All Praises due Sens. Kirk and Menendez on Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act

/in , /by

Yesterday, as I entered a December monthly luncheon meeting of the Tiger Bay Club in Pensacola I was taken aside by a fellow member who told me how much he valued the work of Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) on the latest Iran sanctions effort.  We were there to hear David Wasserman of the Cook Report and assistant editor of the National Journalgive a presentation on the 2014 electoral map for the crucial midterm elections for President Obama. He is seemingly in trouble over the debacle of his keystone domestic program, the Affordable Care Act.  We have great respect for Sen. Kirk given our September 2008 NER interview with him when he was a Member of the US House of Representatives from a suburban Chicago  Congressional District, involved with the bi-partisan effort working on early Iran nuclear sanctions legislation.

My Tiger Bay colleague was referring to new bipartisan sanctions legislation, the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act co-sponsored by Sen. Kirk, a ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Prominent among the 26  co-sponsors of the new sanctions legislation were Sens. Casey (D-PA), Graham (R-SC), McCain (R-AZ), Rubio (R-FL), Schumer (D-NY), Warner (D-VA). Clearly, these Senators are skeptical that an ultimate agreement can be achieved with the Islamic Regime in Tehran based on the P5+1 interim agreement and Joint Plan of Action (JPA). This despite President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry’s lobbying effort aimed at providing a hiatus to resolve issues with Iran. They are not the only ones; French Foreign Minister Fabius also renewed his dour prediction that a final agreement to prevent nuclear breakout and a weapons delivery capability may not be possible.  The US Senators and French Foreign Minister Fabius can point to a Press TV news release with comments by Ali Akbar Salehi, Iranian head of their Atomic Energy Organization.  Salehi said “the country’s nuclear facilities, including Arak heavy water reactor, will continue running, dismissing Western governments’ call on Tehran to suspend activities at the facility”.

Kirk’s and Menendez’s statements introducing the new legislation reflected a deepening skepticism on Capitol Hill and in polls across America and in Israel that Iran will honor any agreements.  This is based on its track record of deception, relentless pursuit of nuclear hegemony in the Middle East and its global reach of terrorism against the West.  They commented:

“The American people rightfully distrust Iran’s true intentions and they deserve an insurance policy to defend against Iranian deception during negotiations,” Sen. Kirk said. “This is a responsible, bipartisan bill to protect the American people from Iranian deception and I urge the Majority Leader to give the American people an up or down vote.”

“Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and a credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table,” said Sen. Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “The Iranians last week blamed the Administration for enforcing sanctions; now, they criticize Congress. The burden rests with Iran to negotiate in good faith and verifiably terminate its nuclear weapons program. Prospective sanctions will influence Iran’s calculus and accelerate that process toward achieving a meaningful diplomatic resolution.”

Jennifer Rubin in a Washington Post column, Friday, “Congress is trying to stop a war, not start one”, outlined what the new bi-partisan sanctions legislation contains:

. . . to enact sanctions if Iran cheats during the interim agreement or fails to reach a final deal and to reaffirm the parameters of a final deal (terms embodied in United Nations resolutions and articulated by three presidents, including this one).

Those parameters include “dismantl[ing] Iran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure, including enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and facilities, the heavy water reactor and production plant at Arak, and any nuclear weapon components and technology, so that Iran is precluded from a nuclear breakout capability and prevented from pursuing both uranium and plutonium pathways to a nuclear weapon.” In addition, Iran must come into compliance with all U.N. resolutions and allow round-the-clock inspections.

The bill includes broad waiver authority for the Administration. (This had been a concern for some Democrats.)

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, President Obama’s Press Spokesman Jay Carney fired back, “We don’t think this action is necessary. We don’t think it will be enacted. If it were [passed] the president would veto it.”

President Obama in his year end press conference, prior to his departure for a vacation with family in Hawaii, responded to questions about the new Senate sanctions initiative, saying:

What I’ve said to members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, is there is no need for new sanctions legislation, not yet.

Now, if Iran comes back and says, we can’t give you assurances that we’re not going to weaponize, if they’re not willing to address some of their capabilities that we know could end up resulting in them having breakout capacity, it’s not going to be hard for us to turn the dials back, strengthen sanctions even further. I’ll work with members of Congress to put even more pressure on Iran. But there’s no reason to do it right now.

Referring to a recent Administration action black-listing 12 Iranian companies following the P5+1 interim agreement, Jonathan Schanzer of the Washington, DC –based Foundation for Defense of Democracies commented in a Politico column, “The White House Can’t Have it Both Ways on Iran”:

Actively punishing Iran for its mendacity while trying to selectively reduce other sanctions (in this case, automotive, petrochemicals and precious metals) for the sake of diplomacy projects two competing messages. It should come as no surprise that this dual approach has inspired the confidence of neither Iran nor Congress. Indeed, the only actors out there who are heartened by Washington’s conflicted policies are the companies eyeing investments in Iran. They see confusion, and therefore ambiguity. And that’s a whole lot better than the investment environment of just a few months ago, when Iran appeared to be completely off limits.

Watch this Wall Street Journal video interview with Schanzer of FDD by Mary Kissel discussing “Totaling up Iran’s Sweet Sanction Deal”:

In our recent post on the efficacy of sanctions we concluded:

…military force coupled with improved sanctions may be the only option that brings the Islamofanatics in Tehran to heel.  Israel demonstrated that in both Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Orchard 2007). Despite initial criticism, the US subsequently showed begrudging respect. That is not lost on the worried Saudis and the Gulf Emirates, critical of US policies in the roiling Middle East.

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

Allen West: Who defines our rights, and why I stand with Phil

/in , , /by

This morning as I did my regular run and workout I was thinking about the real issue surrounding Phil Robertson. Too many are focused on the words spoken, but there are some deeper issues to ponder. For me, the prevailing issue is centered around one word: “rights.”

Phil Robertson is a born-again Christian and I’m quite sure the executives at A&E knew that from the get go. Phil was paraphrasing the following:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version)

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The unalienable right from our Creator that Phil has is his “pursuit of happiness” and Mr. Robertson defines that as his Christian faith — that is his right.

Furthermore, as codified in our US Constitution, Phil has the rights of free speech, freedom of religion, and the free exercise of religion. It’s funny to me that some believe American freedom of expression includes burning our beloved flag, but I guess Phil’s is not tolerated.

Which brings up another key point, who is the guardian of tolerance? Who sits back and defines what is or is not to be tolerated? There is a theocratic-political totalitarian ideology that operates freely in America — and across the world — that executes those who engage in same-sex relationships. But I don’t hear too much complaint against them. Did Phil take it too far using some crude language? Maybe, but then again, that’s his image, a simple straight talking American man, and it seems A&E loves it when it’s making them money.

A&E is Phil Robertson’s employer. I don’t know what his specific contract states, but A&E is economically profiting from the Christian faith and the subsequent popularity of Phil Robertson and the “Duck Dynasty” trademark enterprise — it goes way beyond just a show.

A&E has their own brand and as a private sector employer they have the right to hire and fire as they choose, albeit in this case it seems they’ve overreacted and are suffering the consequences. It has to be a matter of concern for all of us in America when special interest groups believe they can bring pressure and punish organizations due to their “dislikes.” How far could this aspect of censorship go?

Should A&E have suspended Phil Robertson? My assessment is no. Should A&E have had a chat with Phil before the GQ interview and discussed their concerns? Yes. Does A&E have the right to prevent Phil from doing interviews? Depends on the parameters of his contract.

The third component to analyze is the pressure from gay advocacy special interest groups. Last night on “The Kelly File” on Fox, a gentleman representing GLAAD stated that “Phil Robertson wanted freedom from consequence.”

Oh come on. These groups want freedom from any dissenting views. This is the danger in America when we start to grant “rights” to groups based upon behavioral choices. I often wonder, what if you choose to be bisexual? Do you lose half of your gay rights or only get part of your straight rights?

Every American has the right to the “pursuit of happiness.” If your “pursuit of happiness” means a same-sex relationship, very well.

But we must not then seek to redefine all other aspects of established societal norms just to appease. There should be no discrimination based upon sexual preference, but then again, there shouldn’t be any preferential discrimination against those who disagree. Case in point — the lawsuit against the New Mexico couple who refused to photograph a same-sex marriage because it was not in concert with their faith.

And no, I don’t see this as a civil rights struggle such as that for women (gender) or for blacks (race), or other ethnicity. Gender, race and ethnicity are not lifestyles.

Do two people of the same sex have the right to love each other? Absolutely. Do they have the right to force me to agree with it? No. Do they have the right to not be discriminated against? Yes. Do they have the right to advocate for additional rights because of a preferential choice? No, and what more rights do you require? Do they have the right to redefine other established aspects of our society? Let the people decide — but we should not have special interest groups run to the courts to overrule the referendum of the people, as with California and Proposition 8.

We must be very circumspect about understanding what is a right and what is a privilege in America. Politicians will collectivize us and use the word “rights” to manipulate us for their own personal gain. Right to own a home? Right to healthcare? Just remember the words of President Thomas Jefferson, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take it all away.”

Phil Robertson has the “right” to speak his mind based upon his personal beliefs. People don’t have to like it but to leverage pressure to affect someone’s life and liberty based upon their pursuit of happiness is not in concert with our American values. And let’s be honest here, GQ knew exactly what it was doing and sought a certain response to please the intolerant left. It has horribly backfired — just like the attack against Chick-fil-A. Phil Robertson is an even greater American Icon.

So for the record, I’ll give you my stance, plain and simple and why I stand with Phil. For me, homosexuality is a sin, because I executed my individual right to choose Christianity as my faith. There are other things that are sinful for me as well. I am far from perfect, I’m just trying to live a Christ-like life as a flawed human being.

The great thing about America is that we all have free will, so if you choose not to follow the precepts of a Christian faith, you are free to live as you wish. I do not condemn you, as a matter of fact, I gave 22 years of my life to protect your “pursuit of happiness,” but as I respect your individual right, I ask you to respect mine — and that is the essence of coexistence.

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

MassResistance reveals shocking background of judge who ruled against Pastor Scott Lively

/in , , , /by

Federal Judge Michael Ponsor

The federal judge who recently issued a vitriolic 79-page ruling against Pastor Scott Lively has a disturbing background revealing prejudices and improprieties that under federal law should certainly have disqualified him from presiding over the case, MassResistance has discovered. Presiding Federal Judge Michael Ponsor issued the ruling back in August.

As MassResistance has been reporting, Pastor Scott Lively, a well-known pro-family author, theologian, and Christian minister, is currently the target of the most bizarre lawsuit in our memory. Pastor Lively is being put on trial for allegedly perpetrating “international crimes against humanity” harming the people in Uganda. The case is being brought by the far-left New York-based Soros-funded Center For Constitutional Rights (CCR).

Pastor Scott Lively

Lively’s only “crime” seems to be his outspoken criticism of the homosexual movement. The lawsuit is not based on anything Lively (or anyone he’s ever met) actually did. It is simply an outrageous concoction of accusations based on his pro-family meetings, writings, and conversations, which took place on a handful of occasions in Uganda and in the US. Furthermore, Lively has not been charged with any actual crime in either country.

CCR filed the case on behalf of a homosexual group in Uganda called Sexual Minorities of Uganda (“SMUG”), which claims to have been harshly persecuted and that Lively ultimately caused that.

This will have a disastrous affect on the entire pro-family movement in America if successful.

Case should have been derailed by recent Supreme Court ruling

The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court in Springfield, Massachusetts in 2012. Lively’s Liberty Counsel legal team countered with a response and motion to dismiss, thoroughly refuting all the charges.

The US Federal Courthouse in Springfield on the day of the hearing on the motion to dismiss. Note the crowd of homosexual activists demonstrating in front against Pastor Lively.

The court’s hearing on the motion to dismiss, held on January 7, 2013, was presided by Judge Ponsor. Lively’s lawyers clearly indisputably demolished the plaintiff’s points. CCR appeared weak and disorganized and as we reported, Ponsor appeared biased even then.

Angry demonstration against Scott Lively in front of the courthouse on the day of the hearing. NOTE: At far right speaking in microphone, member of SMUG contingent who came from Uganda. Second from right is Luke Ryan, local counsel for CCR and activist who had been in courtroom earlier.

In April, after the hearing on the motion to dismiss but before the ruling was issued, a startling thing happened. The US Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Kiobel case which essentially nullified the Alien Tort Act. That Act had been the main pillar of the CCR’s attempt to charge Lively, a US citizen, for alleged acts in a foreign country. As weak as CCR’s case had been, it seemed now infinitely weaker as nearly all existing suits around the country involving the Alien Tort Act were quickly dismissed. Everything seemed in place for a slam-dunk dismissal of this absurd case, as well.

Extremely hostile ruling by Ponsor rejecting motion to dismiss

But then on August 14, 2013, the nightmare happened. Judge Ponsor issued his extremely hostile ruling that flatly rejected every one of Lively’s defenses andaccepted all of CCR’s charges against him as legitimate. Ponsor refused to acknowledge that the Kiobel ruling affected this case! Among many other things, Ponsor’s ruling labeled Lively’s speeches as “offensive conduct” and compared Lively to the Nazi war criminals in WWII. (We have a full analysis of that ruling coming up.)

Lively’s lawyers (and the rest of us) were floored. This case itself makes no sense at all, except as a means to severely punish Lively for his views on homosexuality and to send a strong message to the rest of the pro-family movement.

In addition, this now opens the door for an intrusive personal “discovery” processagainst Lively by CCR’s lawyers in preparation for the actual trial against him. In fact, that process has already begun.

An appeal against this particular kind of ruling asking for a higher court to dismiss the case, known as a Writ of Mandamus, is very unusual, but Lively’s attorneys have filed a quite thorough writ. It is still in process.

Will our new findings have an effect on it? We hope so.

Ponsor’s troubling background relative to this case

What is really going on that could explain Ponsor’s absurd ruling? Recently, MassResistance has found out that there’s a disturbing undercurrent to this story.

The homosexual movement is infamous for its success at shrewd “judge shopping” to push their agenda in the US court system. Ponsor was clearly a perfect choice. Ponsor is openly liberal and a protégé of pro-homosexual Judge Joseph Tauro, who recently ruled to strike down DOMA in the federal court. But that’s just his more visible profile.

MassResistance has recently learned more on Ponsor’s shocking background. This information was not known to the defendants when the case began.

An objective observer would question his ability to be impartial in light of these facts:

Outwardly supported radical homosexual movement very early on.Ponsor’s bias favoring the homosexual movement goes back several years. At his judicial induction ceremony on Feb. 14, 1994 (after being appoint by Pres. Bill Clinton), Ponsor told the assembled crowd, “We have a proud, vibrant gay and lesbian community” in Western Massachusetts. At that time, it was a particularly unusual statement to make, especially for a judge.

Made indirect donations to plaintiff’s organization. For the last two years Ponsor and his wife have contributed to the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts (CFWF). CFWF has donated money to the plaintiff’s organization, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005.

Revealed bias regarding eastern African peoples (and SMUG). Several members of SMUG attended the hearing and sat in the courtroom. During the hearing, Ponsor remarked, “I’m pleased to adjudicate issues that affect the people of Uganda,” and added that that it was “good to see the people whose interests are directly affected.” It was an odd statement for a judge in a US courtroom to make. As a young man, Ponsor lived in Kenya (which borders Uganda) for over a year teaching English. He speaks Swahili, the official language of Uganda. He appears to be invested in “protecting” that area against those he feel would “harm” the people there.

Has homosexual issues in his family. Ponsor’s former (second) wife, the mother of his two children (and whom he divorced in 1992) now lives a lesbian lifestyle and is “married” to a female Massachusetts judge. Among other things, she has written for the “Gay and Lesbian Review.”

Ponsor’s daughter wrote on an Internet blog that she “came out” as a lesbian in 1999, along with other references to lesbian activity.

Ponsor’s first wife was heavily involved with pro-lesbian feminist groups during the time they were married.

Has troubling ties to plaintiff’s local counsel, who is also a radical activist. The local opposing counsel in this case, Luke Ryan, worked as a law clerk for Ponsor from 2005-2007 and appears to be close friends with him. Ryan is an active supporter of Arise for Social Justice, a thuggish pro-homosexual group which, along with “Occupy Springfield,”has terrorized Pastor Lively’s downtown coffee house mission. Ryan is also involved with Out Now, a homosexual group that demonstrated against Lively at the court hearing.

Luke Ryan, local opposing counsel and radical activist, clerked for Judge Ponsor for two years.

In addition to all that is Ponsor’s outrageously activist judicial philosophy. This past June Ponsor told the local Springfield Republican newspaper: “At some point I realized that judges are the unappointed legislators of mankind, and what we do is just as creative.” It’s exactly what John Adams warned us about.

Website for local radical homosexual group “Out Now.” Notice their vitriol against Pastor Scott Lively continues. Opposing attorney Luke Ryan is active with this group.

Federal law on the requirements of impartiality

The federal law and the Code of Conduct is pretty clear, as it should be:

The federal law 28 United States Code 455(a) Supp. IV, 1974 states:

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The website for the Code of Conduct for United States Judges adds:

An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.

Given that Judge Ponsor’s personal background facts were not disclosed to the defendant, and that they clearly show Ponsor is not impartial on homosexuality and other pertinent issues, he should have been disqualified from this case.

This absurd case has become a nightmarish miscarriage of justice. It represents the worst aspects of the “homo-fascism” that is gripping our country, which aims to utterly destroy anyone who disagrees with or opposes the sexual radical agenda.

Federal Judge Michael Ponsor should have been disqualified from case.

We will continue to cover this for you.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on MassResistance.org.

Satan driven out of Florida’s Capitol Building

/in , , /by

Multiple news sources are reporting that the Florida Department of Management Services emailed The Satanic Temple on Wednesday, telling the group its proposed display of an angel falling from heaven into an open fire was “grossly offensive.”

Co-founder Lucien Greaves says the group asked what was offensive, acknowledging they might be willing to alter the display, but they didn’t get a response Thursday.

Perhaps President Obama will allow The Satanic Temple to setup its display in the White House?

According to The Satanic Temple website:

“The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people. In addition, we embrace practical common sense and justice. As Satanists we all should be guided by our conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by our individual wills. We believe that this is the hope of all mankind and the highest aspiration of humanity. As an organized religion, we feel it is our function to actively provide outreach, to lead by example, and to participate public affairs wheresoever the issues might benefit from rational, Satanic insights.”

It seems President Obama and many in Washington would agree with the statement “[W]e all should be guided by our conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by our individual wills.” After all, individual will is what has driven God from our schools and the public square. It is individual will that has given us the immorality we witness daily.

Many believe it is individual will that drives public policy at every level of government, not the will of the people.

Perhaps Satan has found a home and his new zip code is 20004?

America, A Christian Nation

/in , /by

It is a great regret that arrogant atheists attack Christmas at this time of year and that too many institutions from schools to stores feel intimidated enough to remove mention of it. It is one thing to deny the existence of God, but the attacks are intended to undermine the faith of millions of Americans. The atheists forget or neglect the fact that the pilgrims came here to freely practice their interpretation of Christianity.

It is a habit of mine to revisit the classic literature of the past and, with the advent of Christmas, I picked up an excerpt from Edward Gibbon’s famed “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” that addressed in part the role of Christianity.

Gibbon’s vast knowledge of the Empire eventually filled six volumes. The first three volumes were published in 1776 and became a bestseller. The final three volumes cemented his reputation as a historian.

Gibbon - Edward

Historian Edward Gibbon, (1737-1794)

Gibbon (1737-1794) not only possessed a vast body of knowledge, but also a felicity of prose that enhances the pleasure of reading him. His history of Rome also contained open criticism of organized religion which no doubt evoked a great deal of discussion at the time.

The religion of Rome, however, being polytheistic with many gods could only be called organized insofar as temples to those gods were built wherever it exercised its power. Suffice to say, the then-new religion of Christianity was declared illegal and Christians were widely persecuted.

Initially, the adherents to Christianity were Jews. Gibbon notes that “The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregations over which they presided, united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ.” Judaism had been around for a thousand years by that time, but there were a variety of factors that kept it isolated and limited in numbers. It did not actively proselytize and the requirement for circumcision was a deterrent. Judaism also had many restrictions such as dietary laws and requirements that further reduced its attraction for the masses.

All that changed with the advent of Saul of Tarsus, now known as St. Paul, a Jew who experienced an epiphany that threw open the doors to the philosophical and theological basis of Judaism. “Christianity offered itself to the world, armed with the strength of the Mosaic Law and delivered from its fetters,” wrote Gibbon. “The divine authority of Moses and the prophets was admitted, and even established, as the firmest basis of Christianity.”

“The promise of divine favor, instead of being partially confirmed to the posterity of Abraham, was universally proposed to the freeman and the slave, to the Greek and the barbarian, to the Jew and to the Gentile.”

“When the promise of eternal happiness was proposed to mankind, on condition of adopting the faith, and of observing the precepts of the gospel, it is no wonder that so advantageous an offer should have been accepted by great numbers of every religion, of every rank, and of every province in the Roman Empire.”

The Roman Empire had reigned supreme for almost 300 years when Christianity came on the scene and would last another 200 until, in the view of historians; it became too tired to maintain itself. It stretched across the known world from the British Isles to India, exacting taxes and offering protection. By the third century it could not be effectively governed from Rome and split into two factions, East and West, seen today in the Eastern and Western churches.

Christianity offered something that Judaism did not; the promise of life after death, of Heaven, and, conversely, a vision of Hell. Neither the prophets, nor the sages of Judaism devoted much attention to what occurred after death because there is no way to determine what occurs in its wake. Instead, Judaism has always placed an emphasis on how one can pursue a life of proper behavior based on the interpretation of the Torah or Old Testament whose heart is found in the Ten Commandments.

Gibbon wrote “It was by the aid of these causes, exclusive zeal, the immediate expectation of another world, the claim of miracles, the practice of rigid virtue, and the constitution of the primitive church, that Christianity spread itself with so much success in the Roman Empire.”

The gospels were composed in the Greek language “at a considerable distance from Jerusalem” and after gentile converts had grown in numbers. “As soon as those histories were translated into the Latin tongue, there were perfectly intelligible to all the subjects of Rome” with some exceptions.

AA - Aethiest Billbord

An atheist billboard in NY City’s Times Square.

The conversion of Constantine in the fourth century made Christianity the official religion of Rome. It is estimated that, by then, almost a third of the population had previously embraced Christianity and the Empire had already begun to decline. In the early 400s, Rome was conquered by the barbaric tribes of northern Europe, the Gaul’s, Visigoths, and others. Europe was plunged into the Dark Ages.

In time Christianity would spread to much of the world though it would compete with the more ancient faiths of Hinduism and Buddhism, and the tribal faiths of Africa and the New World.

In 632 A.D. Islam, the invention of Mohammed, would spread as much by the sword as by its doctrine. It is the enemy of all other religions and its persecution of Christians is a warning to the world. Mohammed told his followers, “The sword is the key to heaven and hell.” These days, the Middle East is being “cleansed” of Christians. No accommodation can be made with Islam.

The demographics of Christianity have shifted significantly in the last century, largely due to the enmity of Communism. As noted in a recent article, “In Latin America alone, there are 517 million Christians. In Africa, 411 million. Asia tallies 251 million. Once a global powerhouse of Christianity, Europe is home to an ever-shrinking 553 million (expected to drop to 480 million by 2050) while North America has 275 million.”

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” said President Barack Obama on June 28, 2006. A true Christian would never have uttered those words.

America was and is a Christian nation. Obama either misspoke or deliberately lied. His words barely acknowledge the role of Christianity in the founding and history of our nation. His words betray its role today.

Gibbon’s great work about the fall of Rome is a warning to all present empires and great powers. It fell because it lacked a doctrine of virtue as much as from the attacks by the barbarians who finished it off.

Today Communism is the faith of the new barbarians and Islam is the faith of its enemies. The defense of civilization falls heavily on the worldwide Christian community.

© Alan Caruba. 2013

RELATED COLUMN: Prince Charles says what Obama won’t: Christians are being persecuted

FHA Watch: 87% of FHA’s October home purchase loans were High Risk

/in , , , /by

For the fifth year in a row, the FHA has violated federal law by failing to meet its minimum capital standard of 2 percent—equal to about $22 billion on its $1.1 trillion book of insurance in force. The 2013 Actuarial Study found that the FHA had an economic net worth of −$8 billion, up from −$13.5 billion last year but still $30 billion short of the 2 percent statutory standard. This projection assumes moderate house price appreciation averaging 3–3.5 percent over the next 28 years and that a recession is unlikely over the next few years.

Under this rosy scenario, it is no surprise that each new book of business the FHA adds looks profitable. It is also no surprise it has had to revise the expected cumulative claim rates for the 2009-2012 vintages substantially upward from last year’s estimates (for example, 2009 was raised from 13.25 percent to 15.44 percent).

Under the new AEI Mortgage Risk Index, the FHA’s home purchase loans are almost exclusively high risk (87 percent) with 13 percent being medium risk and 0.3 percent being low risk. From 1935 to 1955, nearly 100 percent of FHA loans would have qualified as low risk. The preponderance of high-risk loans today helps explain why the FHA’s delinquency rate remains stubbornly high at 15 percent and its private GAAP net worth has improved only modestly, from −$27 billion in September 2012 to −$25 billion this month. These are not indicators of a financial institution on the road to recovery.

Consider that the current economic expansion is 54 months old, about on par with the World War II standard of 58 months. Given that the standard deviation of postwar expansions is 33.4 months, a recession sometime in the next couple of years is likely. At the same time, unemployment is at 7 percent, an unusually high rate this far along in an expansion. Since the unemployment rate generally rises by about two percentage points in a recession, a rate of 8.5–9 percent might be expected if the United States does enter a new recession.

The threat the FHA poses is demonstrated by the alternate scenarios contained in the actuarial study. For example, it has a −$23 billion economic value today under the 10th-worst scenario, one that likely equates to the impact of a near-term recession. This $15 billion decline in value compared to the baseline case is nearly enough to wipe out the FHA’s minimum statutory capital requirement of 2 percent or $22 billion.

Bottom line—if the economy catches a cold, the FHA gets pneumonia. It is time Congress and the FHA faced facts: the FHA poses great risks to the taxpayer and places most of its insured home buyers into high-risk loans.

Spotlight on Best Price Execution

Planned GSE Guarantee Fee Increase Adds to Ginnie Agency Price Advantage over Fannie

Table 1 demonstrates the pricing advantages the Ginnie/FHA, Ginnie/US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Ginnie/Veterans Affairs (VA) divisions have over Fannie Mae. FHA, VA, and USDA pricing advantages have increased by about $500 compared to last month because of a 14-basis-point guarantee fee on Fannie loans announced on December 9, 2013.

Table 1. Best Price Execution (Ginnie pricing advantages in bold)

Source: Adapted from JPMorgan’s 2012 Securitized Products Outlook, November 23, 2011, 18.

Note: Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) pricing from MBS Live, published by Mortgage News Daily. Comparison based on MBS pricing as of December 14, 2013. On that date, a Ginnie 30-year MBS with a coupon of 4.0 percent had a price of 104.25, and a Fannie 30-year MBS with the same 4.0 percent coupon had a price of 103.31. These prices were then adjusted based on the present value (where necessary) of applicable borrower-paid credit fees, mortgage insurance premiums, and the value of the base servicing fee. Fannie’s guarantee fee was increased by 10 basis points effective April 2012, as mandated by Congress, by 10 basis points again as announced on August 31, 2012, by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and by 14 basis points as announced on December 9, 2013, by the Federal Housing Finance Agency All publicly announced FHA premium increases are included. USDA and VA premiums are unchanged. FHA, USDA, and VA pricing includes loan-level pricing adjustments made by Carrington Wholesale Services.

On the whole, the five divisions of the Government Mortgage Complex (along with Freddie Mac) have substantial pricing and underwriting advantages over the private sector. The result is that the Government Mortgage Complex’s share of the entire first-mortgage market continues to be at about 85 percent.

Spotlight on Insolvency

FHA’s Private GAAP-Estimated Net Worth Declines to Lowest Level in Nine Months

This month, the FHA’s private GAAP-estimated net worth deteriorated by slightly over $1 billion. The estimate for November of the FHA’s GAAP net worth is –$24.92 billion, down from –$23.77 billion in October 2013 (revised), up from –$27.39 billion in September 2012 (revised), and down from –$20.87 billion in September 2011. The capital shortfall stands at $45 billion (using a 2 percent capital ratio) and $52 billion (using a 4 percent capital ratio adjusted to 2.7 percent based on expected recoveries). The Denial Dial was reset to −2.27 percent.

Please see the notes to table A1 for a detailed explanation, including comprehensive adjustments made based the GAO analysis described here.[4]

Spotlight on Delinquency

FHA watch december table

All Rates Experience Moderate Increases from October to November

In November, 14.96 percent of all FHA loans were delinquent, up from 14.70 percent in October 2013 and down from 16.48 percent in November 2012. The FHA’s overall delinquency rate is stubbornly high, notwithstanding the declining unemployment rate, the multiyear addition of what it describes as lower-risk loans to its insurance book, and the sale in 2013 of a substantial number of delinquent notes.

Most of the increase was due to the 30-day delinquency rate increasing from 4.81 percent in October to 5.01 percent in November.

The serious delinquency rate increased modestly to 8.05 percent from 8.02 percent in October 2013 and decreased from 9.56 percent in November 2012.

For the monthly data tabulation, see table A2 in the appendix.

Appendix: Historical Data Tables

Table A1. Insolvency Watch ($ Billions)

Notes: Table A1 has been revised based on FHA’s FY2013 Actuarial Review excluding HECMs (Forward Mortgage Program), http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/rmra/oe/rpts/actr/actrmenu. Table A1estimates the FHA’s current net worth and capital shortfall under accounting rules applicable to a private mortgage insurer (PMI) such as Genworth. Estimates are based on the FHA’s delinquent loans, risk exposure, capital resources, and capital ratio under both the 2 percent statutory requirement for the FHA and the 4 percent of risk-in-force requirement applicable to a PMI. The 4 percent requirement has been adjusted to 2.7 percent based on FHA experiencing an average 30–35 percent recovery against its 100 percent claim payment. As of September 30, 2012, the FHA reported to the Government Accountability Office that its estimated transition-to-claim rate for 90-plus-day delinquencies was 71 percent. As of September 30, 2013, Genworth had loss reserves equaling 23 percent of its risk-in-force on 60–119-days-delinquent loans. This was adjusted to 20 percent for 60–89-days-delinquent loans. See GAO, “Applicability of Industry [GAAP] Requirements Is Limited, but Certain Features Could Enhance Oversight,” September 2013, footnotes 42 and 44,http://gao.gov/products/GAO-13-722; and Genworth, Quarterly Financial Supplements, Delinquency Metrics-US Mortgage Insurance Segment, 44,http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=175970&p=irol-quarterlyreports

(accessed October 29, 2013).

*The FHA’s negative cash flow was $994 million per month during Q3 of FY 2013. See exhibit 10, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, FHA Single-Family Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund Programs, Quarterly Report to Congress, 13. The FHA raised its upfront premium from 1 to 1.75 percent (excluding streamline refinances) effective for case numbers assigned on or after April 9, 2012. Since under private GAAP accounting this amount would not be taken into income immediately, it will be accounted for in the “Estimated liability for excess upfront premiums beyond GAAP allowance.” The amount of this liability was estimated at $9.60 billion as of September 30, 2013.

**Outstanding balance of loans 60-days-plus delinquent based on loan counts on applicable date times average loan balance for loans going to claim of $126,524. Reserve levels have been calculated based on termination and claim loss experience as reported in the report series entitled “Quarterly Report to Congress on the Financial Status of the MMI Fund,” FY 2013 Q3, exhibit 5, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/rmra/oe/rpts/rtc/fhartcqtrly (accessed September 18, 2013).

***Total based on the FHA’s total amortized risk-in-force net of loans covered by loan loss reserve.

Table A2. National Delinquency Watch


End Date		 30-Days Delinquency Rate and Number of Loans 60-Days-Plus Delinquency Rate and Number of Loans 30-Days-Plus Delinquency Rate and Number of Loans Serious Delinquency Total Loans
Jan. 2011 N/A N/A N/A 8.9% / 612,443 6,882,984
Mar. 2011 N/A N/A N/A 8.3% / 580,480 6,983,893
June 2011 5.79% / 411,258 10.55% / 749,204 16.62% / 1,160,462 8.34% / 592,366 7,103,531
Sept. 2011 5.70% / 413,834 11.08% / 803,899 16.78% / 1,217,733 8.77% / 636,778 7,258,328
Dec. 2011 5.72% / 421,404 12.07% / 889,602 17.79% / 1,311,006 9.73% / 716,786 7,370,426
Jan. 2012 5.35% / 397,018 12.18% / 903,748 17.53% / 1,300,766 9.92% / 735,760 7,418,830
Feb. 2012 4.78% / 355,092 11.70% / 871.870 16.47% / 1,226,962 9.73% / 725,002 7,450,480
Mar. 2012 4.57% / 341,213 11.21% / 837,472 15.78% / 1,178,685 9.47% / 707,930 7,471,708
Apr. 2012 4.77% / 358,174 11.20% / 840,803 15.97% / 1,198,977 9.42% / 707,222 7,507,031
May 2012 4.93% / 372,514 11.29% / 852,608 16.23% / 1,225,222 9.43% / 711,612 7,549,730
June 2012 5.19% / 393,894 11.43% / 867,959 16.61% / 1,261,853 9.48% / 719,984 7,594,689
July 2012 5.04% / 384,349 11.48% / 874,802 16.52% / 1,259,151 9.51% / 725,074 7,622,873
Aug. 2012 4.91% / 375,464 11.44% / 874,656 16.35% / 1,250,120 9.49% / 725,692 7,645,912
Sept. 2012 5.58% / 428,351 11.70% / 898,590 17.30% / 1,326,931 9.62% / 738,303 7,671,677
Oct. 2012 5.02% / 387,000 11.54% / 887,959 16.57% / 1,274,959 9.54% / 734,431 7.693,992
Nov. 2012 4.95% / 382,194 11.53% / 888,901 16.48% / 1,271,095 9.56% / 737,251 7,710,077
Dec. 2012 5.23% / 404,686 11.50% / 890,400 16.72% / 1,295,086 9.40% / 728,394 7,744,925
Jan. 2013 5.07% / 392,536 11.63% / 900,852 16.70% / 1,293,388 9.58% / 741,618 7,744,921
Feb. 2013 4.76% / 369,571 11.21% / 869,952 15.97% / 1,239,523 9.39% / 728,860 7,760,200
Mar. 2013 4.52% / 351,478 10.68% / 829,619 15.21% / 1,181,097 9.03% / 701,628 7,767,181
Apr. 2013 4.36% / 338,957 10.32% / 801.694 14.68% / 1,140,651 8.73% / 678,506 7,770.886
May 2013 4.39% / 341,400 10.06% / 782,193 14.46% / 1,123,593 8.45% / 656,909 7,771,948
June 2013 5.27% / 410,172 10.26% / 798,199 15.53% / 1,208,371 8.47% / 659,314 7,781,196
July 2013 4.87% / 378,903 10.10% / 782,895 14.94% / 1,161,798 8.25% / 641,808 7,776,713
Aug. 2013 5.05% / 393,536 9.98% / 776,768 15.03% / 1,170,304 8.11% / 631,502 7,778,157
Sept. 2013 4.98% / 387,624 9.99% / 777,901 14.97% / 1,165,525 8.09% / 630,077 7.778,663
Oct. 2013 4.81% / 375,530 9.89% / 771,215 14.70% / 1,146,745 8.02% / 625,415 7,801,056
Nov. 2013 5.01% / 391,010 9.95% / 776,188 14.96% / 1,167,198 8.05% / 627,641 7,800,165

 

Sources: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Neighborhood Watch,” https://entp.hud.gov/sfnw/public (Servicing download, Excel; accessed December 14, 2013) and US Department of Housing and Urban Development, “FHA Outlook,” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/rmra/oe/rpts/ooe/olmenu (accessed October 21, 2012). Rates not seasonally adjusted. Serious delinquency includes 90-days-plus delinquency and loans in bankruptcy or foreclosure.

Notes:

[1] The AEI Pinto-Oliner Mortgage Risk Index is part of AEI’s new International Center on Housing Risk. The index is available on the center’s website atwww.housingrisk.org/category/mortgage-risk/.

[2] A high-risk loan has a cumulative default rate under stress of 12 or greater, a medium-risk loan has a cumulative default rate under stress of 6 or greater and less than 12, and a low-risk loan has cumulative default under stress of less than 6.

[3] John Makin, “Third Time Unlucky: Recession in 2014?” AEI Economic Outlook (July 2013), www.aei.org/outlook/economics/monetary-policy/third-time-unlucky-recession-in-2014/.

[4] January–June 2013 estimates were adjusted based on data contained in exhibits 5 and 8, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, FHA Single-Family Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund Programs, Quarterly Report to Congress FY 2013 Q3, 9 and 13.

EDITORS NOTE: Starting with the January 2014 issue, FHA Watch will become Housing Risk Watch, with FHA Watchbecoming a quarterly feature. Housing Risk will cover all facets of housing risk, with a primary focus on government-sponsored risk.

2013 U.S. Hate Crimes Report: Jews attacked 5 times more than Muslims

/in , /by

 The Investigative Project on Terrorism reports:

Hate crimes in the United States decreased in 2012, data released Monday by the FBI shows.

The annual report, compiled through voluntary reporting from law enforcement agencies, further shows that crimes targeting Muslims remains flat and relatively uncommon. This contradicts claims by Islamist groups that hate crimes against Muslims are spiking, fueled in part by what the groups call an organized effort by groups pushing “Islamophobia.”

In bias crimes involving religion, Jews were targeted in 674 incidents – 62 percent of all religiously-motivated crimes. That’s five times more than Muslim Americans, who were targeted in 130 incidents – or fewer than 12 percent of all religiously-motivated crimes. Estimates vary, but there are roughly twice as many Jews in the United States as Muslims.

Anti-Muslim crimes represented 13.3 percent of the religious attacks in 2011.

The number of incidents dropped for each group.

Occasionally, incidents originally touted as hate crimes turn out to be something quite different. In April 2012, a Muslim woman was bludgeoned to death in her home near San Diego. A note found near her body made it seem she was attacked because she was a Muslim woman who wore a hijab. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a statement saying the attack showed “the dangers of allowing hateful rhetoric and bigotry to go unpunished, and the fatal consequences that can result.”

Shaima Alawadi’s husband is scheduled to face trial next year after beingcharged with her murder.

FBI Stats Again Belie Islamophobia Myth:

When it comes to the question of America’s alleged Islamophobia, there is a consensus in the American media: American Muslims have been under siege since the 9/11 attacks. Every attempt on the part of law-enforcement agencies to probe the growth of homegrown terrorism and the possible incitement to hate and violence being conducted at some mosques, as well as by community groups influenced or controlled by Islamists, is branded as more proof of the allege persecution of Muslims and Arabs. The fact that no proof of discrimination or systematic violence other than anecdotal claims is ever brought forward is disregarded so as not to impinge on the need for Americans to feel guilty about the treatment of Muslims.

But with the annual release of the FBI’s hate crime numbers, statistical proof is once again available for those who are interested in the real answer as to which groups are subjected to the most attacks. This year’s numbers, like those of every other previous year since they began compiling such statistics, are clear: Jews remain the No. 1 target of hate crimes in America and no other group comes even close. Incidents involving Muslims, who are, according to the unchallenged meme that is central to every story or broadcast about the subject, the prime targets actually suffer only a fraction as much as Jews.

Here’s the FBI table, and links to previous posts on Creeping Sharia:

2011 – Anti-Jew “hate crime” in U.S. still 5x higher than anti-Muslim

2010 – FBI Stats Belie CAIR’s Islamophobia Hysteria

2009 – FBI stats: anti-Muslim “hate” crimes in U.S. 9x less than anti-Jew

2008 – Anti-Muslim crimes drop again in 2008, anti-Jew/Christian crimes increased

The Military Option may be the Only Way to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program

/in , /by

The other night I attended a Shiva (Memorial Service) for a revered member of the local Jewish community here in Pensacola. During the collation that followed I was approached by two acquaintances, and asked for my views on the US engagement with Iran.  There was a lunch and learn session sponsored by the local Federation the following day on the Iran P5+1 interim agreement to halt its nuclear program. In response to this question from my acquaintances, I said I believed in the reverse of the Reagan doctrine, i.e., “verify then trust’”. I cautioned one of my acquaintances how can you trust a country whose Islamic extremist rulers never miss an opportunity to spout propaganda to wipe the Zionist enterprise off the map of the world.

What I also expressed is that the US and the West has been consistently deceived about the Iranian  nuclear program and intentions. Witness the infamous National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that noted Iran’s temporary stoppage of their nuclear program when the US and Coalition forces invaded Iraq in 2003. Or the trumpeting by current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that he fooled the West in the period from 2003 to 2005 when he was the Islamic Regime’s  chief nuclear  negotiator.  “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”.  Perhaps multiple times given what has been revealed in the wake of the roll back in sanctions, part and parcel of the P5+1 agreement with Iran on its nuclear program.

US and EU Sanctions may have worked to bring Iran to the table given estimates that the Iranian economy suffered a 1% drop in GDP, and nearly a halving of its oil revenues.  While the Obama Administration said that sanctions relief for Iran was in the neighborhood of $6 to 7 Billion, according to independent estimates by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) it may exceed $20 billion.  Let’s take one example, the lifting of auto trading sanctions.  Mark Dubowitz and Dr. Jonathan Schanzer of FDD in an Iran Sanctions Analysis noted:

The White House fact sheet on the JPA notes that this relief, plus the easing of “certain sanctions” on gold, other precious metals and petrochemicals, will provide Tehran with “approximately $1.5 billion in revenue.” Of those funds, the White House projects that easing auto industry sanctions will yield only $500 million over the six-month interim period.

Note what Dubowitz and Schanzer reported happened after the lifting of the auto trade sanctions:

Shortly after the signing of the Joint Plan of Action, Iran held an international automotive conference attended by representatives from German, Indian, Japanese and South Korean auto companies. France’s PSA Peugeot Citroen and Renault SA have expressed optimism that they will be able to reap significant benefits in the coming months. A spokeswoman for Renault recently said, “Renault is satisfied by the signing of this accord… If the sanctions are lifted, our activity which is currently slowed could return to its normal course.” For Renault, this “normal course” could mean the sale of approximately 100,000 vehicles in Iran, while for Peugeot it could mean more than 450,000 vehicles.

The bottom line FDD estimate of auto trading relief in the six month time frame of the P5+1 is:

Even if Iran’s auto sector contributed only ten percent of the sector’s previous $50 billion annual contribution in GDP to Iran’s overall economy, that would be worth $2.5 billion in additional economic activity over the next six months not included in the White House’s calculations.

By helping to revive the auto industry, the most important economic sector after energy, the Obama administration may end up providing far greater economic benefits to the Iranian government, and to the IRGC, than previously believed.

Yesterday, the National Journal (NJ) drew attention to a new push for strengthened sanctions by US Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), “Iran Sanctions Bill is Coming”. This despite Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and  Banking Chairman Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) acceding to White House and Secretary of State Kerry requests  to a ‘pause’ in new sanctions  legislation  until we see what eventuates in the P5+1 six month interim discussions with Iran.  The NJ noted:

Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois told reporters on Tuesday that he’s optimistic an Iran sanctions bill will come out soon and that members involved can push it forward.

Kirk said that the timing of a bill rollout and any consideration in the Senate will be up to his top Democratic partner on sanctions, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and of course Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“The timing will be up to Harry and Bob,” he said. “It’s coming up.”

[…]

Kirk sought to debunk perceptions that intense Obama administration lobbying has had a chilling effect on interested members, particularly Democrats.

Morton Klein and Dr. Daniel Mandel of The Zionist Organization of America in an Algemeiner op ed argued  in the opposite direction  that the P5+1  deal  and  a restart with strengthening of sanctions will simply afford time for Iran to reach nuclear breakout, “With Geneva, Military Force Only Remaining Option to Stop Iranian Nukes”.

Their principal argument was:

The Geneva interim agreement permits Iran to retain intact all the essential elements of its nuclear weapons program.

Klein and Mandel cite Emeritus Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton Bernard Lewis who said, “MAD, mutual assured destruction … will not work with a religious fanatic. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement.”

They concluded:

It will be extremely hard now for President Obama to credibly threaten military action: if he failed to honor his red line and take military action when Syria actually murdered thousands with chemical weapons. Iran is unlikely to take seriously any red line he might lay down now on building nuclear weapons. Yet he should do so without delay. But even if he does, there is now probably no way Iran can be prevented from going nuclear, except through military action.

Even Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel during a recent meeting in the Gulf Emirates indicated that diplomacy alone would not bring Iran to heel, without the equivalent of a steel fist in a velvet glove approach.

The realities of how rapier like military action can work against rogue nuclear powers is reflected in a Wall Street Journal Letter to the editor  today from the writer,  Bill Bloomfield of Manhattan Beach California,  “What’s Worked for Limiting Nukes?”:

What worked? Limited military action, in the case of Syria and Iraq. While both countries are still a hotbed of violence and political strife, fortunately they don’t have nuclear weapons to make matters much worse. Their reactors were destroyed by Israel. In the case of Ukraine, economic strangulation worked. The arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union, leading to its breakup. The newly independent Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, all former Soviet republics, gave up their nuclear weapons.

What didn’t work? Threats of economic retaliation, in the cases of India and Pakistan, and negotiation, in the case of North Korea. In 1994, the Clinton administration traded aid for a North Korean promise to give up its nuclear activity—a promise it did not keep. If history is our guide, it will take more than diplomacy to keep Iran free of nuclear weapons.

I hope this answers my acquaintances in Pensacola and across America asking why military force coupled with improved sanctions may be the only option that brings the Islamofanatics in Tehran to heel.  Israel demonstrated that in both Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Orchard 2007). Despite initial criticism, the US subsequently showed begrudging respect. That is not lost on the worried Saudis and the Gulf Emirates, critical of US policies in the roiling Middle East.

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

What the Government Got You This Year for Christmas (in Pictures)

/in , , /by

This column is courtesy of the Heritage Foundation.

Today, December 18th, the Senate is set to pass the new Murray-Ryan U.S. budget deal in all its spend-tastic glory. Lawmakers have hemmed and hawed about making any cuts to spending, despite countless examples of ridiculous decisions that have wasted taxpayers’ money.

So it’s timely that the office of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) released its 2013 “Wastebook” yesterday, listing 100 examples it deems wasteful spending this year. In our infographic below, we’ve picked just a few of the highlights of your tax dollars at work.

government christmas gifts 2013

In your school library: “Young Adult” novels rated “P” for Pornographic

/in , , /by

Wall Street Journal’s Meghan Cox Gurdon in her column, Darkness Too Visible: Contemporary fiction for teens is rife with explicit abuse, violence and depravity. Why is this considered a good idea? writes, “Amy Freeman, a 46-year-old mother of three, stood recently in the young-adult section of her local Barnes & Noble, in Bethesda, Md., feeling thwarted and disheartened. She had popped into the bookstore to pick up a welcome-home gift for her 13-year-old, who had been away. Hundreds of lurid and dramatic covers stood on the racks before her, and there was, she felt, ‘nothing, not a thing, that I could imagine giving my daughter. It was all vampires and suicide and self-mutilation, this dark, dark stuff.’ She left the store empty-handed.”

According to Publishers Weekly, “Total sales in the children’s/young adult segment rose 13.0% in 2012, to $3.70 billion, according to figures released by BookStats, the statistical program run by the Association of American Publishers and the Book Industry Study Group. Units were up 10.8% in the year, to 791.4 million. E-book sales had the biggest gain in the year within the segment, jumping 117%, to $469.2 million. E-books accounted for 12.6% of all children’s/young adult sales last year up from 6.5% in 2011.” The Chicago Tribune reported that YA books sold by HarperCollins, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., “[M]ake up about 25 percent of the company’s revenues – and they’re growing.”

Who is buying up these “Young Adult” (YA) novels? Adults like public school librarians and teachers.

Take the survey at the end of the column: Are Young Adult novels pornographic?

Gurdon in “The Case for Good Taste in Children’s Books” writes, “Books for children and teenagers are written, packaged, and sold by adults. It follows from this that the emotional depictions they contain come to young people with a kind of adult imprimatur.” Any adult providing a 16-years old or younger child with a YA novel is the same as giving that child a subscription to Hustler Magazine (WARNING: THE HUSTLER LINK LEADS TO ADULT PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL).

WDW – FL reported on the use of the YA novel Speak in a Florida public middle school. Speak is about a 13-year old being raped. Speak promotes ”group rate abortions” on page 30. Other examples of bad behaviors in the book are: “Student steals late passes” (theft) – page 26,  ”sleep with the football team on Saturday night and be reincarnated as virginal goddesses on Monday” (promiscuity)- page 29; ”slit my throat” (child suicide) – page 32, and ”the crowd bumping and grinding the horny Hornet heinies” (group sex) – page 141.

Speak is pornographic with a small “P” compared to other YA novels. Gurdon describes of the content of several the most  popular and critically acclaimed YA novels:

A teenaged boy is kidnapped, drugged, and nearly raped by a male captor. After escaping, he comes across a pair of weird glasses that transport him to a world of almost impossible cruelty. Moments later, he finds himself facing a wall of horrors, “covered with impaled heads and other dripping, black-rot body parts: hands, hearts, feet, ears, penises. Where the f— was this?”

That’s from Andrew Smith’s 2010 Young Adult novel, The Marbury Lens.

A girl struggles with self-hatred and self-injury. She cuts herself with razors secretly, but her secret gets out when she’s the victim of a sadistic sexual prank. Kids at school jeer at her, calling her “cutterslut.” In response, “she had sliced her arms to ribbons, but the badness remained, staining her insides like cancer. She had gouged her belly until it was a mess of meat and blood, but she still couldn’t breathe.”

That’s from Jackie Morse Kessler’s 2011 Young Adult novel, Rage:Riders of the Apocalypse.

I won’t read you the most offensive excerpts from my third example, which consist of explicit and obscene descriptions by a 17-year-old female narrator of sexual petting, of oral sex, and of rushing to a bathroom to defecate following a breakup. Yet School Library Journal praised Daria Snadowsky’s 2008 Young Adult novel, Anatomy of a Boyfriend, for dealing “in modern terms with the real issues of discovering sex for the first time.” And Random House, its publisher, gushed about the narrator’s “heartbreakingly honest voice” as she recounts the “exquisite ups and dramatic downs of teenage love and heartbreak.”

Gurdon notes, “The book industry, broadly speaking, says: Kids have a right to read whatever they want. And if you follow the argument through it becomes: Adults should not discriminate between good and bad books or stand as gatekeepers, deciding what young people should read. In other words, the faculty of judgment and taste that we apply in every other area of life involving children should somehow vaporize when it comes in contact with the printed word.”

“A recent study conducted at Virginia Tech found that college women who read “chick lit”—light novels that deal with the angst of being a modern woman—reported feeling more insecure about themselves and their bodies after reading novels in which the heroines feel insecure about themselves and their bodies. Similarly, federal researchers were puzzled for years by a seeming paradox when it came to educating children about the dangers of drugs and tobacco. There seemed to be a correlation between anti-drug and anti-tobacco programs in elementary and middle schools and subsequent drug and tobacco use at those schools. It turned out that at the same time children were learning that drugs and tobacco were bad, they were taking in the meta-message that adults expected them to use drugs and tobacco,” writes Gurdon.

Discriminating against books is done by both Progressives and Conservatives. Both agree books influence children.

Gordon writes, “Now, although it may seem that our culture is split between Left and Right on the question of permissiveness regarding children’s reading material, in fact there is not so much division on the core issue as might appear. Secular progressives, despite their reaction to my article, have their own list of books they think young people shouldn’t read—for instance, books they claim are tinged with racism or jingoism or that depict traditional gender roles. Regarding the latter, you would not believe the extent to which children’s picture books today go out of the way to show father in an apron and mother tinkering with machinery. It’s pretty funny. But my larger point here is that the self-proclaimed anti-book-banners on the Left agree that books influence children and prefer some books to others.”

Gurdon quotes a school librarian in Idaho who wrote to her colleagues, “You are naïve if you think young people can read a dark and violent book that sits on the library shelves and not believe that that behavior must be condoned by the adults in their school lives.”

Teachers, public officials, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and friends need to understand what YA novels are and the damage they can and are doing to the innocence of our youth.

RELATED COLUMNS: 

Common Core Sexualizes American School Children

Public Schools Not Protecting the Innocence of our Youth

PEDOPHILIA, INCEST, AND GRAPHIC SEX: EXCERPTS FROM A COMMON CORE READING LIST BOOK FOR 11TH-GRADERS THAT WILL MAKE YOU BLUSH

Click here to view the results of this survey.

RELATED VIDEO: LibertyNEWS TV – “The Pornification of America”

Recommended Reading and Books for Christmas

/in , /by

It’s been a busy year with the last talk last month, on “Weather Underground in the Ivory Tower” with Tina Trent, sponsored by the National Association of Scholars.  A membership to NAS, which includes a subscription to Academic Questions, would make a nice Christmas gift.

Books always make good gifts too, and here are a few:

Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen by the late American hero, Larry Grathwohl (reissued by Tina Trent). You can order here (especially of interest to young people who are being indoctrinated with tales of heroism by the likes of Bill Ayers).

Exiled: Stories from Conservative and Moderate Professors Who Have Been Ridiculed, Ostracized, Marginalized, Demonized, and Frozen Out by yours truly with sad, funny, and shocking first person accounts by the tenured and undocumented instructors.  A nice review appears in the EdBasic Education blog.

And for educational purposes, please remember these Dissident Prof titles: A New Beginning, or a Revised Past?  Barack Obama’s Cairo Speech (taught in many English classes as unmitigated truth and eloquence) and Bill Ayers: Teaching Revolution about the domestic terrorist’s influence on education.  All available at the Dissident Prof bookstore here.

Another worthy biography/history If Not Us, Who?  William Rusher, National Review, and the Conservative Movement reviewed at the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.  Subscribe to their newsletter for must-reads on issues often overlooked by other sites (Smolensk plane crash update by Pawel Piotr Styrna of the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C.).

More recommended reads:

On the rampant violations on the Constitution by Fred Eckert, “America, We Have a Problem–It’s a Constitutional Crisis”–in Town Hall

Two articles on Newspeak (dig out 1984): Daniel Greenfield “Liberal Newspeak” and Lee Harris. “Newspeak’s Comeback and the Invincible Sincerity of America’s Liberal Elite”

On Common Core and teaching STEM by Sandra Stotsky, “Should American High Schools Prepare Any Students for STEM?  Common Core Doesn’t Think So.” in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The continued profit-making from crime on our college campuses by domestic terrorists, specifically Katherine Ann Power at TinaTrent.com

On the controversy regarding the teaching of The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison by someone who has taught the “text,” Tina Trent, again, who makes a good distinction between ongoing threats to education and new ones under Common Core.  There are ways and places to teach the novella, but a high school English class is certainly not one.  Very instructive reading there.

Why is President Obama seemingly purging the military?

/in , /by

When I asked my colleague the Army Colonel why he thinks Obama is doing this, the reply I received from this lifelong soldier and Army leader shocked me.

Paraphrasing him, this is what he told me in a nutshell.

He said, most branches of the service routinely engage in war “games” and come up with strategies and tactics on how to handle every type of military conflict and scenario that can be imagined .  One of the big new battle scenarios being actively discussed in the military recently is how to handle civil unrest in the U.S. and fighting in the streets.  What will the Army do if called in to fight armed civilians in the streets of the United States?  How will that urban warfare be conducted?  Will troops be able to fire upon other American citizens when the troops take an oath to protect American citizens?

He said many in the military are discussing the very real possibility that Obama will attempt to stay in office beyond two terms.  It is being speculated that Obama will do this by declaring a state of martial law.  The easiest way to declare martial law is when there is massive civil unrest and riots throughout the U.S.  Thus, it is believed that Obama, and his regime, will intentionally create a situation of massive civil unrest.  Some believe he has already started to implement that strategy by forcing Obamacare on everyone (when the populace did not ask for it and less than 300 people in power voted for it). Perhaps the Obama Administration is not too concerned over the totally dysfunctional Obamacare web site and the additional fact that millions will be dropped from their existing insurance policies which they already had and liked.  The Obama Administration may not care if getting health care becomes more difficult and more expensive because it is all leading toward civil unrest.  It is believed by some that Obamacare will only get worse and worse, and then in 2 to 3 years when people have a very difficult time getting medical treatment for themselves or their loved ones, people will get enraged.

Moreover, it is being speculated that around the same time when the frustration levels over Obamacare are hitting a critical point in 2 to 3 years, there will be a “glitch” in the welfare payment (or EBT) payment system.  The tens of millions who rely on EBT handouts to sustain themselves will be cut off.  The overwhelming majority of the EBT recipients are Black.  The Obama regime will then blame the “glitch” on the Republicans, i.e., Republicans froze government spending which “forced” Obama to suspension of EBT payments. (Obama will intentionally drive spending up and up uncontrolled knowing full well that one day the Republicans will be backed into a corner and finally vote for a freeze in spending.) Obama will create heightened racial tension by telling everyone that the White Republicans are racially motivated and did this to hurt the Black community.  This manufactured racial tension, combined with  growing tensions over the then-collapsing medical coverage due to Obamacare, will result in race wars and civil unrest.  People will take to the streets.

By the way, you should know that my colleague, the Army Colonel who is telling me all this, is Black.  He specifically commented, and outwardly expressed his embarrassment, about how Blacks have become so dependent and enslaved by the welfare system and the Democrats that it would be very easy to create civil unrest and race wars merely by cutting off, or dramatically hindering, EBT payments for only a month or so.  He believes that most Blacks, who have a misguided sense of entitlement, will then take to looting stores and rioting.

Once the race wars, civil unrest, and violence becomes pervasive throughout the U.S., Obama will declare martial law and take over.  Elections can, and will, be postponed under martial law.

My colleague noted that this possibility is clearly being analyzed and discussed inside the military because such a martial law strategy is nothing new.  Tyrannical and dictatorial leaders in the past have done the martial law strategy many times.  He noted that dictators such as Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler did basically the identical thing.  He went on to say that one of the most recent examples of this strategy was when Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines from 1972-1981 due to civil unrest.  The Philippines had democratic elections up until that time.  When martial law was declared, the Philippine constitution was suspended, its Congress dissolved, all elections were suspended, and Marcos remained in power for years beyond his elected term. The alleged “terrorist bombings” that occurred in the Philippines, which lead to Marcos declaring martial law, have always been questioned and never proven to be the acts of actual terrorists.

He concluded by saying that many believe this is the real reason behind the purgings of military generals.  The older members of the military, and especially its generals and leaders, tend to be more conservative and they believe in the Constitution—and following the Constitution.  Thus, a tyrant and dictator needs to get rid of these military leaders before a state of martial law is declared if the rising dictator wants the military to follow along and do what the dictator says.   Due to the loss of many experienced military leaders the past few years, the military is now being run and guided more and more by younger, inexperienced leaders. The type who won’t really know what to do if martial law was declared.  Moreover, he noted that there is a growing mind set throughout the military now that every soldier needs to keep quiet and just follow along with what Obama says and wants to do or you will be fired and your military career ruined.  Again, I was told this is nothing new since removing strong military leaders in advance of declaring martial law is a historically-proven element of a rising tyrant and dictator.

The Power-Mad EPA

/in , /by

Barely a week goes by these days without hearing of some new demand by the Environmental Protection Agency that borders on the insane.

Increasingly, EPA regulations are being challenged and now reach the Supreme Court for a final judgment. This marks the failure of Congress to exercise any real oversight and control of an agency that everyone agrees is now totally out of control.

Recently the EPA ruled that New York City had to replace 1,300 fire hydrants because of their lead content. The ruling was based on the Drinking Water Act passed by Congress in 2011. As Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) pointed out while lambasting the agency, “I don’t know a single New Yorker who goes out to their fire hydrants every morning, turns it on, and brushes their teeth using the water from these hydrants. It makes no sense whatsoever.” Reportedly, the Senate is poised to consider legislation exempting fire hydrants if the EPA does not revise its ruling.

The EPA is not about making sense. It is about over-interpreting laws passed by Congress in ways that now continuely lead to cases before the Supreme Court. The Court is composed of lawyers, not scientists. In an earlier case, they ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “pollutant” when it is the one gas that all vegetation requires. Without it, nothing grows and all life on Earth dies.

A federal appeals court recently heard a case about the EPA’s interpretation of the 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, yet another effort in the “war on coal” that would shut down more coal-fired plants that provide the bulk of the electricity the nation requires.

The EPA is asserting that the rule would annually prevent 11,000 premature deaths, nearly 5,000 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks. Moreover it asserts that it would help avoid more than 540,000 missed work days, and protect babies and children. These statistics are plucked from various studies published in journals and are typical of the way the EPA operates to justify its rulings. Their accuracy is dubious.

What makes this case, brought by EarthJustice–formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund–of interest is the way the NAACP, along with 17 other organizations, came to the defense of the ruling. Are you surprised that the NAACP has a director of Environmental and Climate Justice?

Apparently civil rights for Afro-Americans now embraces the absurd claims about climate change, formerly known as global warming. “Civil rights are about equal access to protections afforded by law,” said Jacqui Patterson, the NAACP director. “These standards provide essential safeguards for communities who are now suffering from decades of toxic exposure.” If these essential safeguards are in place, on what basis does she make such a claim?

The EarthJustice attorney, Jim Pew, claims the case is about protecting “hundreds of thousands of babies each year from development disorders, and spare communities of 130,000 asthma attacks each year. If, in a lawsuit, you find yourself arguing against the lives of babies, children with asthma, and people suffering from your toxic dumping, then you are on the wrong side of both the lawsuit and history..”

Here, again, the claims about health-related harm are absurd. Who believes that asthma or development disorders are related to mercury? Who believes that communities served by coal-fired power plants are subject to major health hazards?

The claims about mercury are baseless, in a 2011 commentary published in The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Willie Soon, a geoscientist at Harvard and expert on mercury and public health issues was joined by Paul Driesson, a senior policy advisor for the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), is rebuts the claims about mercury that have been part of the environmental lies put forth for years.

“There is no factual basis for these assertions. To build its case against mercury, the EPA systematically ignored evidence and clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda, which is the punish hydrocarbon use.”

“Mercury has always existed naturally in the Earth’s environment … Mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and trees, which absorb it from the environment. This is why our bodies evolved with proteins and antioxidants that help protect us from this and other potential contaminants.”

Dr. Soon and Driessen do not deny that coal-burning power plants emit an estimated 41-to-48 tons of mercury per year, “but U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons, Chinese power plants eject 400 tons; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers, and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year.”

“Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere.”

Such FACTS mean nothing to the EPA. The air and the water of the United States is remarkably clean, but to justify its existence and expand its power, the EPA continues to impose idiotic and unscientific rules about fire hydrants and power plants.

The threat is the EPA, not mercury.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

RELATED COLUMN: How the EPA Plans to Kill Jobs and Reduce Your Income

If Obama were a Cadet or Midshipman, he’d be expelled

/in /by

There is one simple, yet powerful, comparative analysis from this week that I’m sure not many are considering. This week President Barack Hussein Obama was awarded the dubious distinction of being the mouthpiece of the Politifact “Lie of the Year.” This follows a year where President Obama was awarded by the Washington Post with four Pinocchios.

It begs the question, does integrity exist in the highest office in the land?

Interestingly enough, Saturday will be the 123rd anniversary of “America’s Game,” Army vs Navy. Those who will march into Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia live under a code of honor that concisely states, “I will not lie or cheat, nor tolerate anyone who does.”

I have seen the United States Military Academy at West Point honor court. It is a peer-led system. Last week, I saw the same while visiting The Citadel, where they also have the same honor code.

Is it not the greatest of ironies that these young men and women uphold a code of character that the “Commander-in-Chief” does not? How did we come to this point in America? Has our culture so devolved that those who are elected lack the basic standards of honesty that we all teach our children?

I find it unconscionable that one day, those young men and women of the highest, impeccable standard of character, be it from West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs, or New London will not have someone as a leader to whom they can admire. If Barack Obama was a Cadet or Midshipman he would be expelled. What shall the American people do?

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

PODCAST: How Mother Nature will Accelerate the Looming Fiscal Avalanche

/in , , /by

Many are writing about the looming fiscal cliff that Congress and the Obama administration will deal with upon return from the Thanksgiving break. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) warns of a looming fiscal avalanche.

In After Fiscal Cliff Comes Fiscal Avalanche, Rejection of U.S. Debt, Senator Lee writes, “While Washington is preoccupied with the so-called fiscal cliff, little attention has been given to the fiscal avalanche that will occur if we continue down an unsustainable, long-term path, causing markets to turn sour on U.S. debt and leading to a spike in interest rates.”

Senator Lee states, “The Congressional Budget Office projects that under the most likely policy scenario, in 30 years, net interest payments on the debt could total $3.8 trillion in today’s dollars. That is more than total government spending for 2011.”

Robert Wiedemer co-author of America’s Bubble Economy – Aftershock wrote America has suffered through a number of financial bubbles and the aftershock following each. To date each of these bubbles, the most recent being the housing bubble, have burst and fallen onto two other looming bubbles. These two bubbles are the “dollar bubble” and the “debt bubble”. Wiedemer predicts these two bubbles will burst when pricked by the pin called “inflation”.

The government fiscal policies which have lead the US to the fiscal avalanche may be helped along by mother nature.

Relying heavily on the research of experts globally, as well as his own original research that correctly predicted the change in the Sun’s behavior, Mr. John L. Casey has spelled out in his book Cold Sun a convincing case that a new cold era has arrived. In Cold Sun, Mr. Casey presents the evidence showing:

1. Global warming ended years ago.
2. The Sun has entered an ominous state of ‘hibernation.’
3. The Earth’s ocean and atmospheric temperatures are dropping rapidly and are now on a long term decline for the next thirty years.
4. Glacial ice worldwide is growing again and the threat of rising sea levels is over.
5. Why we should be preparing now for the coming cold and its ill-effects including record earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions as well as global agricultural devastation.

Mr. Casey’s predictions of mother nature taking her own course fly in the face of current government policies at the national, state and local levels. In this exclusive interview Mr. Casey explains how mother nature will have her way no matter what we try to do:

While government is focused on reducing CO2 emissions to prevent global warming, the earth is in fact cooling. According to Casey this cooling will shorten the growing season causing food prices to increase, require more fuel and energy to heat homes and businesses. The US will experience an increase in the number of natural disasters costing human life loss and property damage on a grand scale. The US ability to recover from such natural disasters here and globally will be restricted by our debt and cost to service that debt in the long term.

The world’s growing population depends on food. Brian M. Carney in his article for the Wall Street Journal asks, “Can The World Still Feed Itself?“. Mr. Carney interviews Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of Nestle’ the world’s largest food-production company. According to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, “Politicians do not understand that between the food market and the energy market, there is a close link.” That link is the calorie.

Carney reports, “The energy stored in a bushel of corn can fuel a car or feed a person. And increasingly, thanks to ethanol mandates and subsidies in the U.S. and bio-fuel incentives in Europe, crops formerly grown for food or livestock feed are being grown for fuel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent estimate predicts that this year, for the first time, American farmers will harvest more corn for ethanol than for feed. In Europe some 50% of the rapeseed crop is going into bio-fuel production, according to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, while “world-wide about 18% of sugar is being used for bio-fuel today.”

What does this all mean?

If John Casey is correct in his predictions, and SSRC always is, then cold weather brings with it a shorter growing season and increased demand for fuel to keep people warm. Therefore, we must have policies that increase calories, not decrease the food supply.

These natural events will occur during the same 30 year period where our payments on the national debt will increase to $3.8 trillion.

RELATED COLUMN: Are we living in the Hunger Games?