a prize winner, as that will show up the cynicism and whiff of menace surrounding this whole enterprise.

Islamophobia can be described as stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general.

In reality, the charge of “Islamophobia” is an attempt to intimidate people into thinking that there is something wrong with resisting jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.

In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia leads to viewing Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level and perceiving their views to be intrinsically problematic, violent or unethical.

The 2014 Islamophobia Awards are being held tonight [February 23rd] at the Holiday Inn, Wembley, starting 6.30pm.

The event will consist of performances including comedians, gala dinner, and a fundraising charity auction. It is being streamed live on www.ihrc.tv

Unrest in Venezuela and Ukraine coming to America?

February 23, 2014/in Featured, National Security, News, Policy, Politics/by Allen West

The prevailing theme for this week is liberty. A lot of attention is being focused towards the events in Ukraine. However, just south of us here in South Florida there is another example, Venezuela.

In Venezuela we see what always happens when socialism takes root, as described so aptly by Margaret Thatcher, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” When Hugo Chavez rose to power in Venezuela, he promised everything for everyone: shared prosperity, fair share, economic equality. He enacted policies that directed the government to nationalize more of the country’s production — especially the lucrative oil industry.

He took over the means of informing the people – hm, I wonder if he started with a “critical information needs” study similar to what the Obama administration’s FCC is seeking to initiate?

What resulted? The same that always happens when you punish, demonize, and denigrate the individual entrepreneurial spirit. The same that always happens when you disincentivize work for a government subsidy check. The same that always happens when there is a promotion of a welfare nanny-state focused on dependency rather than opportunity.

The producers stop producing and flee. We see it right here in South Florida in Broward County in the city of Weston, where the Venezuelan flag flies right along with the American. So as Prime Minister Thatcher poignantly stated, socialism fails because its empty promises are rooted in the legal plunder of others based upon some ill-conceived – I submit, actually demented — sense of benevolence. And then come the riots — because after all, you promised stuff but in the end what do the people gain? Nothing. What do they lose? Liberty.

In the Ukraine the fight for liberty is not against socialism but rather totalitarianism. A quarter of a century ago, Ukraine was given a new lease on life, a chance to determine its own future. It had once been a central part of the Soviet Union but then became an independent state.

However, old desires don’t fade away easily and control is a powerful motivator. Ukraine is caught in the middle of a fight to gain control of its future and it centers around a very important commodity: natural gas. Control of energy resources is a vital aspect of foreign policy and national security strategy — as well as important to the resurgence of Putin’s Russia. Liberty is the result of independence. Subjugation is the result of totalitarianism. Ukrainians seek the former, not the latter, and so they are making a stand.

There are lessons to be learned for us here in America. Venezuelans and many from Eastern Europe have fled to our shores to enjoy liberty and freedom as they escape the ills of their home countries. But if America succumbs to progressive socialism and totalitarian control of our government, where will people go? If America succumbs, who will be the beacon of liberty and freedom? Let me refresh your memory about what’s happening in America. Democrats and the New York Times are advocating for the IRS to eliminate and attack Americans. The FCC is seeking to put monitors into newsrooms. Our president feels he does not need to govern by legislative process but rule by edict — executive order. Elected officials such as Obama and DeBlasio are leading the charge to punish hard-working successful Americans — for what purpose? Redistribute their wealth.

So where do Americans flee? What is actually perplexing is that liberal progressives run away from failing liberal states such as California and New York. Unfortunately, they do not leave behind their damaging political beliefs. Like locusts they migrate to states like Colorado, Montana, and Florida with their cancerous political philosophy and destroy those states — message to Texans: you may want to stop asking Californians to relocate, unless they renounce liberal progressivism!

As we watch unrest in Venezuela and Ukraine unfold, I wonder, will we soon reach a tipping point in America?

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

Victory for Ukrainian Revolution

February 23, 2014/in Featured, National Security, News, Politics/by The Peoples Cube

Ukrainian revolution has won today and it’s very emotional for me, since that is where I was born and raised. eighty-two protesters are dead, the president is running, government thieves are being hunted down and brought to justice, communist party headquarters ransacked, and all remaining statues of Lenin and other communist leaders torn down all over Ukraine.

I spent all day watching live feed from the victory rally on Independence Square, or Maidan (pronounced as My-DONE) in Kiev, wishing I were there. In fact, this is the first time in almost 20 years that I’ve been in the US that I wanted to be back in Ukraine and celebrate. So many memories, so much to say. So excuse me if I don’t write more now. Perhaps, later.

EDITORS NOTE: We stand with the Ukrainian people and salute their victory over a tyrannical socialist regime. Our prayers are with them as they rebuild their great nation into a center of prosperity, beauty and freedom.