You Deserve The Truth About Socialism/Communism

Socialism is not a laughing matter: it is an infection like coronavirus, a political disease of incompetence, dishonesty, and eventually violence spread by Soviet Charlatans. Unfortunately, the American education system has failed to teach the criminal history of Socialism. Socialism is a culture of abuse and total corruption inside a system of slavery, depriving people of all rights known to humanity. Sen. Bernie Sanders has never lived under Socialism and he is deceiving and fooling you by presenting a Soviet Style propaganda, of a ‘cosmetic’ version of Socialism in the best traditions of Stalinist Political Correctness.  Sen. Bernie Sanders is a liar and fraud. He loved the USSR and praised Fidel Castro, who enslaved the Island of Freedom (Cuba) and its people by implementing Socialism and its Soviet System. Bernie is not alone, unfortunately, there is an army of Socialist-liars in America…

Bernie’s Democratic Socialism is a fraud. The term itself is an oxymoron—a democrat can’t be a socialist, a socialist can’t be democratic. The term reveals a total absence of the knowledge of socialist policy. Socialism means a dictatorship in a struggle to end individual liberty and private property, which is the opposite of democracy. To really know and understand socialism, you must have lived through it. I am a survivor of Soviet Socialism and I know what it truly means. To prove it, I’ll give you only one feature of Soviet Socialism to grasp the reality, and it is not Gulag, Perjuries, or Show Trials, you have already heard about. I’ll give you the picture of the real human disaster that is life under Socialism/Communism.

The Real Face of Soviet Socialism—A Communal Apartment

Until I got married and moved to Estonia, my entire life since childhood had taken place in a communal apartment (kommunalka) first in Moscow and then in Leningrad. It was the very famous Pertsov’s building, biggest in Leningrad, if I am not mistaken, 10,000 people lived there. Pertsov was a successful Russian businessman dealing with railroad transportation, particularly with the first Russian railroad from St. Petersburg to Moscow. It was the famous Imperial Government of Russia Nicolas Railroad built in 1869 in honor of Czar Nicolas 1. After the 1917 Socialist Revolution all Real Estate of the country, including the Pertsov’s building was confiscated and nationalized, thus becoming the property of the State.

As thousands of 2 to 7 room apartments had become property of the government, they were remade to be communal ones, where each family received one room. My family got a room in the apartment on the second floor. Although it was a pretty big room, there was not enough light—the only window at the corner, looked out at the building’s wall. We had to have electrical lights on all the time. There were seven families in this particular apartment, which had one kitchen, one bathroom, one lavatory next to the kitchen. Can you imagine what was going on at seven o’clock in the morning in our apartment??? The long corridor outside our room had never been empty—each family had the right to locate some old items and boxes with laundry next to a door off their room.

The kitchen was big and comprised of seven tables with seven kerosenka (an oil or paraffin-stove), one on each table.  We had a table with our own kerosenka to cook. The women in the apartment would spending hours in the kitchen preparing the meals for the family. Our kitchen became the place to socialize and exchange views. The big kitchen also had a back door to take the garbage out. All the neighbors threw their garbage down stairs to the back yard, where the big wooden boxes were constructed for garbage. I am talking about the time of the 1950-60s.

If you are a woman and have a good imagination, you can perceive the life of a Soviet women for all 24/7, let alone the empty shelfs in the supermarket, and limited incomes to buy food in a farmer’s market. It was hard life for everybody in the Soviet Union, especially for the women.  Suddenly we got interesting news. In late 1958, the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to set up national exhibitions in each other’s nation as part of their new emphasis on cultural exchanges. Vice President Nixon was bringing a model of a modern American kitchen to Moscow… Now you can’t imagine what happened in each communal apartment behind the Iron Curtin… An American kitchen in Moscow!?

The apartments with an individual kitchen had been a rarity in the country, only 3-5 percent of the population had them—the Communist leaders. The rest had lived in communal apartments in a country spread across eleven time zones. After hearing the news over the radio, the entire female part of the country wanted desperately to see the American kitchen. The very air behind the Iron Curtin was buzzing with women’s whisperings, desires, and preparations. There were no barriers the women couldn’t overcome to go to Moscow to see the American kitchen. Women and men traveled by horses, by the contingent trucks, by ships, by trains, often walking miles to get some means of transportation, in the country of eleven time zones.

The men were also concerned, especially the men in power, the Communists, they had never seen such active women’s movement. The exhibition of the American kitchen occupied the minds of the population and the KGB was not ready to react adequately. The significance of the event had scared them, they had known about a desperate housing situation in the country and did not know how to respond to ‘capitalist propaganda.’ “During the grand opening ceremony of the American National Exhibition in Moscow, Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev engaged in a heated debate about capitalism and communism in the middle of a model kitchen set up for the fair. The so-called ‘kitchen debate’ became one of the most famous episodes of the Cold War.”

In front of an army of reporters and photographers who followed them around, Nixon and Khrushchev continued their argument in the kitchen of a model home built in the exhibition: “For a few moments, in the confines of a “modern” kitchen, the diplomatic gloves had come off and America and the Soviet Union had verbally jousted over which system was superior–communism or capitalism.” The KGB and all Communists hated Nixon, because they were helpless, being exposed by the presence of the American kitchen… Yet, the enemies of democracy have a long memory and use it when circumstances present them the opportunity…

I have visited this exhibition, met a lot of women, talked to them and I know the dramatic effect of the American individual kitchen on the Soviet human mind in 1959. The KGB also recognized the dramatic effect the Soviet people had experienced and they used the opportunity of revenge to Nixon in the 1970s. It is a huge story that requires a different column to tell you how the KGB organized the Watergate and ousted President Nixon with the help of some Democrats. Ironically, history repeats itself and we are dealing with the same KGB and the same set of techniques today, fifty years later. Now the KGB works with the entire Democrat Party against President Trump, confronting his family and the people working for him. You are witnessing this every day, yet you don’t know who is really behind anti-Trump campaign… Stay tuned…

A Hundred Years War: Communism vs. Capitalism

If you read documents about the famous “kitchen debate,” you will have the big picture arguments about Capitalism and Communism, which in fact continues between America and Russia today, in 2020. It is an “epidemic of disinformation” produced by Russia today, using the old Stalinist arsenal of lies, fraud, deceptions, and obfuscations to fool and deceive you. Writing for the last thirty years and giving you a detailed anatomy of this war, I have been calling it an asymmetrical war against capitalism and Western civilization. Actually, it is the same war against the Truth, waged by the Russian Intel against the Republicans fifty years later. Knowledge is Power–Richard Nixon had known the Truth of the housing disaster in Russia. He had exposed the biggest problem of a totalitarian State—misery conditions and quality of life under Stalinist Socialism.  “The communal apartment became the predominant form of housing in the USSR for generations, and examples still exist in “the most fashionable central districts of large Russian cities.” Wikipedia

Telling the truth is a powerful method to expose the “epidemic of disinformation” that has continued since the victory of the Socialist Revolution in Russia in 1917. Knowledge is the best disinfector!  You deserve to know the Truth! Do you know that the carrier of this epidemic was then and still is the Russian Intel?  I used the term KGB writing about them to show Stalin’s skillful propaganda techniques and dirty tricks. President Nixon knew the true Housing disaster in Russia. His courageous actions cost him the presidency. The enemy of America had prearranged, connived and manufactured the activities against him with the help of some Democrats. It was open season on the Republicans and they had not defended their President–instead they surrendered. Many did not recognize deep infiltration of the Soviets into our political system and in all corners of our society, some did…

Today, fifty years later Putin can celebrate an enormous success in his collaboration with the Democrat Party against the American Republic. The Democrat Party joined and supported Putin’s KGB, which has been infiltrating America since the 20th century. Read my column: …and the KGB in the White House, June 1, 2017.  Fifty years later we see something very similar to the past: the attempt to oust another American President–Donald J. Trump. The last thirty years have given the Soviet System the time and opportunity to enhance the Russian military and its intelligence apparatus to continue its expansion to the world. The predicament in America is even worse today, due to erroneous American foreign policy, during the last thirty years. Up to now, the American public is still unaware of the ideology of real Socialism, which, to survive, will never stop fighting successful capitalism. Today we have a global political forces confronting a sitting American President… Read my books and columns…

Wake up America!  We will find remedy from Coronavirus. But…it is important to remember: there is no cure for Socialism/Communism!!!

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com or at www.drrichswier.com/author/apipko/.

© All rights reserved.

First Thoughts On the Trump Plan and How Mahmoud Abbas Will Save the Day by Hugh Fitzgerald

“The Deal of the Century” turned out to be remarkably generous to the “Palestinians,” giving them far more than they had any right to expect. It promises them a state – the state of Palestine. It doubles the size of the territory under Palestinian control. The Palestinians will under the plan possess nearly 80% of the West Bank. They will also have their capital in East Jerusalem. The plan includes Palestinian use and management of facilities in Haifa and Ashdod ports, Palestinian development of a resort area in the north shore of the Dead Sea, and continued Palestinian agricultural activity in the Jordan Valley. Ultimately, the plan envisions “modern and efficient transportation links” through the future Palestinian state, including Gaza. The West Bank and Gaza will be linked through a tunnel.

Under the Trump plan, the Palestinians will be obligated to disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad, must stop their Pay-For-Slay plan, must stop inciting terrorism, must end the rampant corruption in the PA, must respect human rights, and must guarantee a free press and religious freedom. We shall see if the PA is able to meet these conditions precedent to achieving a state. The PA’s record to date is not encouraging.

The plan also requires Israel to observe a four-year moratorium on any new settlements in the West Bank while negotiations with the Palestinians are going on, but says nothing about whether the moratorium would continue if, after four years, negotiations are still continuing. It makes provision for $50 billion in aid to be given to the Palestinians, as had previously been announced at the “Peace Through Prosperity” workshop in Manama last June. That is a huge sum, but who would pay it? One hopes that it will not be the Western Infidels paying for the Palestinians. The $50 billion ought by rights to come from fellow Muslim Arabs, those who live in the oil-rich states of the Gulf – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar.

The most important concession of all, according to Trump’s peace initiative, would be the recognition of a new state, the State of Palestine. This State of Palestine would have to agree to be disarmed, but how that disarmament would be enforced, and exactly what arms it would include, remains unclear.

Israel also gets certain concessions. Existing Israeli settlements (that is, towns and cities) in the West Bank would be recognized as sovereign Israeli territory. The Palestinians would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian refugees, or “refugees” (the quotation marks indicate that these are the descendants of refugees, not true refugees themselves) would be integrated into the countries where they now live. There would be no right of return.

Netanyahu and Gantz have both declared themselves pleased with Trump’s peace plan. But can they truly be pleased with the recognition of a State of Palestine, with its capital in East Jerusalem? Perhaps they are pleased because the plan is better than any of the previous plans presented by Trump’s predecessors, and because they know that Abbas will never accept it, so they needn’t worry. They can afford to be pleased. There is no other state in the world that has been successfully disarmed. How likely is it that a State of Palestine, full of Jihadis, could be permanently disarmed, and not become a source of terrorism against Israelis, whether living in the West Bank or elsewhere in Israel?

The plan is generally good, but I confess that I expected even better. I did not think this administration would recognize a State of Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem. I envisioned instead an arrangement whereby the local Arabs (to be carefully referred to as “Palestinian Arabs”) in the West Bank would be given as much autonomy as was consonant with Israeli security, but not a state. The safer the Israelis, the greater the degree of local autonomy. I see that I was wrong.

However, there is one thing about this plan that makes it most welcome. And that is the assurance that neither Mahmoud Abbas, nor any of his successors in the Palestinian Authority, nor anyone in Hamas, will be willing to negotiate over this plan in good faith. The Palestinians rejected Trump’s plan before they knew what was in it; they reject it again now that they know what is in it. Much of the world will be able to see that even when the Palestinians are offered a state of their own, even when they are promised that that state’s capital will be in East Jerusalem, even when they are further promised $50 billion in aid, far more than any of the more than 100 developing countries have ever received In aid, that is not enough to satisfy them. They are the spoiled brats of the international community.

Other Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Oman, will urge the Palestinians to take the deal — “You get a state, you have your capital in Jerusalem, the Israelis have to stop building settlements, you’ll have 80% of the West Bank” – “or else.” “Or else” would mean only this: “We are tired of your whining, tired of the whole Palestinian problem; tired of your refusal to accept $50 billion in aid. We have so many bigger problems to think about, starting but not ending with Iran. Get with the program. Or count us out.” The refusal of the Palestinians to take the deal will only widen the gap between them and the other Arabs.

In agreeing to the Trump plan, Israel will have committed itself to not building new settlements in the West Bank for four years, while negotiations are going on. It’s a big concession. But if there are no negotiations, because the Palestinians continue to refuse enter into them, then the Trump administration has made clear that Israel is no longer required to refrain from settlement building. The Trump administration has noted that, in that case, it will support Israel should it decide to unilaterally incorporate other areas of the West Bank, beyond what it will already have annexed. And the offer of a State of Palestine will not be revived. And very few, at that point, will care.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hamas top dog writes to all Islamic heads of state, urging them to reject Trump peace plan

A General’s View of Why US Should Stay in Afghanistan

Trump: “It’s time for the Muslim world to fix the mistake of 1948 and recognize Israel”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

No, Jesus Wasn’t a Socialist

Christian charity, being voluntary and heartfelt, is utterly distinct from the compulsory, impersonal mandates of the state.


The claim that Jesus Christ was a socialist has become a popular refrain among liberals, even from some whose Christianity is lukewarm at best. But is there any truth in it?

That question cannot be answered without a reliable definition of socialism. A century ago, it was widely regarded as government ownership of the means of production. Jesus never once even hinted at that concept, let alone endorsed it. Yet the definition has changed over time. When the critiques of economists such as Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman demolished any intellectual case for the original form of socialism, and reality proved them to be devastatingly right, socialists shifted to another version: central planning of the economy.

One can scour the New Testament and find nary a word from Jesus that calls for empowering politicians or bureaucrats to allocate resources, pick winners and losers, tell entrepreneurs how to run their businesses, impose minimum wages or maximum prices, compel workers to join unions, or even to raise taxes. When the Pharisees attempted to trick Jesus of Nazareth into endorsing tax evasion, he cleverly allowed others to decide what properly belongs to the State by responding, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.”

Nonetheless, one of the charges that led to Jesus’s crucifixion was indeed tax evasion.

With the reputation of central planners in the dumpster worldwide, socialists have largely moved on to a different emphasis: the welfare state. The socialism of Bernie Sanders and his young ally Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is that of the benevolent, egalitarian nanny state where rich Peter is robbed to pay poor Paul. It’s characterized by lots of “free stuff” from the government—which of course isn’t free at all. It’s quite expensive both in terms of the bureaucratic brokerage fees and the demoralizing dependency it produces among its beneficiaries. Is this what Jesus had in mind?

Hardly. Yes, amid the holidays, it’s especially timely to think about helping the poor. It was, after all, a very important part of Jesus’s message. How helping the poor is to be done, however, is mighty important.

Christians are commanded in Scripture to love, to pray, to be kind, to serve, to forgive, to be truthful, to worship the one God, to learn and grow in both spirit and character. All of those things are very personal. They require no politicians, police, bureaucrats, political parties, or programs.

“The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want,” says Jesus in Matthew 26:11 and Mark 14:7. The key words there are you can help and want to help. He didn’t say, “We’re going to make you help whether you like it or not.”

In Luke 12:13-15, Jesus is approached with a redistribution request. “Master, speak to my brother that he divideth the inheritance with me,” a man asks. Jesus replied, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” Then he rebuked the petitioner for his envy.

Christianity is not about passing the buck to the government when it comes to relieving the plight of the poor. Caring for them, which means helping them overcome it, not paying them to stay poor or making them dependent upon the state, has been an essential fact in the life of a true Christian for 2,000 years. Christian charity, being voluntary and heartfelt, is utterly distinct from the compulsory, impersonal mandates of the state.

But don’t take my word for it. Consider what the apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 9:7: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

And in Jesus’s Parable of the Good Samaritan, the traveler is regarded as “good” because he personally helped the stricken man at the roadside with his own time and resources. If, instead, he had urged the helpless chap to wait for a government check to arrive, we would likely know him today as the Good-for-Nothing Samaritan.

Jesus clearly held that compassion is a wholesome value to possess, but I know of no passage in the New Testament that suggests it’s a value he’d impose by force or gunpoint—in other words, by socialist politics.

Socialists are fond of suggesting that Jesus disdained the rich, citing two particular moments: his driving of the money-changers from the Temple and his remark that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. In the first instance, Jesus was angry that God’s house was being misused. Indeed, he never drove a money-changer from a bank or a marketplace. In the second, he was warning that with great wealth, great temptations come, too.

These were admonitions against misplaced priorities, not class warfare messages.

In his Parable of the Talents, Jesus talks about a man who entrusts his wealth to three servants for a time. When the man returns, he learns that one of the servants safeguarded his share by burying it, the second put his share to work and multiplied it, and the third invested his and generated the greatest return of all. Who’s the hero in the parable? The wealth-creating third man. The first one is admonished, and his share is taken and given to the third.

That doesn’t sound very socialist, does it?

Likewise, in Jesus’s Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, the story upholds capitalist virtues, not socialist ones. When some workers complain that others were paid more, the employer rightfully defends the right of voluntary contract, private property, and, in effect, the law of supply and demand.

At Christmas time and throughout the year, Jesus would want each of us to be generous in helping the needy. But if you think he meant for politicians to do it with police power at twice the cost and half the effectiveness of private charity, you’re not reading the same New Testament I am.

This article was reprinted with permission from the Washington Examiner.

COLUMN BY

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Ambassador for Global Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also author of Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of ProgressivismFollow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

And Then There Were None

In 2008, Abby Johnson, the manager of the Bryan, Texas (100 miles from Houston) Planned Parenthood, became that organization’s Employee of the Year.

By 2009, she quit for conscience’ sake. Why?

That year, for the first time, she saw an ultrasound of an abortion of a 13-week old unborn child in her own clinic. This was not a blob of tissue, a clump of cells, a non-living being. This was a baby that was fighting for his life.

Although Abby Johnson was a good salesman of abortions and thought that she was helping women through her work, seeing that baby fighting for his life caused the scales to fall from her eyes.

Abby says that after she saw that ultrasound,

“I knew that I had been part of a lie. I had been a part of a corrupt system, a corrupt organization, that really preyed upon women in their vulnerable states, and I knew that I needed to leave.”

She has now written a book (with Cindy Lambert) called Unplanned, and PureFlix (“God’s Not Dead”) has now turned that book into an excellent movie.

Abby Johnson has also started an outreach, And Then There Were None (ATTWN), to help abortion workers leave the field. I have interviewed Abby before and have previously written about her story. But here is an update about ATTWN, since I interviewed for Christian television two of her assistants at ATTWN recently.

One of them is Meagan Weber, who told me,

“[Abby] wrote her book hoping that a worker would pick it up as a skeptic and see the truth, and see themselves through her words, and within three months of her book’s release in 2011, she had 17 abortion workers contact her for help.”

In effect, Abby and those 17 workers became the beginning of her work to help transition abortion clinic workers out of the field. Her reasoning is simple. She says in her ATTWN website, abortionworker.com,

“We always say that nobody grows up wanting to work in the abortion industry. Nobody. Our vision statement for ‘And then there were none’ is ‘No abortion clinic workers, no abortion clinics, no abortions’—it starts with the workers. We see ourselves as being part of a pro-love movement. That we want to love these workers out of the clinics. We want to love them to a path of healing, and we want to love them back into a relationship with Jesus Christ.”

As an abortion worker, Abby Johnson had thought that what she was doing at Planned Parenthood was helping women. But she learned the hard way that the real bottom line of Planned Parenthood was its bottom line.

Weber, who serves as Abby Johnson’s Assistant, told me, “They asked her to increase the number of abortions at her facility by half, and so she said, ‘Don’t we tell the media that we want to reduce the number of abortions to make them safe, legal, and rare?’ And her supervisor laughed and said, ‘Well, Abbey, how do you think we make our money?’ And she really was blindsided by that.”

Weber also says, “Leaving your job in the abortion industry is not like leaving your job in a fast food outlet. It has the same high turnover rate, but you don’t just leave your job, you leave your friends, you leave your ideology…you go from one day championing women’s rights and abortion rights to the next day having to humble yourself and say, ‘I was wrong. I was part of a very evil system,’ and they have to come to terms with that. So there is a lot of emotional trauma, and there is abandonment.”

I also have spoken with Laura Ricketts of ATTWN for Christian television. She observed, “As we walk through the process of healing them, as we meet their practical needs with financial assistance, with resume writing, with jobs search help, as we help them pay their bills, get back on their feet, once their practical needs are met, they are ready to meet their emotion and spiritual needs.”

So far the organization has been able to help hundreds of clinic workers get out of the abortion field. Meagan states, “And so here we are seven years later, and we’ve helped 550 workers and 7 full-time doctors.”

The movie alone helped cause about a hundred abortion clinic workers to respond…to consider coming out. Ricketts told me, “I think one of the most exciting things about the movie is the impact it had across the country and now across the world. We saw hearts changed, abortion clinic workers leaving their jobs.”

Abby Johnson says, “My story is really an exposé. It’s pulling back the curtain into an industry that has been normalized. Abortion has been so incredibly normalized in our society, and it’s anything but normal.”

© All rights reserved.

U.S. Iran Brinkmanship

Like everyone else, I wonder what is going on with Iran. Whatever it is, it just does not bode well for the US, my adopted country. My country of birth, Iran, used to be my proud homeland of noble people, is now a cabal of turbaned religious bigots who took it over some four decades ago and overnight transformed a country that was once the envy of the entire Middle East into a pariah of the world.

President Trump honored his campaign pledge to withdraw from the misguided and dangerous deal the Obama administration made with the Iranian Mullahs on the nuclear issue. Some say that was a bad thing. Others say, it was a good thing to chuck it and aim for a much better and safer agreement.

Now that debate is academic, the United States of America is no longer party to that flawed agreement. The United States did not just leave by closing the door, but proposed a new deal to the Mullahs that had exactly zero chance to succeed

President Trump seems to believe that he is dealing with a group of rational pragmatic people like others he has dealt with in the world of business. A sort of give and take type of people who can find middle ground on any deal. The Mullahs are hardly the type. They are religious fanatics to their very core who are driven — now that they are in power and sit on a sea of black gold — by their deadly messianic dream to rule the world by whatever means, piecemeal or whole, intact or in shambles. Preferably in shambles so that their long-awaited and prayed-for Saheb-u-zaman (their messiah)— from his hiding place and returns and set the world straight in accordance with the idealized Shia Islamic vision.

To Islam, Death is not death. It is martyrdom — the prized achievement earning the martyr eternal peace in fabled paradise. To these cultists, Muhammad’s son-in-law, Imam Hossain is their idol and his tragic death is what they follow. They believe in the same way that Imam Hossain with a small band of his followers stood up to the usurper Yazid, they are doing the same thing at all costs battling the Great Satan (the USA).

This cult of death is on the march and in its forty years of Islamic rules has murdered tens of thousands of Iran’s best children who dared to oppose its criminal agenda.

At this point this game of chicken has played out to the Mullahs’ highest advantage. The Saudis, with their huge arsenal of fancy weapons and the world’s third highest military expenditure are just licking their wounds not even daring to name the Mullahs as the villains who bombed their lifeline. And the Saudi’s patron, the United States, shrugs and says it is the Saudi’s place to respond and it would support that. The Saudis blinked, ergo the United States blinks.

As things stand now, the Mullahs have gained incalculable prestige in the region. They have time and again poked the big tiger in the eye and the big tiger blinked and didn’t bite. What’s the lesson to everyone? The tiger is really a paper tiger. Poke it and see for yourself.

And how this brinkmanship is likely to play out? It could trigger a full war. Not just simply the parties giving each other a bloody nose and go back to a line of less cataclysmic confrontation. This is very unlikely. The Mullahs lifeline is hugely constricted and that will not do. They will do whatever they can to open that oil-finance lifeline. A more likely possibility is so called diplomacy.

The United States took a huge risk trying to undo the massively-flawed nuclear deal. The Mullahs refused. Therefore, the United States not being remotely inclined to use force, will take the diplomatic route. Meaning overtly and covertly, the United States backtracks, eases the sanctions, and the Mullahs gleefully celebrate their partial victory waiting and hoping another Democrat president takes the helm. After all, the Mullahs believe Democrats are the nice folks who see it their way. It was that very nice Jimmy Carter who catapulted the villain Khomeini to power. Recall that Carter even called Khomeini, a “saint.”

And yes. Another very nice and understanding Democrat President — the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize granted the Mullahs the right to make their own nuclear bomb if they could only wait a few years. He, Obama even sweetened the deal giving the Mullahs a starter fund of hundred and fifty billion dollars.

What is going on with Iran? Some speculations on my part:

Trump, rightly or wrongly left the nuclear deal with Iran demanding new terms that were tantamount to surrender to the Mullahs. So, they said, Hell no. Trump started to turn the economic screws on the Mullahs that began to shut down their oil sales — their life-blood.

The Mullahs had a choice: either die slowly by the U.S. sanctions that not only prevented selling oil, but also shut down their ability to deal in international banking, or playing hardball with Trump. In a way, they decided to take a chance and go down fighting, if it is necessary.

The Mullahs figured, Trump is more bluster than fight, as evident from his inaction when they shot down an American drone in international airspace. Teddy Roosevelt advised: speak softly but carry a big stick. The Mullahs see President Trump speaking loudly while carrying no stick at all.

They also figured that re-election coming up would make Trump most hesitant to unleash his military on them. Furthermore, Trump might get bounced and the Democrats will again come around and be nice to them.

Now, they have called their opponents’ bluff with great success. They have made their point: they have said time and again, if we can’t sell our oil, then we will not let anybody else sell their oil through the Gulf. Saudis making money hand over fist selling oil while the Mullahs starving? No, that’s not very nice. They decided they would do something about that. Knowing full well that those Saudi boys have no stomach at all for entangling with Iran militarily.

Now what? Simple. This time Trump lost. Next, Trump will relax the sanctions, will even look the other way for the Mullahs to sell some oil, access to the international financial system will also quietly work out and a covert “diplomacy” dance will continue.

The result: a huge victory for the Mullahs and a new long term lease on life. I certainly hope I’m wrong as I see it.

What Is This Love Affair with Socialism?

“Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it,” said Santayana. Many young people today claim to prefer socialism—and in some cases, even communism (which is socialism’s more violent form)—over capitalism.

Recently a candidate for city council in Denver declared that capitalism has failed and that socialism is the future. Candi Cdebaca said that we are in the “last phase” of capitalism—as if it is dying. In contrast, she said, “I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources and distribution of those resources.” And she is willing to implement this agenda “by any means necessary.” Last week, she won the election.

A new poll says that out-of-the-closet socialist Bernie Sanders would beat capitalist Donald Trump for the U. S. presidency if the election were held today. By 9 points.

The problem with socialism and communism is that it must be forced in order to put it into practice. The communists built the Berlin Wall to keep the residents of East Germany from being able to flee “the worker’s paradise” into the West. Trump wants to build a border wall—not to keep people in, but to keep undocumented people out. The fact that so many want to come here is, in part, mute testimony to the success of capitalism.

Dr. Paul Kengor of Grove City College is a best-selling author of many books related to communism. One of his most recent books is called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism: The Killingest Idea Ever (Regnery, 2017).

In that book he mentions a joking T-shirt given to him by one of his former students. The T-shirt read, “Communism has only killed 100 million people. Why not give it another shot?”

Kengor points out that we are told repeatedly that the problem with socialism/communism, which repeatedly fails to “deliver the goods,” only because the right people have not tried it.

Writes Kengor,

“Again and again, we’re told that communist philosophy was never the problem. No, it was nasty leaders like Joe Stalin who have given communism a bad name. Stalin, you see, was an aberration. As were, presumably, Lenin, Trotsky, Latsis, Dzerzhinsky [founder of the KGB], Beria, Bulganin, Khrushchev, Voroshilov, Malenkov, Mikoyan, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Chebrikov, Ulbricht, Ceausescu, Tito, Hoxha, Dimitrov, Zhivkov, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Mengistu Mariam, Kim Il-Sun, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Fidel, Raul, and Che….”

And, of course, this would also include Hugo Chavez and General Maduro, who have presided over Venezuela’s destruction, as it went from the best economy of Latin America to the worst—precisely because of socialism.

Kengor concludes: “You would think at least one commie, somewhere along the line, would have gotten it right. Why such ugly results if the theory is so pretty? Can’t these geniuses read?”

Capitalism does not produce an equal distribution of wealth. No system does. If you say that socialism/communism does, then you are covering over the fact that in the socialistic schemes, it is always the administration that does well, not the people.

Even Bernie Sanders prospers under capitalism, selling his book that railed against capitalism. He must have cried all the way to the bank.

For all its inequities, capitalism, free enterprise, a market-based system (whatever one might call it), delivers the goods for the most amount of people. In the words of Kengor, “The free market makes consumers sovereign.” Kengor quotes Ludwig von Mises in his 1922 book, Socialism, “The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price….Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms.”

Under communism, an inefficient, bloated bureaucracy makes such decisions, and the consumers have no choice—and are often forced into breadlines for inferior bread.

For all of its warts, capitalism produces much greater prosperity for the most amount of people.

What does communism produce? Ultimately, a lot of dead bodies. That was the answer from former communist Eugene Fox-Genovese, who, along with his wife Elizabeth, had been the editor of Marxist Perspectives.

When the Soviet Union finally imploded in the early 1990s, Eugene told interviewer Frederica Mathewes-Green in National Review (2/24/1997):

“When it all collapsed, the question was, After seventy years, what do we have to show for it? Especially when it became clear that, even on a basic level, the system didn’t deliver the goods, the one thing it was supposed to do. So what we had to show for it was tens of millions of corpses.”

One might ask,

“Why would God allow all the suffering that the socialists and communists have imposed on this world—not to mention the total loss of religious freedom in such places?” I would answer: “So that we don’t go down that road again.”

Trump Will Get Deals With Both China And Mexico

Most of the media won’t get it, probably even when it happens, but all of the signals are pointing to President Trump getting deals with both China and Mexico — and they will be better deals than what the United States has or has had.

Mexico is actually the easier nut to crack here. The government is corrupt, weak and totally reliant on the United States for both its legal economy and its black market economy. A full-out trade-war with the U.S. would of course cause some harm to the U.S., but would be catastrophic for Mexico. And more importantly, for Mexico’s government.

If the current political leadership wants to stay in power, and if future political leadership wants to attain power, they need a decent relationship with the U.S. And given the millions of Mexicans sending billions of dollars back to Mexico in remittances, running on an anti-American plank is not likely to be popular or successful — at least for long.

The tariffs on all Mexican imports began at 5 percent and rise by 5 percentage points each month before reaching 25 percent in October — unless Mexico takes serious steps to stop the flow of Central American migrants now swamping the southern American border. These 25 percent tariffs would crush the Mexican economy, and possibly have the perverse effect of strengthening the deadly cartels even more.

Mexico’s leadership is fully attuned to this dynamic, and that is why Mexican leaders are moving quickly to respond to Trump’s punitive tariffs launched Friday, with escalations coming, by agreeing to meet in Washington today.

President Trump tweeted Sunday: “Mexico is sending a big delegation to talk about the Border. Problem is, they’ve been ‘talking’ for 25 years. We want action, not talk.”

They’ve been “talking” and American leaders have been “talking” and everyone was fine with the arrangement as long as nothing was ever done. It’s obvious this President expects something to be done or those tariffs will just keep increasing.

So Mexican Economy Minister Graciela Marquez will arrive in Washington today (Monday) to meet with U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. On Wednesday, delegations led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Mexico Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard will meet in Washington.

That was fast.

China is a tougher nut, but some of the same dynamics are in place as with Mexico.

As with Mexico, China is far more reliant on the U.S. than the U.S. is on China. Their economy is built on selling to the giant and prosperous U.S. consumer market. If that is cut off or diminished through tariffs, their much smaller secondary markets leave them in an economic tailspin, particularly considering that they are facing other economic headwinds, such as an aging and soon declining population, a fluctuating currency and increased competition from India (an ally that Trump should look to for a friendlier trade deal.)

One of the ways the Chinese Communist Party has maintained its iron fist of control is by not being communist, or socialist, but by freeing up its markets and allowing a form of capitalism to operate. That has created huge wealth gains, a growing economy and an emerging middle class.

Chinese who lived in generational poverty seeing the opportunity for a better life for themselves and their children have been willing to live with the totalitarianism of the Communist Party. But they may be much less willing to put up with the iron rule if the economy tanks.

One of the last things the Chinese government wants as it pursues its global ambitions is unrest at home. A trade war with the U.S. would risk that, and could begin to threaten their hold on power.

But the Chinese’ global ambitions based on their historic view of themselves as the Middle Kingdom — the center of the world — also drive them to be much more intransigent negotiators than the Mexicans. And patient negotiators as they take the long view. Newt Gingrich does a terrific job spelling this out in writing and on his podcast.

These are China’s competing interests in the negotiations: showing strength at home and abroad while actually being strong at home and abroad.

In the end though, their Middle Kingdom aspirations and desire for long-term control will mean that a new trade agreement is the lesser bitter pill to swallow. The Chinese are ultimately very pragmatic, and would likely view a new trade deal — even one that was not tilted in their favor — to be worth the trade-off for their ultimate vision.

That is why we’ve seen China moderating its original harsh rhetoric to Trump pulling out of negotiations after the Chinese deleted most of what they had agreed to. They had pulled this trick on previous administrations, counting on American president’s willingness to take a fake victory, if you will, and they were right.

However, they miscalculated with Trump. He’s just not a typical politician in so many ways.

So Beijing released a government policy paper on trade issues Sunday which as usual blamed the U.S. for the negotiations breakdown, but also turned much more conciliatory. They’ve realized Trump won’t come back to the table without real movement and so throughout the paper and at the briefing at which it was released, the Chinese government said repeatedly that they are willing to return to negotiations.

“We’re willing to adopt a cooperative approach to find a solution,” Vice Commerce Secretary Wang Shouwen said.

No talks are scheduled, but U.S. and Chinese trade officials will be at meetings of the Group of 20 major economies this weekend in Japan. A possible meeting between Mr. Trump and President Xi Jinping of China at the G-20 summit is seen as an opportunity to re-start trade talks. Don’t be surprised if that happens.

China “is expressing its wish to work together,” said Zhang Yansheng, a researcher at the state-backed think tank China Center for International Economic Exchanges, told the Wall Street Journal.

China will come back to the table that Mexico is already at. And Trump and Americans will ultimately get a better trade deal with China and better security on our southern border with Mexico — unless China holds out until November 2020 and we elect a new president that falls back to the status quo of China picking our pockets and stealing our tech.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

Five Questions to Ask Yourself Before Doing a Public Speaking Engagement

Nowadays, a lot of people get up on stage to talk about something before an audience. Their listeners range from a jam-packed local bar to an arena-sized crowd. These people who love to listen to public speaking engagements have different motives. Some want to get inspired, while others are looking to learn something new.

Most speakers, on the other hand, are looking for a story to tell their audiences or to promote their business or to entertain their listeners. Along the way, you’ll meet smart and bright public speakers to boring ones and all types in between.

If you want to become a brilliant public speaker, it’s a must that you know the basics of public speaking. For a start, you should know the five questions to ask yourself before you get on stage for your first public speaking engagement.

Who are My Listeners?

In any speaking engagement, whether addressing a small or large crowd, it’s crucial that you know the people you’re speaking to. You should learn what they already know about the topic you’ll be discussing. It will also help you a lot if you consider their knowledge gaps and their motives why they choose to listen to you.

What Do I Want My Listeners to Feel During and After My Talk?

Of course, you should think about how you like your listeners connect with your topic. If your motivation is to provide them with inspiration, you need to ask yourself what are the speaking strategies you should do to attain this goal?

If your purpose is to entertain them, what material do you have to offer to achieve it? Considering what the audience will feel and think during and after your talk is essential to connect to them successfully.

What Tone Would Be Ideal for Your Listeners?

The tone of your public speaking should achieve a friendly and conversational tone. In this way, you can captivate your audience and make them engage freely with your ideas.

However, it’s crucial to strike a balance. Most of the time, it’s a must to adopt a more authoritative tone in your talk. Taking this tone of public speaking will make your ideas believable, especially if the goal of your speech is something that calls for an action.

What Do I Want My Listeners to Say about the Topic of My Presentation?

You should always have in mind how your talk can cause your audience to discuss it after your presentation. If you want your listeners to remember your topic and your strategies of public speaking, it’s a must that you highlight the facts, statistics, and the ideas to make them easier to remember for them.

What Do I Want My Listeners to Do After Your Talk?

Any public speaker will surely want their listeners to do something after giving a talk. This characteristic is common among motivational speakers and visionaries.

So, if you’re to change the listeners’ perspective and make them act on what you’re saying, you should see to it that you craft your material in a way that it’s calling for real action. There are strategies for you to achieve this goal. If you want to learn public speaking, you can reach out to organizations like Talent Bureau for that purpose.

Takeaway

If you want to be an excellent public speaker, you should see to it that you know what to do before you get up on stage. For instance, you should know the type of audience you’re addressing, how you should make them think and feel about your talk, how to make them act, and what tone will be ideal to them.

The Benedict Option: Relative versus Revelatory Truth

“God moves in a mysterious way.” – Isaiah 55:8-9.

I am a member of a weekly men’s prayer fellowship. Each member is required to give a Biblical lesson for a month. It turns out that I will be giving the lesson next month.

I began thinking what should I speak about that hasn’t already been covered? I thought about discussing the Book of Revelations because many Christians are seeing signs of the end of times and the second coming of Jesus. While thinking about my topic God revealed to me a book titled “The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation by Rod Dreher.” After reading Dreher’s book I asked members of the prayer fellowship to read the book and discuss the ideas contained in it during our weekly Friday meetings during the month of September.

Why did God, who moves in a mysterious way, reveal this book to me?

Because I and many others, Christian and non-Christian alike, feel something is wrong, very wrong, in America and it’s getting worse.

Dreher in his book bears his soul and his concerns for the future of his family, community and the nation. Dreher writes in the preface to his book:

In my 2006 book Crunchy Cons, which explored a countercultural, traditionalist conservative sensibility, I brought up the work of philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, who declared that Western civilization has lost its moorings. The time was coming, said MacIntyre, when men and women of virtue would understand that continued full participation in mainstream society was not possible for those who wanted to live a life of traditional virtue. These people would find new ways to live in community, he said, just as Saint Benedict, the sixth-century father of Western monasticism, responded to the collapse of Roman civilization by founding a monastic order.

Dreher explains how, over the past 7 centuries, Western civilization has come to embrace relative truth and abandon revelatory truth.

Relative truth is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths. Revelatory truth is the knowledge that there are absolute truths. Truths that transcend culture, civilization and mankind itself. These absolute truths have been revealed to us thus the term I use in the title “Revelatory Truth.”

William “Bill” Hild, Pastor of First Sarasota Baptist Church, gave a sermon on “Revelatory Truth.” You may wish to listen to what Pastor Bill has to say by clicking here.

Lindy Keffer in her column “Absolute Truth” wrote:

In a society where ultimate truth is treated like a fairy tale, an outdated idea or even an insult to human intelligence, the motto of the day becomes, “WHATEVER!” Believe whatever you want. Do whatever seems best to you. Live for whatever brings you pleasure, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. And of course, be tolerant. Don’t try to tell anyone that their whatever is wrong.

But where does that leave us? If we have ultimate truth, it gives us both a way to explain the world around us and a basis for making decisions. Without it, we’re alone.

Dreher notes:

Unprecedented numbers of young adult Americans say they have no religious affiliation at all. According to the Pew Research Center, one in three 18-to-29-year-olds have put religion aside, if they ever picked it up in the first place.

[ … ]

In 2005, sociologist Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton examined a wide variety of backgrounds. What they found was that in most cases, teenagers adhered to a mush pseudoreligion the researchers deemed Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD).

MTD has five basic tenets:

  • A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
  • God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible, and by most world religions.
  • The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
  • God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when he is needed to resolve a problem.
  • Good people go to heaven when they die.

This creed, they found, is especially prominent among Catholic and Mainline Protestant teenagers.

MTD reeks of relative truth, not Revelatory or Absolute Truth.

Dreher writes:

MTD, in both its progressive and its conservative versions, is that it’s mostly about improving one’s self-esteem and subjective happiness and getting along well with others. It has little to do with the Christianity of Scripture and tradition, which teaches repentance, self-sacrificial love, and purity of heart, and commends suffering-the Way of the Cross- as the pathway to God. Though superficially Christian, MTD is the natural religion of a culture that worships the Self and material comfort.

Dreher warns, “Nobody but the most deluded of the old-school Religious Right believes that this cultural revolution can be turned back. The wave cannot be stopped, only ridden.”

What Dreher presents is another way forward for those who embrace revelatory/absolute truth.

He asks,

“Could it be that the best way to fight the flood is to . . . stop fighting the flood?”

That is to quit piling up sandbags [to fight the flood] and to build an ark in which to shelter until the water recedes and we can put our feet on dry land again? Rather than wasting energy and resources fighting unwinnable political battles, we should instead work of building communities, institutions, and networks of resistance that can outwit, outlast, and eventually overcome the occupation.

Dreher unequivocally states, “We have been in a place like this before. In the first centuries of Christianity, the early church survived and grew under Roman persecution and later after the collapse of the empire in the West. We latter-day Christians must learn from their example-and particularly from the example of Saint Benedict.”

Dreher is on to something. Christians must go back in time, and back to the basics, in order to regain a virtuous Christian future.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Haunted Luther: October 31st, 2017 the 500th Anniversary of the Protestant Reformation

Dearborn Police Chief: Talking to people about Jesus “appears to be legal” under 1st Amendment

PODCAST: Cabinet Hearings, CNN – “You Are Fake News!,” Hungary Targets Soros

Trump’s future cabinet is cruising through Senate confirmation. And with the world in the state that it is, not a moment too soon.

Terrorism once again strikes Israel in the form of a truck attack. Sound familiar? Of course, the widow of the terrorist is already collecting a pension courtesy of the Palestinian Authority. Yet these people allegedly want peace? In Hungary, the Orban government takes the dramatic step of targeting George Soros’s network of NGOs. Good for them – Trump should follow suit. In France, populist Marine Le Pen promises repatriation of the French car industry, taking a cue from Trump’s (pre-office!) recent successes. Finally, China – continuing their provocations – deploys a sixth reconnaissance ship in the South China Sea.

With so much bubbling in the cauldron of world affairs, the new American administration can’t come soon enough!

Topics of Discussion:

  • Trump’s nominees testify before the Senate
  • Biden gets his very own medal
  • First steps in repealing Obamacare
  • Hungary targets George Soros
  • Widow of Jerusalem truck terrorist gets Palestinian Authority pension
  • China deploys sixth reconnaissance ship South China Sea

and more . . .

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney’s Nightside Radio Studios and on Red State Talk Radio, subscribe to USA Transnational Report podcast on iTunes here and signup for podcasts with Podbean, here. All previously recorded shows are available here, at the links above, or through Spreaker.

What Made America Great?

It’s over, done, finished. All the energy that was poured into the U.S. Presidential election for over a year, has finally come to an end. It’s time to stop all the whining, blame, complaint, negativity and victim consciousness. It’s time to speak freely once more without worrying about “political correctness”. It’s time for everyone to come together to make America great again. We may differ on how that’s to be achieved, but surely we can all agree on the goal.

What are the qualities and values that made America the richest and greatest country in the world: the country that was, and is, a beacon of hope for people everywhere? The first and most important thing is freedom; freedom from fear, oppression, tyranny, dictatorship and from government interfering into the personal lives of it’s citizens. The American Constitution was the first to put the individual ahead of the government. “We the People”. The Founding Fathers had escaped from political and religious oppression, therefore they wanted to create a system of checks and balances that would limit government power. The Statue of Liberty is a symbol of what America stands for–Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These values were enshrined in the Constitution and made America unique in the history of the world.

Another factor our Founding Fathers thought important was religious freedom. They recognized the existence of a supreme Being and the need for each person to worship that God in whatever way they expressed their faith. (At that time it was mainly the Christian faith, but it has expanded since). Religion, the Christian work ethic and prosperity were closely aligned. The phrase, “In God We Trust”, is printed on all American bills. One of the most beautiful songs is Irving Berlin’s, “God Bless America”.

Another right that was important was the right to keep the fruits of one’s labor; which meant private property and free enterprise. If the government could confiscate what one worked for, then the aforementioned guarantees would be meaningless. Freedom meant nothing if there wasn’t also economic freedom. Small, limited government with laissez-faire capitalism was the atmosphere which fostered and encouraged growth and wealth.

The American Dream was all about raising oneself above a subsistence level, which had been the level for the majority for all of history, and still is for most of the “Third World” countries. America was pioneered and made great by people who had confidence, who believed in themselves, who worked to better themselves and improve their circumstances. These people didn’t believe or accept that poverty was a static condition or permanent station in life. They aspired to more: to them the future was unlimited. They were surrounded by examples of people who had risen as far as their imagination, creativity, talents and intelligence could take them. This was reflected materially in the big cars, houses, businesses and skyscrapers that were built. Individual people in a climate of little or no government interference, made America great. Free market Capitalism raised the standard of living for everyone. Even relatively poor people in America today have a house, a car, television,computer and cellphone. That’s not the case in other countries, where people are envious of our democracy and wealth.

America used to be a melting pot, where people came from all over the world to create a better life for themselves and their children. Some came to escape persecution or poverty, some came by boat or suffered great hardship, but they were all glad to come to America. They were happy and proud to be American. People knew and appreciated the fact that this country offered greater opportunity than the country they left. They considered themselves first and
foremost Americans.The flag, oath of allegiance and national anthem meant, and hopefully still means something.

Yet, there are some Americans who are not satisfied and complain about “Capitalism” and “consumerism”, as if they’re dirty words. In America, people have a choice of how, what or if they are going to spend their earned money on something, that in other countries would be considered unimaginable luxuries. There is a simple law of supply and demand. If there wasn’t the demand then the goods would go unsold and the business would go bankrupt. For those who argue that the “demand” is created by advertising or the media, that only speaks to the ignorance, gullibility and powerlessness of those who make that argument; that they are somehow so easily manipulated and so helpless that they can’t think for themselves and cannot make the simple choice to buy or not to buy. Again, this is an example of “victim consciousness”.

Most of the programs for conservation, the environment, social welfare etc., costs money. Where is that money to come from if not from those who are successful and financially well off. The government can only get money either through taxation or printing more, which leads to inflation. The voters demand and politicians promise to create jobs. But where are these jobs to come from if not from entrepreneurs, small business and corporations; the very ones who have been criticized and condemned as being greedy and heartless, the very ones who have been considered politically incorrect.

It is ironic that some immigrants to America have a greater appreciation for the United States, than some people who were born here. For those who are discontent, unhappy or would rather live in some other country or under some other system, there is another American freedom and that is the freedom to leave. There is no wall or iron curtain preventing anyone from leaving to go to another country that they think might be better than the greatest country on earth. The facts show that there are millions of people who would gladly take their place in a heartbeat. America is still a beacon of hope for those who crave democracy and cherish the values that this country represents.

Sure the United States can be improved, but rather than negativity, blame and complaint, let’s use our energy, passion and patriotism now to improve ourselves and make America greater than ever. If the individual succeeds and prospers, the country benefits.

It’s time to be proud again to be an American.

Senator Ted Cruz: We need Bold, Positive Leadership

On Monday, January 12th, Sen. Cruz addressed the Heritage Foundation’s 2015 Conservative Policy Summit to discuss a bold, positive agenda for the new Congress. View video below.

Miami-Dade Schools: Giving Students the Shaft

Borrowing from the saying of my mentor, Ira J. Paul, and as rightly inferred by T. Willard Fair in his recent op-ed in The Miami Herald, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, which prides itself in its motto of “giving our students the world” is giving our students what a reasonable person may conclude, especially in School Board Districts 1 and 2, the shaft.

Mr. Fair details the “what” in his article and proposes a solution, but he does not address the “why” as this article will do just that.

The “what” is that the schools of School Board Districts 1 and 2 have the least experienced teachers and the least “highly effective” teachers than the schools of other School Board Districts.

Mr. Fair is correct in referring to this as an injustice and a problem, but to fix this problem requires more than involuntary transfers as he suggests – which would do more harm than good.

However, he should keep in mind that while he was on the State Board of Education, that body and the FLDOE encouraged, as part of Jeb Bush’s A+ Plan and No Child Left Behind, involuntary transfers at failing schools.

As a result, verified by my own experience, Miami-Dade County Public Schools and principals at Miami Central Senior High School and Miami Norland Senior High School (as well as at other Zone/ETO schools) targeted outspoken veteran teachers and replaced them with new teachers (primarily Teach For America teachers; or as former UTD president Karen Aronowitz termed them “Teach For Awhile” teachers) so as to have a submissive, compliant workforce that would not dissent.

As someone who has worked full-time various instructional positions in both School Board Districts 1 (8 years) and 2 (6 years), I can readily identify the problems through my insightful knowledge based on experience as I was transferred from both schools for those very reasons.

In conversation over the years, I heard assistant principals at Norland gloat that they liked TFA teachers as “they will do whatever we want.”

Never mind that Ceresta Smith was an activist that obtained a $10,000 Michael Jordan grant that brought Dwayne Wade to Norland and money for FCAT instruction and that she was a National Board Certified Teacher; she had to go as she spoke out against questionable curriculum decisions and numerous contractual violations as I had to go for exposing massive test cheating known as Adobegate.

Numerous teachers like Ceresta and I were moved out under “the best interests of the District” clause of the Contract as apparently it is in the best interest of Miami-Dade County Public Schools for teachers to be quiet and fearful and not to speak out for the best interests of their students or to expose standardized test cheating.

Since her departure three years ago, Norland has not had a National Board Certified Teacher or an English teacher of her caliber at Norland who brought in grants and motivational speakers for our students.

Since my departure last October, the Library Media Center has been closed, students visited me at Crestview telling me they cannot check out books whatsoever, and as a result (perhaps alongside little to no cheating given increased oversight) FCAT Reading scores declined three points.

During my tenure at Norland, FCAT Reading scores went up consistently; how is removing me, other than to keep Norland teachers quiet, to the detriment of the students and their right to read, in “the best interests of the District?”

Besides TFA teachers who have a two year commitment with an already accepted slot at a graduate school somewhere in conjunction with the payoff of their student loans after their tenure at M-DCPS, who would want to work at schools like Central and Norland where you are forced to compromise your ethics and morals and are denied liberty of conscience?

District and Norland actions sends what a fair-minded person may assume is a warped message to the students they purport to serve: the honest school librarian cannot serve them in the Library Media Center at Norland, but Mrs. Brenda Muchnick can teach them business education even though she was suspended for her part in Adobegate while her colleague, Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin, was fired for doing the exact same thing.

We wonder why students in America who go into the military partake in the various cheating scandals that have plagued the naval and air force nuclear forces?!

Mr. Fair, and others, need to realize we need to have honest and ethical school principals and value teachers based on merit and willing to highlight curriculum and contractual flaws as opposed to the status quo that disdains the outspoken veteran teacher who knows best in favor of the compliant warm body that sees, hears, and speaks no evil who rides off into the sunset two years later to graduate school and a different career path.

Of course, Miami-Dade County Public Schools is in denial and highlights so called “improved graduation rates” as proof that their detrimental policies and hardline against outspoken veteran teachers are working.

Upon closer inspection, a reasonable person may conclude that these graduation rates do not hold muster and are indeed funny math.

Think about it: Norland has never cracked beyond 30% proficiency on the FCAT Reading exam- a graduation requirement; that being the case, how can there be a graduation rate of over 80%?!

Miami-Dade County Public Schools and their messengers must think people are really stupid.

The answer lies in the ever shrinking senior class as explained in USDOE graduation rate guidelines.

Norland always had a sophomore class (FCAT exit exam class) of between 400-500 students during my tenure, with Grade 10 FCAT Reading scores being between 14-30% during my time (2007-2013) there.

For the sake of the argument, apply the highest Grade 10 FCAT Reading score, 29%, to 400 students, with the answer being 116 students passed the test give or take.

That is the baseline for the graduation rate for that graduating class two years later.

According to the USDOE guidelines, if members of that class transfer, die, or leave the country, the graduation rate is not affected- meaning, if students cannot pass the FCAT and go to a private school without the FCAT requirement, the school is not penalized:

Compared to other measures of graduation rates, the ACGR (adjusted cohort graduation rate) is considered the most accurate measure available for reporting on-time graduation rates (Seastrom et al. 2006b). A 4-year ACGR is defined as the number of students who graduate in 4 years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for that graduating class. The term “adjusted cohort” means the students who enter grade 9 plus any students who transfer into the cohort in grades 9–12 minus any students who are removed from the cohort because they transferred out, moved out of the country, or were deceased (34 C.F.R. § 200.19.” (Page 8).

Thus, Norland (and other schools) were rewarded as the graduation rates went up as the results were incorporated into the School Grades which resulted in the Federal and State performance incentives that were paid out.

Suppose the same 116 students who passed the FCAT and are cleared to graduate stay at Norland over the next two years but 200 students who cannot pass the FCAT or the new FSA exams transfer their credits to a private school in their junior and senior year to graduate-that leaves the class with a total of 200 students and the graduation rate skyrockets to 58%.

Further student departure would only increase the rate only if the students who passed the FCAT or the FSA exams stayed.

It is very legal but very misleading, and I know of a Norland faculty member who had children at the school that could not pass the FCAT take advantage of this loophole so they can graduate and go to college on academic scholarships.

When I was at Miami Central about ten years ago, I knew of students who could not pass the FCAT that went to a private school; they transferred in their credits, spent a few months there, graduated, and went to a community college in Minnesota to play football.

More food for thought: quantity. I remember the large graduation classes that Miami Central and Norland use to have, about 300- 500 some odd students. Funny with these current unprecedented graduation rates over the past four years, graduating classes at Central and Norland have been less than 200 students.

That’s funny Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ math for you, and it’s a system that rewards failure as astronomical graduation rates are being obtained simply by a whittling down of a given senior year class via student transfers to private schools for purposes of graduation to evade the FCAT and the soon to be new Florida Standards Assessments.

Congress and/or the USDOE should revise the graduation rate criteria to eliminate this deception and count student transfers against a school’s graduation rate if they graduate from private schools with little to no accountability as they could not pass the FCAT exam at a public school with accountability.

Furthermore, the Florida Legislature should regulate private schools and only allow them to award a valid state-recognized diploma only if their students can pass the mandated state assessments or an equivalent nationally recognized exam like the ACT or SAT to gauge student learning and progress.

Florida’s Deceptive Common Core Implementation and Teacher Training

Despite Gov. Rick Scott’s executive order (Executive Order 13-276) replacing the Common Core and withdrawing Florida from PARCC, teachers are still being trained in Common Core as the Florida Standards are essentially the Common Core State Standards with another name, slight renumbering of standards, and a few additional standards.

In an email sent to me from Cheryl Etters (FLDOE Spokeswoman) as a response to a media inquiry, she termed my assertions rooted in fact as “opinions,” which is one of their dismissive tactics when the FLDOE and State officials are called on to explain their deceptive and misleading campaign to stealthily implement the Common Core State Standards in Florida schools and the continued training of Florida teachers in the Common Core State Standards.

Why are Florida teachers, including me, being trained in the Common Core State Standards a year after Gov. Scott’s executive order when they were replaced by the Florida Standards?

The simple answer is that they are one and the same with minor differences- a plan meant to appease President Obama, Jeb Bush, and the testing industry (AIR, Pearson).

To satisfy your own mind, read and compare for yourself: Common Core ELA Standards and the Language Arts Florida Standards (LAFS); and Common Core Mathematics Standards and the Mathematics Florida Standards (MAFS).

It’s amazing that Gov. Scott, Education Commissioner Pam Stewart, and FLDOE personnel cannot come clean and respond whatsoever to these claims- because they cannot in an honest fashion!

I have been waiting about a week for a response to our media inquiry; but when faced with fact and evidence, a response is difficult for them to formulate.

Beacon Educator, through FLDOE regulation, is the largest online provider of professional development courses and still offers training in Common Core but not (and has not as of yet) the Florida Standards.

Why is Beacon Educator not offering professional development courses in the Florida Standards? By continuing to offer professional development courses in the Common Core, is this an admission by the FLDOE and the State that the Florida Standards and Common Core are one and the same?

Ms. Etters’ response was: I’m not quite sure how to respond to your opinions. A mention on Beacon Educator – they appear to be a private vendor and are not associated with the Florida Department of Education. What do you mean by “through FLDOE regulation?”

            If Ms. Etters consulted the Beacon Educator website, she would know.

Concerning Beacon Educator, Beacon has three disclaimers suggesting they adhere to/meet FLDOE requirements and that it received past funding through the FLDOE:

Beacon Educator provides facilitated online courses for busy educators. These courses comply with the National Staff Development Council Standards, Florida Department of Education Professional Development Protocol Standards, and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates.

Forming a consortium with other districts including Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Gadsden, and the PAEC districts, Beacon Learning Center received the U.S. Department of Education Technology Innovation Challenge Grant (2000-2006). Other funding sources included Bay District Schools and the Florida Department of Education through grants including the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, (1997-2000), Florida Goals 2000 (1998-99), and other Florida Department of Education grants (2002-2003).

Furthermore, Beacon Educator is not a private vendor, but a public one: “Beacon Educator, the professional development division of Beacon Learning Center, is a self-supporting, internet-based enterprise within Bay District Schools.”

Given that, the Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Development and Retention within the FLDOE approves each school district’s Master Inservice Plan to offer professional development: “The master plan shall be updated and approved by local boards on an annual basis by September 1 of the current year with written verification submitted annually to the Commissioner of Education by October 1 of the current year.”

Bay County Public Schools has an approved Master Inservice Plan from the FLDOE, hence FLDOE regulation, and thus offers professional development through their owned entity- Beacon Educator.

Doesn’t Ms. Etters and the folks at the FLDOE know this?

Notice the attached Weekly Briefings (May and August 2014) from Miami–Dade County Public Schools and the associated flyers (May and August 2014).

Both briefings offer the exact same courses, but the Briefing from May, under Online Modules, says in the second bullet: “New Florida State Standards (Common Core).”

The proof is in the pudding! I took all of the courses and earned credit in them per my Beacon Educator transcript and M-DCPS Staff Development (SD) Record– eight months after Gov. Scott’s executive order supposedly ending the Common Core in Florida.

Notice the credit entries say “Common Core” and not “Florida Standards.”

There’s no denying- Common Core is going full steam ahead with disastrous results unless appropriate action is taken.

By appropriate action, I mean taking action at the ballot box: Adrian Wyllie for Governor.

Both former Gov. Charlie Crist and Gov. Scott support Common Core and its implementation.

Charlie Crist gave us Common Core; Rick Scott is implementing them.

Crist, who likes to be liked, stands for nothing and forced it on Florida to appease President Obama and Jeb Bush.

Gov. Scott, like Crist, is implementing Common Core, and lying to us in the process, under the guise of the Florida Standards to appease Jeb Bush and the testing industry- his base and support. He has to under false pretenses (Florida Standards) for political survival and in a way that is acceptable to both president Obama and Jeb Bush.

Moreover, both of them do virtually nothing to those caught cheating on standardized tests, and you know cheating will take off like wildfire on these new Florida Standard Assessments.

Therefore, if you are in true opposition to Common Core, then the appropriate course of action is to vote for Adrian Wyllie unless you want Common Core under Gov. Scott or Common Core and PARCC under Gov. Crist.

Florida: Sheriff Jim Manfre from Flagler County wants to ban your rifle!

Sheriff Jim Manfre from Flagler County in Florida wants to ban your rifle and leave you defenseless against the tyranny flowing from Washington D.C. He calls these rifles “assault weapons.” My AK-47 sits happily in the closet and it has never assaulted anyone. Only people assault other people. Whether its with guns, knives, hammers or bottles.

According to Lee Williams of the Herald-Tribune:

At a meeting Tuesday night of the The Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida held in Palm Coast, Flagler County Sheriff Jim Manfre called for a ban on “assault weapons,” said he wanted tighter regulation on private firearm sales, and called for changing existing laws on background checks.

According to a news story written about the meeting written by a reporter at the Daytona Beach News-Journal, the sheriff also said his “sensible gun control” ideas were supported by the Florida Sheriff’s Association.

Yesterday, Nanette Schimpf, spokesperson for the Florida Sheriff’s Association, told me the news story was inaccurate. The FSA has never called for ending private sales, banning “assault weapons” or changing background check laws.

Manfre also supports the legalization of marijuana, something the Florida Sheriffs Association is against. Indeed Sheriff Jim Manfre is just another Obama supporter who needs to voted out of office. He is unwilling to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and Florida, as he has sworn to do.

The Flagler County Sheriff’s Office has the solemn duty of serving and protecting the citizens of our great state. The following is contact information for Sheriff Manfre:

Address: 1001 Justice Lane, Bunnell, FL 32110
Email: jmanfre@flaglersheriff.com
Phone: (386) 437-4116
Fax: (386) 586-4820

Notice how his disclaimer is to protect the citizens, yet he wants to disarm law abiding citizens, so his disclaimer is a lie. This man is another example of Obama’s reach into the great State of Florida.

I will not disarm. I will not give up my 2nd Amendment rights to some Sheriff. He has betrayed his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and must be removed from office. I told him so in an email.

As for my weapons nobody will take them. I am protected under the 2nd Amendment. I gave sheriff Manfre my cell phone number. Lets see if he has the guts to call me back.