Policy Archives - Page 1132 of 1780

Pedophiles Believe They Should Be A Part Of The LGBT Community

December 26, 2018/in Culture War, Healthcare, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Caller

Pedophiles are rebranding themselves as “MAPs” or “Minor Attracted Persons” in an effort to gain acceptance and be included into the LGBT community, according to several reports from LGBT news sites.

According to Urban Dictionary, the blanket term MAP includes infantophiles (infants), pedophiles (pre-pubescent children), hebephiles (pubescent children), and ephebophiles (post-pubescent children). Some MAPs also refer to themselves as NOMAPs or “Non-Offending Minor Attracted Persons”.

These pedophiles seek to be a part of the LGBT+ community, even going so far as to make a “Pride” flag for Gay Pride Month.

The “MAP/NOMAP community” tries to pull at people’s heartstrings by claiming that pedophiles are misunderstood marginalized people, and that as long as their attraction to children is not acted upon — or in some cases when they get permission from the child — that they should not be villainized.

Sites such as “The Prevention Project” claim to be aimed at helping children, posting quotes like the one below, reminiscent of testimonials of struggling gay youth, under headlines like “everyone needs support”.

“John” was suicidal. He had been bullied by trolls on social media for most of his life for being different. The bullies were primarily people who claimed, based on their religious beliefs, that “John” was going to hell and deserved to die. They described how they would kill him on his twitter page and people supported their hate. Desperate for help, John sought treatment for his shame, depression, and suicidality. Although he was scared to share about himself with a stranger, he felt desperate for help as he had NO desire to harm anyone, ever. Once he shared about his attraction to children, his therapist told him, “I don’t treat sex offenders.”

Many blogs exist on Tumblr showing support for MAPs, claiming that they should be a part of the LGBT community and attempting to create “safe spaces” for these “minor attracted persons”. The blog “Pedophiles about Pedophilia” also presents many sob stories of “marginalized” pedophiles in pretty pastel colors, claiming that they mean no harm and just want to be loved like everyone else as shown in such headlines as “Why Pedophilia And Pedophiles Are Not A Risk To Children”, “Growing Up A Pedophile” and “How I came out as an anti-contact pedophile to the woman I love”.

This name change seems to follow in the liberal trend of rebranding things by giving them more “politically correct” names, but is the next step really normalizing pedophilia?

RELATED ARTICLES:

TEDx speaker: ‘Pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation,’ ‘anyone’ could be born that way

Michigan MassResistance ignites media firestorm, plus flood of LGBT activists, over opposition to “Drag Queen Story Hour” in Detroit suburb

Apple Removes App That Promotes Biblical View of Homosexuality

White Paper: Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement

5 Horrific Examples of Cultural Decay in America

Pope to Predator Priests: Turn Yourself In

Walmart.com: The Michelle Obama Transgender Guide (Paperback)

Remember That Gay Couple Married by RBG? They Just Got Charged With Rape

RELATED VIDEO: They’re mainstreaming pedophilia!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by The Daily Caller is republished with permission.

House Democrats Are Lining Up Behind What Could Be The Largest Expansion Of Government In Decades

December 25, 2018/in Culture War, Energy, Environment, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by The Daily Caller

Democrats are lining up to support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal.”
The proposal could be the largest expansion of government since the Great Society or New Deal.
Ocasio-Cortez’s plan could cost tens of trillions of dollars.

Democrats are increasingly lining up to support a “Green New Deal,” which, while vague on details, could end up being the largest expansion of government in decades.

As it stands, the “Green New Deal” is more aspirational than actual policy. Indeed, it takes its name from the New Deal of the 1930s, and its main backer, incoming Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, compared it to the Great Society of the 1960s.

More than 40 Democratic lawmakers support the “Green New Deal” as part of a broad plan to fight global warming and bring about what they see as “economic, social and racial justice.” A poll found most Americans supported the deal, but knew little about it.

But the big question is when Americans find out what’s in the “Green New Deal,” will they be willing to pay for it?

Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” calls for creating a House committee to draft legislation to fight global warming and turn the U.S. economy into something akin to what Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders envisions. Indeed, the “Green New Deal” could be a preview of what policies the Democratic Party will back in the 2020 elections.

Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks at her midterm election night party in New York City

Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks at her midterm election night party in New York City, U.S. November 6, 2018. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly.

“This is going to be the New Deal, the Great Society, the moon shot, the civil-rights movement of our generation,” Ocasio-Cortez said at a panel event in early December alongside Sanders, a likely 2020 presidential contender.

Those goals include moving the U.S. to 100 percent green energy, federal job guarantees for workings forced out of their fossil fuel jobs, guaranteed minimum income and universal health care.

Democrats will take control of the House in 2019 and many want to see global warming become a central part of their agenda. Republicans are unlikely to go along with a green deal in any form, and cracks are even appearing among Democrats on climate policy.

Since the “Green New Deal” lacks specifics, it’s hard to gauge the total cost, but similar climate and welfare policies are estimated to cost trillions of dollars.

For starters, moving the U.S. to a 100-percent renewable electric grid could cost as much as $5.2 trillion over two decades, according to a 2010 study by the conservative Heritage Foundation. That’s about $218 billion to move the grid away from coal and natural gas.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks after the senate voted on a resolution ending U.S. military support for the war in Yemen on Capitol Hill in Washington

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks after the senate voted on a resolution ending U.S. military support for the war in Yemen on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., December 13, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Robert.

On top of that, the non-energy-related portions of the Green New Deal could cost trillions more, including universal health care and guaranteed income.

The libertarian Mercatus Center released a study in July that found Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years. That same month, hedge-fund manager Ray Dalio estimated the cost to taxpayers of a universal basic income policy would top $3.8 trillion a year — and that’s assuming every American citizen got just $12,000 a year.

For comparison, the Great Society policies pursued by the Johnson administration during the 1960s cost $22 trillion, according to estimates from the Heritage Foundation. Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” of the 1930s during the Great Depression cost $500 billion in today’s dollars, The Nation reported in 2008.

Of course, both the New Deal and Great Society have left U.S. taxpayers on the hook for trillions in debt and unfunded liabilities — somewhere between $87 trillion and $222 trillion.

COLUMN BY

Michael Bastasch

Energy Editor. Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Are At Each Other’s Throats Over An Issue That Barely Got Mentioned In The 2018 Elections

Democrats’ ‘Green Raw Deal’ Will Deliver Only Socialism And Misery

RELATED VIDEO: Murdering Mother Earth.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by The Daily Caller is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Anti-blasphemy Laws, Free Speech and Religious Freedom

December 25, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, News, Policy, Politics/by Matthew Hausman, J.D.

Anti-blasphemy restrictions essentially require people to accord sanctity to doctrines they do not endorse and subordinate their spiritual ideals to those who consider them infidels.

Freedom of speech is taken for granted in western society, but it is an essential right that is necessary for the perpetuation of constitutional democracy. Unfortunately, it also seems to be an endangered species under stealth attack by extremism masquerading as diversity and tolerance.

As European courts enforce laws criminalizing the critical discussion of certain religions, and as the political left blames western society for inflaming Islamist passions by refusing to accommodate radical dictates, the right to speak freely is being threatened by a stultifying political correctness. What is being eroded are classical liberal values.

Nothing illustrates this better than a recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights affirming an Austrian court’s verdict against a woman for suggesting that Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl as recounted in Muslim scripture was tantamount to child abuse. The Human Rights Court held that her comments could be perceived as “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam” and thus were properly subject to prosecution under Austrian law.

The net consequence of this ruling, however, was to enforce an anti-blasphemy restriction against speech, though the offending words were uttered in a pluralistic country that supposedly values freedom of expression.

Although criticism of specific belief systems could certainly offend their adherents, empirical analysis or even disparagement of any faith would be perfectly legal in the United States, where free speech is constitutionally protected and government is prohibited from favoring or promoting any particular religion.

The Austrian law affirmed by the European Human Rights Court would be unenforceable under the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and worship and prohibits the establishment of any state religion.

From an American perspective, restrictions on speech concerning Islam or any religion would be problematic because they implicitly imbue ideologies with human rights, though such rights adhere uniquely to human beings, not abstract ideas, beliefs or creeds. Human rights are not inherent in thoughts per se, but rather in the people who express them. However, the premise that belief systems possess innate rights can be used to silence divergent thought; and rendering criticism of particular faiths unlawful may force people to submit to dogmas that conflict with their own ethical or spiritual principles. Such overreach impairs the right to speak and worship freely while empowering ideological supremacism by eliminating public discourse.

Selective punishment of speech considered offensive to any faith community could encourage discrimination against people who believe differently.

Would such restrictions outlaw public criticism of Sharia by Jews and Christians who are deemed subjugated and inferior there under?
Would it be illegal for Jews to challenge those parts of Islamic tradition which hold that they are descended from apes and pigs or must be exterminated in the end of days?

It seems such laws could effectively require people to acquiesce to doctrines that are contrary to their own beliefs.

Those who support anti-blasphemy restrictions under the guise of hate-speech regulation do not truly respect or understand the freedoms that characterize western society While advocates may claim that laws penalizing disparagement of faith protect all religions, such laws never seem to be enforced equally. But regardless of whether they are applied generally or selectively, anti-blasphemy laws would not pass constitutional muster in the United States because they would require government involvement in ecclesiastical matters and potentially elevate certain faiths over others – all in violation of the First Amendment.

Regarding matters of faith, the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two phrases together comprise the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from establishing a national religion or favoring particular faiths.

Those seeking to stifle criticism of religion undeniably include Islamists who are anti-Semitic and denigrate other beliefs as matters of doctrine. It seems ironic that secular proponents of speech regulations do not see a similar need to protect their own communities from radicals who promote anti-Semitism and hatred of western values, or who preach genocide and the destruction of Israel – a nation whose land they claim through past conquest and whose people they deem unworthy of respect or national autonomy.

Taken to its logical extreme, restricting the right to challenge supremacist ideologies would in fact insulate hateful words as long as they are uttered as expressions of faith. In addition, such restrictions would essentially require people to accord sanctity to doctrines they do not endorse and subordinate their spiritual ideals to those who consider them infidels.

According to common dictionary usage, “blasphemy” is irreverent behavior toward things held sacred, and “sacred” is defined as veneration by association with the divine. Consequently, sanctity is determined by ecclesiastical fiat, not objective universal standards. For words to be truly blasphemous, therefore, the speaker must recognize the sanctity of the target. But disrespectful conduct cannot be blasphemous in the eyes of the offender – no matter how rude, boorish, or insensitive – if he does not acknowledge the object of his derision as sacred. Thus, for example, non-Hindus who do not revere cows cannot be considered blasphemers for eating beef in India. Likewise, non-Jews do not sin by failing to observe Torah commandments binding only on Jews.

Proponents of speech restrictions argue that defamation of religion constitutes a human rights violation, but this is sophistry which assigns inalienable rights to concepts instead of the people who espouse them. And although anti-blasphemy apologists may claim concern for the integrity of all faiths, their lack of regard for Judaism and western religions is glaring. In fact, those who discourage critical analysis of Islam (usually progressives) generally show little respect for Jews or Christians – either in the west or in Sharia states where they and other religious and ethnic minorities are marginalized and oppressed.

Where is liberal European outrage over the persecution of Christians or Zoroastrians in the Islamic world? Why is there silence when Yazidis are murdered and their daughters forced into sexual slavery in Iraq or Copts are harassed and massacred in Egypt? Progressive society seems interested in protecting only one religion from insult and bestowing minority status on a global faith community that comprises nearly two-billion people and has a history of aggressive expansion.

Political correctness offers an apologetic buffer for the doctrinal rejection of western values, and its practitioners seem willing to run interference for absolutist ideologies that mandate the subjugation of nonbelievers. Suppressing speech under the guise of protecting religion might be consistent with rigid theocracy, but it is incompatible with the basic freedoms that define liberal democracy. And making it unlawful to question any specific ideology casts a repressive pall over individual expression and severely hampers the free exchange of ideas.

Free-speech advocates might recognize the threat posed by such laws, but few seem willing to challenge them for fear of being labeled bigots. This reluctance recalls past ambivalence regarding UN anti-blasphemy proposals that sought to impose international standards for curtailing speech. Over the years, various resolutions were proposed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and endorsed by its political allies. Though western support had subsided by the time the Defamation of Religions Resolution was passed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2010, many progressives had until then voiced sympathetic understanding for its motivations, if not its substance. (Its non-Muslim state supporters included Bolivia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, and South Africa.)

Leftist support for speech restrictions would seem to corroborate the existence of a “red-green alliance” between radical Islam and a progressive left that denounces Jews, Christians and western values, while ignoring repression of religious and ethnic minorities throughout the Arab Mideast. The point progressives conveniently ignore is that citizens in democratic society are free to worship as they choose.

It seems absurd when western courts effectively impose sanctions for the violation of imported sectarian standards that are contrary to mainstream cultural and religious norms. Though Islamists might consider “infidels” subject to the dictates of Sharia, the notion that people can be controlled by parochial laws foreign to them is presumptuous and inconsistent with liberal democratic values.

European willingness to curb unflattering or “blasphemous” speech is not based on tolerance, but instead seems compelled by deference to authoritarian doctrines and anti-western sensibilities. If the EU wants to maintain its liberal democratic traditions, however, it should make clear that while immigrants are welcome within its borders, they have no right to be insulated from speech they find offensive or to impose their religious standards on their host societies.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Israel National News. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Ricardo Mancía on Unsplash.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RESTRICTS CHINESE STUDENTS: Finally, America confronts a massive espionage operation.

December 25, 2018/in Courts & Law, National Security, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Michael Cutler

On December 2, 2018 Voice Of America (VOA) published a news report, US Considers New Restrictions on Chinese Students.

This is certainly welcome news. The actions of the Trump administration to restrict Chinese students studying in the United States has been long overdue given the outrageous conduct of the Chinese government in its massive spying program against the United States; which has been so pervasive that it has come to be sarcastically referred to by the American intelligence community as “Chinese Take-Out!”

Here is how the VOA article began:

The administration of American President Donald Trump is considering new restrictions on Chinese students entering the U.S.

U.S. officials say increased concerns over spying and the loss of new technologies are among the reasons.

In June, the U.S. State Department shortened the length of stay for visas given to Chinese graduate students studying in several fields. The fields include flight, robotics and some kinds of manufacturing. Visas were shortened from five years to one.

At the time, the officials said the goal was to limit the risk of spying and of the loss of intellectual property that is important to national security.

Now, the Trump administration is considering whether to carry out additional investigations of Chinese students attending U.S. schools.

Reuters news agency reported that officials want to examine student phone calls. They also are considering looking at students’ personal accounts on Chinese and U.S. social media sites.

Since taking office, President Trump has refused to follow the well-worn path of previous presidents who failed to put the interests of America and Americans first. This includes how the U.S. deals with China.

For decades, the relationship that the United States has had with China frequently defied comprehension and logic. Consider that China enjoys Most Favored Trade Status, even while it has manipulated currency, has engaged in large-scale espionage and in the wide-spread hacking of U.S. computers that belong to our military, government agencies, corporations and even private citizens–in identity theft.

We must not lose sight that China, first and foremost, is governed by a totalitarian communist government that routinely and profoundly violates the rights of its own citizens.

Nevertheless, many American companies have moved their production lines to China providing China even greater opportunities to steal intellectual property from these U.S. companies. This illustrates just how far CEOs of major companies will go to lower the cost of labor and overcome regulations while undermining the future of their own companies. This practice is not a matter of corporate executives suffering from myopia but utter blindness, calling into question, not only the vision of those American executives, but their sanity as well.

Meanwhile for years, the United States has admitted hundreds of thousands of Chinese STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students and provided them with first-rate educations.

Chinese engineering students often take advantage of the expanding “Optional Practical Training” opportunities in the United States to work in U.S. companies that were of interest to the Chinese government to spy on, and acquire new technology.

Then these newly-minted engineers, computer programmers and other high-tech professionals return to China with their newly acquired skills to help build up China’s military. When China rattles its sabers at the United States and other countries around the world, frequently those sabers were designed by those engineers who received their education in the United States.

Furthermore, indeed, all too frequently China also shares stolen technology with adversaries of the United States.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) is part of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SEVP manages the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)–the web-based system DHS uses to maintain and manage information on the non-immigrants, whose primary purpose for coming to the United States is to study.

Every other year ICE issues a report about the enrollment of foreign students in the United States. Here is the link to the latest such report: SEVIS By The Numbers: Biannual Report On International Student Trends April 2018.

It disclosed, among other facts that:

Forty-nine percent of the F and M student population in the United States hailed from either China (377,070 students) or India (211,703 students), and interest continues to grow. Over the reporting period, both China and India saw proportional growth between 1 and 2 percent, with China sending 6,305 more students and India sending 2,356 more students. It is this level of participation from China and India that makes Asia far and away the most popular continent of origin. In fact, 77 percent of all international students in the United States call Asia home.

F student visas are for students enrolled in academic programs while M students are enrolled in trade schools.

While the report did not disclose how many Chinese students are enrolled in STEM courses of study, in years past, more than half of all Chinese students enrolled in STEM courses of study.

On December 10, 2018 Forbes Magazine published commentary by Arthur Herman, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Huawei’s (And China’s) Dangerous High-Tech Game. His piece focused on the implications of the December 1, 2018 arrest of Huawei’s CFO Meng Wanzhou in Canada, allegedly because Huawei’s Hong Kong shell company, Skycom sold products to Iran that contained U.S. components in violation of sanctions imposed by the Trump administration.

Here is an important excerpt from the piece:

What makes this arrest such a landmark isn’t just the fact that Meng is heir apparent to the Chinese tech company her father founded and which has gained nearly $100 billion in revenue in 2018; or because Huawei is currently the world’s biggest supplier of telecom network equipment and number two cellphone producer (Apple is third); or even the fact this arrest falls in the midst of a declared 90-day truce in the on-going trade battle between China and the Trump administration.

Instead, this is a shot across Beijing’s bow in a much bigger struggle, the one for high-tech supremacy between the U.S. and China—the one that will decide the fate of the 21st century. Meng’s arrest sends the message that Huawei, and its Chinese Communist Party puppet masters, are playing a dangerous game, if they think they can win this high-stakes struggle by any means fair or foul.

Three days later, on December 13th Herman wrote a followup piece, A Death In Silicon Valley ‘With Chinese Characteristics’ that reported on the suicide of the distinguished Chinese quantum physicist, venture capitalist, and Stanford University professor Zhang Shoucheng that took place on December 1, 2018, the same day that the CFO of Huawei was arrested in Canada.

Although Shoucheng was a naturalized U.S. citizen, he maintained disturbingly close links with the Chinese government.

Consider these excerpts from the article:

“Despite being a naturalized U.S. citizen, Zhang maintained close contact with the Communist regime in China (the head of ShanghaiTech, for example, is the son of former party leader Jiang Zemin). His company Digital Horizon Capital, known by the acronym DHVC, has been identified as part of a major Chinese infiltration effort into Silicon Valley, according to the U.S. Trade Representative Richard Lighthizer’s latest report on China—a report released just days before Zhang’s death.”

“Lighthizer’s report specifically named Zhang’s DHVC as part of the “web of entities” set up in Silicon Valley “to further the industrial-policy goals of the Chinese government.” Zhang’s DHVC, as it turns out, is heavily back by the investment arm of an entity called the Zhongguancum Development Corporation (ZDG), a Chinese government state-owned firm, which revealed on its website during DHVC’s launch that Zhang’s outfit was going to focus on innovative technology being fostered at Stanford and elsewhere in Silicon Valley, for the benefit of ZDG.”

I addressed my concerns about Chinese aggression in three recent articles that were published earlier this year:

Fears About Chinese ‘Trade War’ Are Late And Dumb
China has been waging economic war against the U.S. for decades.

China Ratchets Up Its U.S. Spying Programs
American Universities and financial institutions are at risk.

Chinese Citizen Arrested By FBI For Spying On U.S.
A case that highlights the nexus between immigration and espionage.

On December 20, 2018 the DOJ issued a press release, “Two Chinese Hackers Associated With the Ministry of State Security Charged with Global Computer Intrusion Campaigns Targeting Intellectual Property and Confidential Business Information.”

On September 10, 2018 Newsweek reported, “China’s Role In Russia’s Largest War Games Shows Beijing-Moscow Ties Are Strengthening, Experts Say.”

On September 13, 2018 Newsweek reported, “Will China Bail Out Venezuela? Maduro Heads To Beijing Amid U.S. Invasion Rumors.”

As the article reported:

China has sent more than $50 billion to Venezuela over the past decade in the form of oil-for-loan deals, according to Reuters. These have allowed Beijing to secure much-needed fuel for its growing economy while supporting a vehemently anti-American government in South America.

Furthermore, as I noted in my recent article, Caravan Of ‘Migrants’ – A Crisis Decades In The Making, The President of Guatemala has claimed that cash-strapped Venezuela has provided funding to the “Caravan of Migrants.”

It is possible that China and/or Iran have provided cash to Venezuela that was then used to subsidize at least some of the costs of organizing and transporting thousands of aspiring illegal aliens who sought to enter the United States by whatever means possible.

On September 14, 2018 Newsweek reported, “Chinese Deal To Take Over Key Israeli Port May Threaten U.S. Naval Operations, Critics Say.”

My dad taught me that bullies could intimidate me only if I permitted them to intimidate me.

President Trump is demonstrating a clear lesson to the thugs and bullies of the world that finally America will no longer be pushed around.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

Zhores Medvedev’s Life: A Chilling Reminder of How the Soviets Weaponized Psychiatry against Dissidents

December 24, 2018/in Culture War, Featured, Policy, Politics/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The practice of categorizing one’s enemies as “insane” became a ready tool of suppression in the Soviet state founded by Lenin and developed under Stalin.

The New York Times obituary opened with a simple recitation of facts: “Zhores A. Medvedev, the Soviet biologist, writer and dissident who was declared insane, confined to a mental institution and stripped of his citizenship in the 1970s after attacking a Stalinist pseudoscience, died … in London.”

Zhores Medvedev, his twin brother Roy (still alive at 93), the physicist Andrei Sakharov, and the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn were leading dissidents. They courageously put their lives on the line to smuggle manuscripts out of the Soviet Union. They wanted the wider world to learn the truth about the “the workers’ paradise” that so many Western intellectuals (some deluded, others having gone over to the dark side) praised.

Declare Dissidents Insane

A generation of Americans has been born since the Soviet Union, the USSR that President Ronald Reagan boldly labeled “the evil empire,” ceased to exist. They have little to no concept of how ferociously the USSR’s communist tyranny suppressed dissent. As the Times obituary of Dr. Medvedev illustrates, one Soviet technique of oppression was to declare that political dissidents were insane. They were then incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals where they were tormented and tortured. Some were used as human guinea pigs for dangerous experiments. (Shades of Hitler’s buddy, Dr. Mengele.) Some even succumbed to the not-so-tender ministrations of those “hospitals.”

I recall one particular example of the disgusting abuse of human beings in Soviet psychiatric hospitals. Vladimir Bukovsky, who will turn 76 later this month, spent a dozen years being shuffled between Soviet jails, labor camps, and psychiatric hospitals. One of the “therapies” administered in a psychiatric hospital was putting a cord into Bukovsky’s mouth, threading it from his throat up through his nasal passages, and then drawing it out through one of his nostrils. (Maybe the cord went in the opposite direction; I’ve never been interested in memorizing torture techniques.) Alas, this communist “treatment” did not “cure” Bukovsky of his rational (not irrational) abhorrence of tyranny and brutality.

Marx’s Influence on the Soviets

The warped thought process that led to the perversion and weaponization of psychiatry in the Soviet Union can be traced back to the communist icon and thought leader Karl Marx. Marx propounded a spurious doctrine known as “polylogism” to justify stifling dissent. According to Marx, different classes of people had different structures in their minds. Thus, Marx declared the bourgeoisie to be mentally defective because they were inherently unable to comprehend Marx’s (allegedly) revelatory and progressive theories. Since they were, in a sense, insane, there was no valid reason for communists to “waste time” arguing with them. On the contrary, communists were justified in not only ignoring or suppressing bourgeois ideas but in liquidating the entire bourgeois class.

The practice of categorizing one’s enemies as “insane” became a ready tool of suppression in the Soviet state founded by Lenin and developed under Stalin. The USSR’s infamous secret police energetically wielded quack psychiatry as a club with which to destroy political dissidents. If you want more information about how the Soviets kidnapped and misused psychiatry, here is a link to a document that describes what American agents of the USSR were taught about psycho-political techniques in the late 1930s. (The provenance of the booklet is murky, and Soviet apologists have long tried to discredit it, but in light of numerous psychiatric abuses known to have been committed with the approval of the USSR’s rulers, the content of the book is highly plausible.)

The incarceration of Zhores Medvedev in psychiatric hospitals in the 1970s was a monstrous injustice. His “crime” was having exposed the bizarre pseudoscience of Lysenkoism that Stalin had embraced in the 1950s. Lysenko’s quack theories led to deadly crop failures and widespread starvation. Nevertheless, Stalin backed him by executing scientists who dared to disagree with Lysenko. Millions of innocents lost their lives because “truth” in the Soviet Union wasn’t scientific but political.

Another vivid example of the destructive consequences of politicizing truth is related in Solzhenitsyn’s exposé of Soviet labor camps, The Gulag Archipelago. Certain Soviet officials decided to increase the steel shipped to a certain area. When the planners issued orders for trains to carry double the steel to the designated destination, conscientious engineers informed them that it couldn’t be done. They pointed out that the existing train tracks could not support such great weights. The politicians had the engineers executed as “saboteurs” for opposing “the plan.” What followed was predictable: the loads were doubled, the tracks gave out, and the designated area ended up getting less steel, not more.

As the havoc wrought by Soviet central economic planners repeatedly demonstrated, the communist central planners refused to abandon their insufferable self-delusion and mystical belief in the power of their own will to alter reality.
This episode shows where the true insanity was in the USSR. The central planners believed that constructing their ideal country was simply a matter of will. Alas, reality doesn’t conform to the whims or will of any human being, but the arrogance of central planners remains stubbornly impervious to that inescapable fact of life. Instead, as the havoc wrought by Soviet central economic planners repeatedly demonstrated, the communist central planners refused to abandon their insufferable self-delusion and mystical belief in the power of their own will to alter reality. This was the true insanity, compounded by the error of persecuting competent scientists like Zhores Medvedev.

Sadly, the practice of branding political opponents as “insane” is not confined to the now-defunct Soviet state. In 1981, when I was completing my master’s thesis on Solzhenitsyn, I telephoned an American college professor of history to ask whether he recalled if Solzhenitsyn had been granted honorary US citizenship. (He hadn’t. President Ford didn’t want to offend the Soviet leadership.) The reply to my question was this: “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn belongs in an insane asylum.” The virus of Marx’s polylogism is, unfortunately, alive and well in American academia.

As for Zhores Medvedev, may he now rest in peace and receive his reward for his integrity and courage.

This article was reprinted from the Mises Institute.

COLUMN BY

Mark Hendrickson

Mark Hendrickson is Adjunct Professor of Economics at Grove City College, where he has taught since 2004. He is a Fellow for Economics and Social Policy with The Center for Vision and Values and is on the Council of Scholars of the Commonwealth Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by FEE is republished with permission.

What’s Wrong at Fox News?

December 24, 2018/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Julio Gonzalez

In a land dominated by the left and its take on world events, Fox News may have been the lone bastion of conservatism and conservative reporting. It has traditionally been the place where right-of-center Americans go to seek truth devoid of the biased slant from socialists and anti-Trump activists. But now, it seems, Fox News has not been living up to its charter.

Unquestionably what we have in the United States is not a “free and unencumbered” press. Yes, the First Amendment does protect the press from governmental interference, but “free and unencumbered” requires much more than the absence of governmental interference. For the press to be truly “free and unencumbered,” it must also devoid of private sector pressures slanting its reporting in one direction or another.

CNN has become a trumpet for anti-Trumpists. MSNBC will not deliver a story without availing itself of the opportunity to slam conservatives and defend the validity of the liberal agenda. The New York Times‘ reporting pieces read more like opinions than news reports, and The Washington Post will rarely acknowledge the validity of conservative pundits and newsmakers.

To be clear, reporting is not opining. Journalism requires much more than news analysis. To truly engage in journalism, an outlet must have a fleet of reporters ready to engage newsmakers. They need to stand at the ready to go on location and sleuth out the stories of importance to their readership. It is an endeavor requiring money and assets, and one that cannot be achieved by bloggers, pundits, and opiners.

Virtually every journalistic organization in the United States in a position to engage in this level of intense journalistic scrutiny is left of center. Until recently, the only notable exception has been Fox News.

Since Roger Ailes’ departure and passing, Fox News’ conservative slant has waned. In recent years, Shepard Smith has been open about his less than conservative slant. Neil Cavuto has been hostile to President Trump and his agenda, and the evolution of Judge Napolitano’s legal views from staunch conservative arbiter and strict constitutionalist to slanted advocate has been noticeable.

But an increasingly leftist slant is not the greatest issue affecting Fox News. The bigger problem is its lack of sophistication in reporting. Almost by definition, a televised news report will be more superficial than its written companion. The time limitations imposed upon any televised news article imparts significant challenges to the delivery of in-depth analysis or reports. For that, a news journal program where a story is thoroughly developed is required. No such program exists on Fox.

What’s more, the Fox News lineup has pretty much devolved into a Fox and Friends variety show in the morning followed by a series of fight sessions loosely calling themselves “debates.” With the notable exception of Chris Wallace, who is not consistently conservative, but appears to try to deliver objective interviews from his subjects and the occasional and invaluable appearances of Britt Hume, there is no grounded, objective voice of Fox. The Five offers no substantive insight in its entertainment-based discussions, and the All-Star Panel on Special Report with Bret Baier is a shell of itself since the sad and premature loss of Charles Krauthammer and the disappearances of Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes.

But despite the limitations in televised reporting, twenty-first-century journalism can make up for them by supplementing the inherent shortcomings of its televised programming with a strong online presence. Fox News fails here as well, and it’s not merely because of the unacceptably high incidence of grammatical errors. Over the past two years, the website has taken on an increasingly tabloid feel. For example, on Saturday morning, the two top stories were (appropriately) dealt with the government shutdown and Justice Ginsburg’s lung cancer. But these were immediately followed by a slew of stupid and worthless stories regarding the colors of the interior of the house in Home Alone, Arian Grande’s lampshading fashions, crazy campus breakdowns, an adopted pastor embracing and forgiving his biological father, and Sandra Bullock’s revelation of her crush on Keanu Reeves while filming Speed.

Undoubtedly, conservatives are definitely engaged in an existential fight for their country’s future. Inherent to that battle is the thoughtful delivery of views and developments supportive of conservative philosophies and viewpoints. Sadly, Fox News has abandoned that charge.

Either Fox News retakes its position as the leader in conservative news, or someone else will need to carry the baton.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages.

How the ‘Zero-sum Struggle’ gave rise to Nationalism [Videos]

December 24, 2018/in Economy, Immigration, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

There has been much written about the polarization of politics in America and rise of nationalism particularly in Europe.

Much to the amazement of many Donald J. Trump was elected as President of the United States. His campaign slogan was Make America Great Again! At the same time the English people voted to leave the European Union. Both of these historic events inspired Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to state, “The era of liberal democracy is over.”

There is no better proof of the end of liberal democracy than when it’s strongest proponents state,

“[E]conomic or social change or some combination of the two” is “leading inevitably to dissatisfaction with liberal democracy and a readiness to embrace populist, illiberal, or even undemocratic alternatives.”

Sheri Berman’s article “How Liberalism Failed: After decades of relative stability, Western elites forgot how precious and precarious liberal democracy really is” in the Fall 2018 edition of Dissent Magazine provides an insightful analysis of the self-inflicted suicide of liberal democracy. Berman blames the fall of liberal democracy on two narratives:

Economic change.
Social change.

Berman begins by stating,

Today, the West is probably facing its greatest crisis since the end of the Second World War. Liberal democracy has faltered in Eastern Europe, is threatened by populists in Western Europe and the United States, and is being challenged by resurgent authoritarianism in Russia, China, and elsewhere.

Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism, discuses the rise of nationalism globally in the below video titled “Why You Should Be a Nationalist”:

How has Liberal Democracy failed?

It has failed just as it failed in the former Soviet Union in 1989 and in Venezuela in 2018. Berman quotes The Captured Economy: How the Powerful Enrich Themselves, Slow Down Growth, and Increase Inequality by Brink Lindsey and Steven M. Teles:

“When people feel economically insecure, they grow more defensive, less open and generous, and more suspicious of ‘the Other.’ When life seems like a zero-sum struggle, gains by other groups are interpreted as losses by one’s own group.”

Nationalists want to undo the “captured economy.” President Trump’s administration has focused it’s efforts on reducing government control over the economy from unelected bureaucrats (the swamp), eliminating government regulations and ending policies that hinder individual growth and prosperity.

Berman notes that Lindsey and Teles argue:

[H]ow the misregulation of the financial sector enriched the financial elite and introduced unnecessary risks and distortions into the economy; how the expansion of copyright and patent protection has created “monopolies,” limited innovation, and showered “riches on a favored few”; how occupational licensing protects incumbent firms and favored professions and obstructs competition, entrepreneurship, and consumer interests; and how land-use regulations and zoning distort markets, hamper Americans’ ability to move where opportunity is, and instead redistribute wealth to “higher-income homeowners and the bankers who provide mortgage finance” to them.

Berman concludes, “Why has government acted in socially counterproductive and economically inefficient ways? Because it has been ‘captured’ by plutocrats who use economic resources to influence government policy in ways that rig the game even further.”

This idea of the “power of the plutocrats” is best explained in this short video featuring Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger:

How Immigration plays a key role in the “Zero-sum Struggle!”

Immigration has been a signature issue for President Trump and the growing numbers of nationalists in Europe, Australia, Africa and beyond. Berman notes how immigration/refugee resettlement has become a seminal issue in the Western world. Sasha Polakow-Suransky in his book Go Back to Where You Came From: The Backlash Against Immigration and the Fate of Western Democracy examines how immigration has roiled Western democracies” argues that liberal’s:

“[F]ailure to confront the real tensions and failures of integration, by pretending violent extremism and attacks on free speech were not problems, infuriated many voters and left them feeling abandoned by mainstream parties.”

When governments fail to protect the indigenous people of a nation they react by abandoning liberal Democratic policies like open borders, unfettered refugee resettlement, multiculturalism, diversity and inclusion. Tucker Carlson explains in the below video “Illegal Immigration: It’s About Power”:

Both Republicans, Libertarian, Social Democrats, Independents and Democrats need to wake up and smell the nationalism revolution. Failure to do so will cost them dearly.

EDITORS NOTE: The videos from Prager University are republished with permission. The featured photo is by Randy Colas on Unsplash.

The Betrayal of America: Who Do You Trust?

December 24, 2018/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Linda Goudsmit

“Who do you trust?” is the foundational question in human relationships. Social relationships, family relationships, business relationships, romantic relationships, intimate friendships, professional relationships, political relationships – human relationships rely on trust. The existence of trust or the absence of trust defines human relatedness.

Parents tell their children when they are very young, “Whatever you do don’t lie to me.” Why? Because trust is the foundation of love.

Cheating is a catastrophic betrayal in adult love relationships. Why? Because successful relationships require trust.

So it is in politics. The existence of trust or the absence of trust defines human relatedness in both the private and public sectors.

Our representative government is founded on the principles of trust. We vote for candidates who we believe will keep their promises. Politics in the United States is currently experiencing seismic trust issues. Over the years it has become painfully obvious that politicians make deceitful promises on the campaign trail to get themselves elected. Then came Donald J. Trump, the political outsider who actually meant what he said when he promised to make America great again by putting America first. What happened?

President Trump has been stymied in his America first efforts since he took office by Democrats AND Republicans. Why? What would create a bilateral effort to stop a duly elected President from keeping his promises to strengthen America? If you want to know the motive look at the result.

President Trump’s America first policies are designed to benefit American workers, American families, legal American citizens, the American economy, the American military, and American businesses on Main Street. President Trump’s policies are unapologetically preferential and protective of American national interests. So, why would any American politician reject America first policies?

The motive for the stupefying, well-organized, multi-faceted, well-funded domestic and international campaign to destroy President Trump is GLOBALISM – a synonym for one world government. Globalists need a weakened America to impose supranational one world government. What?

Let me be clear. Globalism does not mean global trade. Global trade is the legitimate international commerce between sovereign countries. Globalism is the internationalized political infrastructure of the new world order under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations.

Globalists are the existential enemy of American sovereignty, independence, and they are desperately trying to destroy America first President Donald Trump and every one of his America first initiatives. Globalism is at war with Americanism.

In case anyone has any doubts about the existence of the plan for a new world order just take a look at the recent United Nations Plan for Global Migration. One world government is not a new idea – it is a plan that has been operational since after WWII – it is just reaching the tipping point now.

Globalist politicians are enemies of the state and serve their own agenda on both sides of the aisle. Their loyalties are to the global enterprise and not to the United States of America. Globalist politicians are betraying America with plenty of institutional help.

Most Americans assume the Federal Reserve System (Fed) is a government agency – it isn’t. The Fed is a private international banking cartel that serves its globalist interests. The Fed “monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”

The Fed deliberately maintained 7 years of zero interest rates during the Obama administration to artificially prop up Obama’s globalist policies. Now the Fed is deliberately raising interest rates to soar the national debt, destabilize the stock market, and destroy President Trump’s stunning domestic economic achievements. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, a Republican nominated by Obama to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in 2011, illustrates the point that globalists are bipartisan menaces to American national interests. I’d like to know who advised President Trump to nominate Powell as Chair.

More institutional help has been provided by globalist extraordinaire Robert Mueller. His entire investigation is a coordinated effort to delegitimize President Trump and protect Clinton and Obama – two of the most corrupt globalist puppets of all time. Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, McCabe, Comey, Strzok, Page, and every FBI and CIA operative who lied, destroyed evidence, and spied on the Trump campaign did so in the service of the globalist campaign to rid the United States of our only America first president in decades.

America first President Trump faces a staggering and well-orchestrated bipartisan multi-pronged globalist attack on Americanism and on his presidency. Schumer and Pelosi lead the charge on the Democrat side aided by McConnell, Ryan, and the legacy of the treacherous late John McCain on the Republican side. These greedy politicians put their financial self-interest above the national interests of the people who elected them.

Democrat and Republican globalists in government, the media, and education conspire to attack Americanism and reject the:

● national sovereignty of the United States
● national borders of the United States
● national culture and Judeo-Christian traditions of the United States
● national currency of the United States
● national language of the United States
● primacy of the United States Constitution and our secular national laws

Democrat and Republican globalists in government, the media, and education conspire to attack Americanism by:

● weakening the US economy
● weakening the US military
● indoctrinating students K-12 through university toward collectivism including socialism, communism, and globalism
● indoctrinating students K-12 through university toward political correctness
● indoctrinating students K-12 through university toward moral relativism
● indoctrinating students K-12 through university toward historical revisionism and American self-loathing

Globalists who own the giant news media companies, Internet behemoths, and entertainment companies conspire to advance their globalist agenda which requires the acceptance of global citizenship. They censor and curate information to propagandize and manipulate the public into accepting their self-serving anti-American objective of one world government.

Activist judges participate in the political attack through judicial overreach that attempts to usurp the power of the presidency. Chief Justice Roberts was right when he said there are no Obama judges, Clinton judges, or Trump judges – but there are judges in America who honor the Constitution, and there are globalist judges who have betrayed their judicial oaths who don’t. The United States Constitution is the premier America first document – it protects the national interest and rejects globalism which is why globalist politicians and activist judges disregard it.

So, why would any American knowingly vote for a a globalist politician? They wouldn’t if they understood that globalism’s one world government is a sinister power grab by the greedy political elite who will rob the people of their independence and liberty. There is no power to the people in socialism, communism, and globalism. Collectivist systems centralize the government and award absolute power to the state and its ruling elite.

Globalists shamelessly lie, cheat, and steal to promote their own self-interest at the expense of the American public. Ask yourself how the political elites in Washington turned their government salaries into multi-million dollar portfolios. They betrayed their constituents by faithlessly ignoring their sworn oaths of office.

It is time for the American voting public to acknowledge this monstrous betrayal and completely reject globalism and its untrustworthy facilitators. The power of the people is a benefit of Americanism’s freedom, independence, and decentralized government. It is time for Americans to proudly embrace Americanism again.

Globalism’s war against America has reached a tipping point. President Trump has exposed the bipartisan treachery and deceit of career politicians in our government who have betrayed the American people and sacrificed the public interest for their own self-interest. Draining the swamp and building the wall are not forgotten campaign promises. They are President Trump’s powerful America first strategies that will defeat Globalism and make America great again.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity. The featured photo is by Bernard Hermant on Unsplash.

E-Verify and Anti-Sanctuary Bills Filed In Florida

December 23, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Federation for American Immigration Reform

In the space of roughly a week, bills have been filed in the Florida Legislature to require mandatory E-Verify by all employers, and to prohibit sanctuary policies by local governments and state agencies. The Sunshine State’s lawmakers look to be gearing up for a productive session when they convene on March 5, and these bills could be considered during interim committee weeks already scheduled for January and February.

E-Verify

On December 11, Representative Thad Altman (R-Melbourne/Indialantic) filed House Bill (HB) 89. The bill would:

Require all private employers to register with E-Verify and use it to verify that all new employees hired after January 1, 2020, are legally authorized to work in the US;
Require all state agencies, local governments, public contractors and public subcontractors to register with E-Verify and use it to verify that all new employees hired after July 1, 2019, are legally authorized to work in the US;
Create an enforcement process for private employers, run by the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), where employers lose their business licenses for employing illegal aliens;
Require DEO to report illegal alien employees to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);
Ban public contracts with contractors or subcontractors who don’t use E-Verify; and
Terminate existing public contracts if contractors or subcontractors employ illegal aliens or don’t use E-Verify.

“I think it’s fair and not onerous to businesses that want to follow the law … We are sending a clear message that if you want to do business in this state, you must employ legal U.S. citizens and residents,” Altman said of his bill. Unsurprisingly, the far-left Miami New Times almost immediately ran an op-ed condemning the bill, the E-Verify program generally, and Altman personally as anti-immigrant and racist.

But not to be dissuaded by such rhetoric, a week later, on December 18, Senator Aaron Bean (R-Jacksonville/Fernandina Beach) filed Senate Bill (SB) 164, which with very minor differences mirrors Altman’s bill.

A proposal to put mandatory E-Verify on this past November’s Florida ballot had failed in the Constitutional Revision Commission (CRC) back in April after a coalition of business groups bombarded the CRC at the last minute with unfounded horror stories about how it would impose huge costs and destroy the state’s economy. This was despite the fact that E-Verify is free to use and almost always instantaneous, and also despite that, according to FAIR’s research, in 12 out of 15 states that adopted it since 2008, the unemployment decreased more than did the national rate.

But on the campaign trail in July, now-Governor-Elect Ron DeSantis (R) tweeted, “Cheap foreign labor is not an excuse to let lawlessness prevail in the sunshine state. We want people who come LEGALLY!” He can be expected to strongly support the new bills, so with backing in both chambers and the Governor’s Mansion, prospects for E-Verify in Florida appear good.

Anti-Sanctuary

On December 18, Sen. Joe Gruters (R-Sarasota) filed SB 168. The following day, Sen. Bean filed SB 170. The bills are identical and would:

Define and ban sanctuary policies, both by local governments and state agencies such as public universities;
Require local governments and state agencies to honor immigration detainers;
Require local governments and state agencies to review available information on the immigration status of people they’ve arrested, and report them to ICE if the information indicates they’re an illegal alien;
Create a duty to report sanctuary policies by officers and employees of local governments and state agencies, and give them whistleblower protection against adverse employment action if they report their own employer;
Allow anyone to file a complaint about a sanctuary policy;
Create an investigation and enforcement process for both local state attorney’s offices and the attorney general, resulting in fines for sanctuary governments and agencies and a potential for removal from office for “sanctuary policymakers”; and
Allow people to sue a local government or state agency for damages if an illegal alien injures or kills someone due to a sanctuary policy.

A companion bill has not yet been filed in the House but can probably be expected shortly.

Sen. Bean sponsored SB 308 in the Senate last year to do the same thing. Sen. Gruters is a longstanding supporter of Governor-Elect DeSantis, “has relationships with … [DeSantis’] team,” and is being backed by DeSantis to be the next Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.

As a candidate, then-Congressman DeSantis promised, “[a]s governor, this is what I am going to do: there are going to be no sanctuary cities in Florida,” and even committed himself to removing public officials from office for supporting sanctuary policies “if I’m able to do so.” These bills are the means to fulfilling those promises, so they are likely to garner his strong support.

Anti-sanctuary bills have now passed the House by wide margins three years in a row, only to die in the Senate without so much as a full committee hearing. But with such clear and strong support so far in advance of session, there is good reason to expect 2019 may be the year that changes.

COLUMN BY

David Jaroslav

Here Are The Most Egregious Fake News Stories Of 2018

December 23, 2018/in Featured, News, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Caller

As 2018 comes to a close, it’s time to review the year’s worst cases of media misquotes, misleading narratives, major corrections and straight-up fake news.

While last year’s fake reporting largely occurred during the media’s relentless pursuit to prove Russian collusion, this year’s list is much more varied. However, some themes emerged: stories about then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the U.S. border were routinely flagged for misinformation.

Without further ado, here is the list of 2018’s worst examples of fake news:

1. WAPO BLAMES BORDER PATROL FOR DEATH OF 7-YEAR-OLD MIGRANT

The Washington Post published a story in December focusing on a 7-year-old migrant child from Guatemala who died in border patrol custody.

Despite WaPo’s misleading headline suggesting border patrol was to blame for the girl’s death, the full timeline of events and statements from the girl’s father praising border agents revealed a different story.

2. CNN AND THE HILL SPREAD RETRACTED SEXUAL ASSAULT CLAIM AGAINST KAVANAUGH

CNN and The Hill both reported on a sexual assault claim against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in late September without ever mentioning that the claim had been quickly retracted.

WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 27: Judge Brett Kavanaugh testifies to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill September 27, 2018 in Washington, DC. Kavanaugh was called back to testify about claims by Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexually assaulting her during a party in 1982 when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Jeffrey Catalan apologized for making a “mistake” in leveling the false claim against Kavanaugh, but CNN and The Hill’s initial reports on the claim failed to note the retraction. The Hill later retracted a tweet bolstering the claim and CNN updated its misleading report.

3. BOSTON GLOBE CORRECTS LIZ WARREN STORY — MAKES HER LESS NATIVE AMERICAN

Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren released a DNA test in October seeking to prove her repeated claims that she has Native American ancestry.

The Boston Globe initially reported on the DNA test by explaining that Warren was somewhere between 1/32 and 1/512 Native American. However, the paper eventually issued two corrections that damaged Warren’s ancestral claims even further.

“The generational range based on the ancestor that the report identified suggests she’s between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American,” The Globe admitted.

4. NYT ACCUSES NIKKI HALEY OF PURCHASING EXPENSIVE CURTAINS

The New York Times initially tied U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley to expensive curtains hanging in the ambassador’s apartment in New York, writing, “Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.”

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley addresses the UNSC during a United Nations Security Council meeting on Ukraine November 26, 2018 at the United Nations in New York. (Photo by DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

However, NYT’s own article later admitted that the curtains were approved in 2016 and that Haley had no say in the matter.

5. MEDIA STILL BLAMING REPUBLICANS FOR STEELE DOSSIER

CNN’s Jim Sciutto, MSNBC’s Katy Tur, and MSNBC’s Ari Melber were all responsible for falsely claiming that Never-Trump Republicans were responsible for initial funding of the salacious Steele dossier.

Washington Free Beacon founder Paul Singer did pay Fusion GPS for standard opposition research, however, he stopped paying Fusion GPS well before they contracted Christopher Steele to create the dossier. That research was paid for solely by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

This falsehood has been shared so many times that even former FBI director James Comeyhas repeated it.

6. CNN ANALYST PUBLISHES DUBIOUS REPORT ON ADDITIONAL KAVANAUGH ALLEGATIONS

CNN political analyst and Sentinel editor Brian Karem published a report in September claiming that “Montgomery County investigators” were looking into an additional allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Local police disputed that they were investigating any claims, and Karem later updated his reporting to indicate that his sources were not police, but rather random “investigators in Montgomery County.”

7. CNN ACCUSES TED CRUZ OF BEING AFRAID TO APPEAR ON THEIR NETWORK

CNN accused Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz of being “scared” to come on their programs in the wake of the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

ATASCOCITA, TX - NOVEMBER 05: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during a Get Out The Vote Bus Tour rally on November 5, 2018 in Atascocita, Texas. With one day to go until election day, Sen. Cruz is campaigning throughout Texas as he battles democratic challenger Beto O'Rourke in a tight race to save his Senate seat. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

ATASCOCITA, TX – NOVEMBER 05: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during a Get Out The Vote Bus Tour rally on November 5, 2018 in Atascocita, Texas. With one day to go until election day, Sen. Cruz is campaigning throughout Texas as he battles democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke in a tight race to save his Senate seat. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Sen. Ted Cruz blasted CNN for the falsehood, explaining on Twitter that he had done a 15-minute interview on the network the day prior.

“CNN has aired NONE of it,” Cruz complained. “Why not air the (entire) interview?

8. CNN SPREADS FALSE STATISTIC ON SCHOOL SHOOTING

After a May school shooting in Texas, CNN anchor Jim Sciutto and political correspondent Sara Murray both claimed that there had already been 22 school shootings in 2018.

CNN’s list of “school shootings” includes accidental firearm discharges, events that don’t involve any students, and domestic disputes — hardly the incidents that most people consider to be a school shooting.

9. NBC SAT ON INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTED KAVANAUGH ALLEGATIONS

While NBC’s story is not incorrect, its choice to sit on evidence that contradicted a serious sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh earned them a spot on this list.

Celebrity porn lawyer Michael Avenatti claimed he knew a second woman who could back up gang rape allegations made against Kavanaugh by his client, Julie Swetnick.

That second woman actually contradicted the allegations in a phone interview with NBC News on September 30. Mysteriously, NBC chose not to publish this information until weeks later and after Kavanaugh had already been confirmed to the Supreme Court.

10. MCCLATCHY CLAIMS MUELLER HAS EVIDENCE THAT CORROBORATES PIECE OF DOSSIER

McClatchy reported in April that special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen had been in Prague in the summer of 2016. The report appeared to corroborate a key part of the largely unverified Steele dossier.

US President Donald Trumps former attorney Michael Cohen leaves US Federal Court in New York on December 12, 2018 after his sentencing after pleading guilty to tax evasion, making false statements to a financial institution, illegal campaign contributions, and making false statements to Congress. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)

But no other news outlets came forward to confirm McClatchy’s reporting and a spokesperson for Mueller’s team hinted to The Daily Caller News Foundation that the report may be false.

Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, emphatically denied in December that Cohen had ever been in Prague as the dossier alleges.

11. JIM ACOSTA SAID ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WOULDN’T CLIMB BORDER

CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta got into an ugly, public battle with President Donald Trump over immigration in November. During the testy exchange, Acosta claimed that illegal immigrants would “not be” trying to climb over the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump points to journalist Jim Acosta from CNN during a post-election press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on November 7, 2018. (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

TOPSHOT – US President Donald Trump points to journalist Jim Acosta from CNN during a post-election press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on November 7, 2018. (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Unfortunately for Acosta, images a week later revealed that immigrants were doing exactlywhat he claimed they wouldn’t.

12. WAPO RAN KAVANAUGH STORY WITH KNOWINGLY FALSE INFORMATION

The Washington Post ran a story in October suggesting that Georgetown Preparatory School was hiring a new employee to deal with fallout from the Kavanaugh hearings.

The author of the report was informed by a spokesperson for Georgetown Prep that the new position was actually listed well before the Kavanaugh hearings. Somehow, that information didn’t make it into the report and WaPo had to issue a correction.

“This was a completely unintentional error-I read right over the date in haste. Story was corrected and correction is noted. Have a great weekend, all!” reporter Emily Heil wrote in response to backlash.

13. ANDREA MITCHELL SAYS DISGRACED FL ELECTION OFFICIAL IS A REPUBLICAN

Allegations of voter fraud and electoral misconduct in Florida during the 2018 midterms brought Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes into the spotlight.

Snipes, a Democrat, had been accused of misconduct in the past and was slammed again for violating Florida election law.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell bafflingly said on air that Snipes is a Republican and “hardly a Democratic official, or someone doing the bidding of the Democratic candidates there.”

14. WAPO FORCED TO CORRECT NIKKI HALEY MISQUOTE

The Washington Post had to issue a correction after falsely attributing a quote about poverty to U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley.

After multiple requests by Haley for WaPo to issue a correction, the paper admitted that the quote in question was actually said by The U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations and International Organizations in Geneva.

15. CHRIS CUOMO SHARES FALSE STORY ABOUT AR-15 PURCHASE

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo spread a false story claiming that a 20-year-old student was able to purchase an AR-15 rifle without going through a background check.

NEW YORK, NY - DECEMBER 09: Chris Cuomo attends the 12th Annual CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute at American Museum of Natural History on December 9, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images for CNN )

NEW YORK, NY – DECEMBER 09: Chris Cuomo attends the 12th Annual CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute at American Museum of Natural History on December 9, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images for CNN )

The story itself admitted that the student never actually finished filling out paperwork — which would trigger the background check — nor did he purchase the gun.

Cuomo doubled down on sharing the story, insisting that the “point” he was trying to make still stood.

16. MEDIA CLAIMS TRUMP CALLED THE FBI A ‘CANCER’

President Donald Trump referred to corruption and bias within the FBI, particularly related to the Russia probe, as a “cancer” during a September interview with The Hill.

The media repeatedly misquoted the president and claimed he called the FBI itself “cancer,” despite clarification from the two people who interviewed him.

17. RACHEL MADDOW ACCUSES WH OF EDITING PUTIN TAPE

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow opened a show in July by insisting that the Trump administration edited a tape of the president’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 16 in Helsinki.

The Washington Post’s Phillip Bump pointed out that the error was made by reporters too and was due to a change “between the feed from the reporters and the feed from the translator.”

18. CNN’S TRUMP TOWER STORY OBLITERATED BY LANNY DAVIS

CNN reported in July that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that the president had knowledge in advance of a Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 14: Lanny Davis attends the Newsweek & The Daily Beast 2012 Hero Summit at the United States Institute of Peace on November 14, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Leigh Vogel/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC – NOVEMBER 14: Lanny Davis attends the Newsweek & The Daily Beast 2012 Hero Summit at the United States Institute of Peace on November 14, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Leigh Vogel/Getty Images)

But Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said in August that CNN’s reporting got “mixed up” and that Cohen had no information related to the Trump Tower meeting. Cohen said the same to Congress on two separate occasions.

CNN doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on its reporting, despite a series of issues with the report.

19. NBC’S BRIAN WILLIAMS BUNGLES HIT PIECE ABOUT TRUMP AND DOGS

MSNBC anchor Brian Williams — also a noted survivor of a helicopter attack during the Iraq war — thought he exposed the president for being a dog-hater in an August segment.

Williams claimed his team “launched an extensive web search” and only found one photo of President Donald Trump with a dog.

The Daily Caller revealed, with the help of a quick Google search, multiple photos of the president holding dogs.

20. WAPO CLAIMS MCSALLY ACCUSES OPPONENT OF TREASON

The Washington Post reported during the 2018 midterm elections that Republican Arizona Senate candidate Martha McSally accused her Democratic opponent, Kyrsten Sinema, of treason.

A transcript of McSally’s comments reveals that she was actually knocking Sinema for excusing the treasonous actions of others.

TEMPE, AZ - AUGUST 28: U.S. Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ) speaks during her primary election night gathering at Culinary Drop Out at The Yard on August 28, 2018 in Tempe, Arizona. U.S. Rep. Martha McSally won the Arizona GOP senate primary. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

TEMPE, AZ – AUGUST 28: U.S. Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ) speaks during her primary election night gathering at Culinary Drop Out at The Yard on August 28, 2018 in Tempe, Arizona. U.S. Rep. Martha McSally won the Arizona GOP senate primary. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

“You said you had no problem with [Americans joining the Taliban],” McSally said. “Kyrsten, I want to ask right now whether you’re going to apologize to the veterans and me for saying it’s okay to commit treason?”

21. NPR: DONALD TRUMP JR. COMMITTED PERJURY

NPR published a report in November insisting that Donald Trump Jr. lied to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow because his statements conflicted with those of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

However, NPR failed to realize that the piece of Trump Jr.’s testimony they quoted was about a different project.

“Trump Jr.’s statements about work on a Trump Tower Moscow that ended in 2014 referred to negotiations with Aras Agalarov,” The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Chuck Ross explained. “Felix Sater, a businessman with links to Cohen and Russian officials, tried to make a Trump Tower Moscow happen in 2015.”

22. NBC NEWS MISQUOTES SEN. CASSIDY, CREATES FALSE ANTI-TRUMP NARRATIVE

NBC News published and aired a misquote of Republican Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy in December that suggested he was turning on President Donald Trump. The opposite was true.

NBC’s misquote made it seem that Cassidy was worried the president was involved in illegality related to hush payments to women he had affairs with. However, the full quote shows that Cassidy did not think the hush payments were crimes at all.

“The only question is then whether or not this so-called hush money is a crime. John Edwards obviously was prosecuted for the same thing and Justice Department failed,” Cassidy explained.

23. TIME MAGAZINE’S FAMILY SEPARATION COVER FEATURING CRYING HONDURAN CHILD

Time Magazine published an infamous cover in June that showed a Honduran child crying at the U.S. border, apparently after she had been separated from her mother. The image quickly became the face of the “issue of family separations at the border,” despite the fact that the child in question was never separated.

An AFP journalists reads a copy of Time Magazine with a front cover using a combination of pictures showing a crying child taken at the US Border Mexico and a picture of US President Donald Trump looking down, on June 22, 2018 in Washington DC. (Photo by ERIC BARADAT/AFP/Getty Images)

Later reports also revealed that, in contrast to common left-wing talking points, the mother and her child were not fleeing violence, and the mother had been previously deported from the U.S. In addition, the mother left three other children in Honduras and allegedly paid a smuggler to help her and her daughter cross the border illegally.

24. MIC WRITER CLAIMS RUSSIAN SPY WAS IN THE OVAL OFFICE

Shortly after it was revealed that a Russian spy was attempting to infiltrate right-wing networks, Mic writer Emily Singer claimed that same Russian spy was present during an Oval Office meeting with Russian diplomat Sergey Lavrov.

Singer claimed Russian spy Maria Butina was spotted in a photo of the meeting, citing the fact that she has red hair like the woman in the photo.

The woman in the photo is actually NSC staffer Cari Lutkins.

25. LAWRENCE O’DONNELL SPREADS FAKE LINDSEY GRAHAM QUOTE

MSNBC anchor Lawrence O’Donnell misquoted Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham in September to suggest that he was bashing Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 27: Christine Blasey Ford testifies before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill September 27, 2018 in Washington, DC. Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaughof sexually assaulting her during a party in 1982 when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. (Photo by Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images)

O’Donnell claimed that Graham called Ford’s allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “garbage,” but Graham’s actual quote reveals he was talking specifically about gang rape allegations.

“If you’re a gang rapist when you’re in high school, you don’t just let it go,” Graham said. “[Kavanaugh’s] been at the highest level of public service, under tremendous scrutiny, 6 FBI investigations, and we missed the sophomore and junior gang rapist.”

“We didn’t miss it. It’s a bunch of garbage,” Graham asserted.

26. JENNIFER RUBIN MAKES FALSE ACCUSATION ABOUT GOP’S KAVANAUGH PROSECUTOR

Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post’s “conservative” columnist, claimed that the prosecutor chosen by the GOP to question Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had previously worked with controversial Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell was not “someone from Sheriff Joe’s operation” as Rubin claimed— the two worked in separate agencies. Mitchell was employed at the Maricopa County Attorney’s office, while Arpaio worked in the Sheriff’s Department.

27. MEDIA SPREADS CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT MELANIA POST-SURGERY

First lady Melania Trump took some time away from public life in June after undergoing kidney surgery, and the media quickly started speculating about her whereabouts.

The media elevated several bizarre claims about Melania, including an allegation that she had moved out of the White House and another that she was secretly recovering from plastic surgery.

Other reporters didn’t cite the conspiracies, but did suggest that something was amiss about Melania’s brief respite from the spotlight.

US First Lady Melania Trump reads the book "Oliver the Ornament" as she visits children at Children's National Hospital in Washington, DC, on December 13, 2018. (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

US First Lady Melania Trump reads the book “Oliver the Ornament” as she visits children at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, on December 13, 2018. (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

“The last time we caught a glimpse of her was on May 10,” CNN reporter Brian Stelter said. “There’s been a lot of questions about her surgery at Walter Reed and now her invisibility…how long does she have to be out of sight to make this a legitimate media story?”

28. NEW YORKER PUBLISHES KAVANAUGH ACCUSATION WITH ZERO CORROBORATION

The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow — generally known for their sharp reporting on sexual harassment — made a major blunder with their report on Deborah Ramirez’s allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Ramirez claimed Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face at a college party, but The New Yorker was unable to produce any firsthand witnesses or even confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party in question.

The New York Times even opted not to run the same allegation because they were unable to corroborate it. Ramirez herself admitted she had significant memory gaps about the incident and she told former classmates that she wasn’t even sure if Kavanaugh was the offender.

29. DAILY BEAST CLAIMS MIGRANTS IN CARAVAN DON’T HAVE DISEASES

The Daily Beast claimed that there is “zero evidence” that members of the migrant caravan were bringing HIV and TB into the United States.

The Tijuana Health Department reported a handful of cases of tuberculosis, HIV and chickenpox among the caravan. Officials with the Mexican state of Baja California disputed that there have been cases of tuberculosis, but confirmed that some migrants are carrying HIV and chickenpox.

30. AP PINS IMMIGRANT ABUSE ON TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

The Associated Press published a report in June about abuse of child immigrants in the U.S., but did its best to bury the fact that the abuse primarily occurred under the Obama administration.

As this reporter noted at the time, “The article mentions President Donald Trump and his administration’s zero-tolerance policy at least four times in the first ten paragraphs, leaving the implicit suggestion that the Trump administration is responsible for the alleged abuse.”

The AP sneakily admitted in the 20th paragraph that the alleged abuse began in 2016 — during the Obama administration — but never bothered to mention Obama’s name in connection with the report.

31. KAVANAUGH CLERK FLASHED ‘WHITE POWER’ SYMBOL

Former Brett Kavanaugh clerk Zina Bash, who was sitting behind the Supreme Court nominee during his hearings, was accused of flashing a white supremacist symbol on camera.

The accusation stemmed from a video clip that showed Bash’s hand resting on her arm with the “OK sign,” a symbol that leftists have claimed actually signals “white power.”

Far from being a white supremacist, Bash is Mexican and Jewish and her grandparents were Holocaust survivors.

“The attacks today on my wife are repulsive,” Bash’s husband said. “Everyone tweeting this vicious conspiracy theory should be ashamed of themselves. We weren’t even familiar with the hateful symbol being attributed to her for the random way she rested her hand during a long hearing.”

32. MEDIA CLAIMS OBAMA DIDN’T SEPARATE FAMILIES AT THE BORDER

Several reporters claimed during the uproar over President Donald Trump’s family separations at the border that President Barack Obama never separated families.

However, reports from McClatchy and statements from former Obama administration officials revealed that, yes, Obama did separate some families who crossed the borderillegally.

MCALLEN, TX – SEPTEMBER 08: A girl from Central America rests on thermal blankets at a detention facility run by the U.S. Border Patrol on September 8, 2014 in McAllen, Texas. The Border Patrol opened the holding center to temporarily house the children after tens of thousands of families and unaccompanied minors from Central America crossed the border illegally into the United States during the spring and summer. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

“ICE could not devise a safe way where men and children could be in detention together in one facility,” Leon Fresco, a deputy assistant attorney general under Obama, said. “It was deemed too much of a security risk.”

COLUMN BY

Amber Athey

Media and Breaking News Editor. Follow Amber on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Media Was Still Unglued in 2018

Fake News Media’s Massive Failure

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by The Daily Caller is republished with permission.

Trump, Money and the Fed

December 23, 2018/in Culture War, Economy, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by John Michael Chambers

So who are these guys in this picture?Legendary author of The Creature from Jekyll Island”, researcher and film producer G. Edward Griffin, my good friend and founder of PollMole Dr.Richard Davis, (R.I.P.), Mad Max Mullen and oh a yeah, a much younger me, John Michael Chambers. This post, Trump, Money and the Fed lay the important groundwork and understanding for what President Trump has begun to take on.

Back in 2009 as the founder of the Save America Foundation a 501(c)(4), we held a large convention in Tampa, Florida sounding the alarm bells in our desperate individual and collective attempts to save America. fast forward. Donald Trump has blasted onto the scene. Some say he cannot handle the storm when in fact he is the storm. This really is a very important article. Please read on and share this post. People need to know to secure and expand our supportive base for President Trump for what lies ahead by end of Q1 2019, will be challenging.

The following has been excerpted and somewhat revised and edited from a book I wrote in 2014-2015 while in Belize and mostly in Thailand titled, “Misconceptions and Course Corrections”. Since Trump has begun taking on the Fed (Federal Reserve), I thought it would be good to gain a better understanding of what money actually is, who the Fed is, how they came to be and what it is that they have done. This is about to come to be challenged and changed forever beginning after in 2019. I will be writing about this historical event as it unfolds. It has already begun. But for those that need a better understanding of the Fed, I have resurrected this chapter. Here goes…

What is Money?

What is money? Money is an idea backed by confidence,which is used as a means of exchange, rather than say barter. Today we live in a debt based monetary system. Some say that money is the root of all evil; I disagree with this. There was a period of time many a moon ago where money did not exist, yet there was plenty of evil around. My best guess (I could be wrong), is that people who misuse life’s energy are the root of all evil, not money. Money is not evil and abundance is wonderful; there are evil people.

In this world it seems we have assigned power to money. It’s a pretty big agreement since everyone seems to be trying to acquire the stuff. So to that end, money is power in the sense that it is the means by which one can acquire tangible items, own things, have things,influence people and agendas, as well as affording perhaps better healthcare,better food, some things luxury, and all things essential to survival. Money allows one to participate in many things as well as to travel. The person with money can also take advantage of various opportunities to explore many new aspects and experiences in life than a person without money. Having said all that, money is still not the measure of the man (woman).

Money can’t buy contentment or happiness or love, but it can ease the experience of life and living if handled properly.There is nothing wrong with acquiring great wealth. It’s what you do with this great wealth that helps determine the character of the person. Some people, as we know, become very greedy and misuse the power that comes with having lots ofmoney, and this can be seen in many ways. Others put that money to good use,such as a quality home, education for children and young adults, trust accountsfor posterity, and many are philanthropic or charitable.

History, Digging in a Little Deeper

Presently and since 1944, the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, and this, coupled with a great change that is currently taking place which will affect every person on the planet (which we will discuss a bit further on), is why we must understand more about the U.S.dollar and the debt based monetary system.

Many Americans and people throughout the world believe that the Federal Reserve in the United States is part of the Federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Federal Reserve is no more a government agency than Federal Express! Check this video at marker1:09. Even former Fed chairman AlanGreenspan agrees.Freedom to Fascism, in case you missed all those years ago, can be viewed here. An absolute must see.

It is imperative if you want to understand how the money system works that you procure a copy of “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” a second look at the Federal Reserve by the legendary author, researcher, and film producer, Mr. G.Edward Griffin. This book will outline in great detail the formation of the Federal Reserve System.Below is a summary.

1910

In November of 1910, on Jekyll Island,Georgia, seven men who represented directly or indirectly one fourth of the world’s wealth, met in secrecy for nine days. It is there, at this location,where the Charter of the Federal Reserve was drafted. The Federal Reserve is a privately held for profit corporation,a banking cartel. The main objective for a corporation is to make a profit, and they do indeed make a profit. Let’s take a brief stroll through history as we look into the formation of the Federal Reserve and the results of the Federal Reserve Charter that was enacted into law by the U.S. Congress in1913.

J.P. Morgan, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Piatt Andrews, Frank Vanderlip, Henry P. Davison, Paul Warburg, and Charles D.Norton arranged for hundreds of millions of dollars to be poured into the campaigns of the most powerful members of Congress. In 1912, they backed an obscure Princeton professor for President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson.He later became President.

The Coup’ of 1913

Late on Tuesday December 23, 1913, just days after the Christmas recess had commenced, a secret Senate vote was“arranged” with only a few Senators remaining in Washington D.C.The act passed with 43 voting “yea” and 25 voting “nay.” 27 did not vote since they had not been notified and had already left town to go home for the Holidays. All had previously expressed their opposition to the act. So on Dec 23, 1913, their plan worked by one of the most cunning manipulations in parliamentary history;Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.In its charter, the act clearly states as its main objective: “To provide the action with a safer,more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.”

This means of a fractional reserve debt system controlled by a private for Profit Corporation has not worked out too well for the American people and thus the world to a greater or lesser extent.I mean we do not have a more stable monetary financial system at all.What we have is a debt based monetary system no longer backed by gold or silver. We have a currency that will soon be replaced as the world’s reserve currency. The Federal debt alone is $19 trillion dollars. It is mathematically impossible topay off this debt which will in a couple of short years will soon reach $22trillion and will make the U.S. situation look like Greece on steroids! Therefore “a safer, more flexible and more stable monetary and financial system” as set forth in this charter clearly has not worked out so well. And so by this means of fractional reserve banking,governments may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people and not one man in a million will detect the theft. This system of fractional reserve banking and the printing of all this fiat (now digital fiat) currency,is purely inflationary and the U.S. dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power since its inception.

1944 The Bretton Wooods Agreement

Another critical factor, which contributed to the rise of power in America, was the Bretton Woods agreement of1944. The Bretton Woods system of monetary management established the rules for commercial and financial relations among the world’s major industrial states in the mid-20th century. The BrettonWoods system was the first example of a fully negotiated monetary order intended to govern monetary relations among independent nation-states. It is through the Breton Woods agreement that the U.S. dollar became the world’s “reserve currency.

Preparing to rebuild the international economic system as World War II was still raging, 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations gathered at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods,New Hampshire, United States, for the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference.

The delegates deliberated upon and signed the Bretton Woods Agreements during the first three weeks of July 1944. Setting up a system of rules, institutions, and procedures to regulate the international monetary system, the planners at the Bretton Woods Agreements during the first three weeks of July 1944. Setting up a system of rules, institutions, and procedures to regulate the international monetary system, the planners at Bretton Woods established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD),which today is part of the World BankGroup. These organizations became operational in 1945 after a sufficient number of countries had ratified the agreement.

The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate by tying its currency to the U.S. dollar and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary payments. Simply stated, the power centers of the world met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire and it was decided that international trade and settlements such as the purchase of oil for example, must be exchanged with the U.S. dollars. This meant that the central banks of these nations were required to have sufficient U.S. dollars.

As a result, the increasing global demand for the U.S. dollar continued and based on supply and demand this kept the dollar strong. Another reason for this decision in 1944 is due to the fact that up until that point in history, America’s currency was kept under control without runaway inflation as the U.S. dollar was backed by gold and silver and the trust and confidence in the US.Dollar was strong. Confidence is the critical underlying factor that keeps the financial structures and systems in place.Including confidence in the currency itself. In fact it can be stated that money is nothing more than an idea backed by confidence and a means to easily facilitate trade and keep order. What happens when this confidence is shattered?

1971 – The Nixon Shock

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the dollar to gold. As a result, the Bretton Woods system officially ended and the dollar became fully ‘fiat currency,’backed by nothing but the promise of the federal government. This action, referred to as the Nixon shock, created the situation in which the United States dollar became a reserve currency used by many states. From the1970’s and forward, Americans enjoyed what is considered to be a lavish lifestyle in comparison to most countries around the world.

Lesson from the Dustbin of History

“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”– Amschel Rothschild, Mayer and German banker. He was the founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty.

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch its currency.” “The best way to crush the bourgeoisie (middle class), Is to grind between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” – Vladimir Lenin, Chairman of Russia’s Council of peoples Commissars 1917-1924

“By a continuing process of inflation,government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” –John MaynardKeynes, Fabian Socialist and father of Keynesian Economics

“The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress are irrelevant. Both congress is now being run by Alan Greenspan (Ben Bernanke today) and the Federal Reserve and America’s foreign policy is now being run by the IMF. When the President decides to go to war he no longer needs a declaration of war Money in our current system is nothing more than debt, and we have lots of it!.“ – Robert Reich 22nd U.S.labor Secretary

“The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest .” –President Abraham Lincoln

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” –President Thomas Jefferson

“Inflation has now been institutionalized at a fairly constant 5% per year. This has been determined to be the optimum level for generating the most causing public alarm. A 5% devaluation applies, not only to the money earned this year, but to all that is left over from previous years. At the end of the first year, a dollar is worth 95 cents.At the end of the second year, the 95cents is reduced again by 5%, leaving its worth at 90 cents, and so on. By the time a person has worked 20 years, the government will have confiscated 64%of every dollar he saved over those years. By the time he has worked 45 years,the hidden tax will be 90%. The government will take virtually everything a person saves over a lifetime.” – American Author, Researcher and Filmmaker, G. Edward Griffin

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” – President Woodrow Wilson, aftersigning the Federal Reserve into existence

Money in our current system is nothing more than debt, and we have lots of it! Weeks away from http://usadebtclock.com/$22Trillion and that’s just the Federal debt alone!

Concluding Remarks

So the Federal Reserve, a private for profit baking cartel,comes to the table with no “skin in the game.” They unleash what is now digital fiat currency with no tangible backing or accountability into the banking system and this is then leveraged by Fractional Reserve Banking. The banks then can loan out these dollars (with a multiplier of 10 or 100 or more times the amount than they received from the Fed.), to other banks, to governments, corporations, and individuals and charge an interest rate. They typically own title for example, as in a mortgage or car loan. And when they decide to“reap the harvest,” they seize the assets when the consumer is unable to survive in a jobless inflationary climate (which they helped to create). They also fund both sides of all wars for huge profits as the innocent little children are laid in shallow graves and billed as nothing more than “collateraldamage”.

This subject of Fractional Reserve Banking is also defined in great detail in a simple to understand format in the DVD titled“ Money as Debt”

This Federal Reserve Act of 1913,although passed by congress, was in contradiction to the United States Constitution which in Article 1, Section 8, Phrase5. It clearly states the following regarding money that “ have power to coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.“ This power was given to a private bank called the Federal Reserve in 1913. Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. back then said – “This Federal Reserve Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When President Wilson signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized. This is the worst legislative crime of the ages that has been perpetuated by this banking and currency bill. From now on, all depressions will be scientifically created.”

And since the inception of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Dollar has lost over 97% of its purchasing power. I believe the U.S. Dollar may experience a false sense of stability for the short to near term as the Euro and other currencies falter and fail, but once the U.S. dollar loses its world reserve currency status (at least as we know it) as the global financial reset is now upon us just a few short months from now (It is December23, 2018 as I write today), Trump will make his move against the Fed. Watch for my article on this in the coming days.

2019 and Beyond

It is because of this power and control which money affords that you will come to realize why governments and banks around the world are moving towards a cashless society. That’s right, a cashless society. If governments can control your money they can control your life. There are more and more laws, rules, and regulations in the U.S., Europe,and many places around the world restricting the amount of cash you can withdraw from your own accounts. Banks are now beginning to charge negative interest to hold your money.

Pulling cash from your bank or excessive international bank wires in any amount over a few thousand dollars, the banks can report you to the government as a “suspicious person,” potential money launderer, or terrorist, and a series of such withdrawals can put you in violation of criminal structuring/money laundering regulations, with huge fines and jail sentences. The ultimate goal of the global socialists is to eliminate all cash on a global basis and force everyone on the planet into the computerized electronic banking/credit card system. Cryptocurrencies have gained much momentum (albeit very volatile).

This will eventually lead to the National ID card, then the Global ID card, and then the chip through injection. This is the ultimate control and this is the direction the world is presently heading.I recommend getting a copy of the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor report May 2015 titled “War on Cash”, orread more about this in my archived articles section under “financial”.

So What to Do About All This?

There will be quite the bloodbath in the stock, bond and real estate markets. In fact, this has just begun. Support President Trump. Stay the course. Awaken others. Turn off the fake news. It is poisoning your mind, thoughts and feeling world and making you miserable. Follow Q-There is a plan.Stay informed. Sign up to receive my weekly articles to your in box via this FREE RSS Feed.

Surveys indicate that people no longer trust the media for news, politicians for the truth, or that Wall Street has Main Street’s best interest in mind. The John Michael Chambers Report informs and empowers individuals in a changing world. Sign up. Be informed and empowered. Stay connected.

As to your personal finances? The time for action is now. While so many others will continue to operate in the deceitful and flawed modalities being advised by an industry they no longer trust, critical thinkers see the dangers and opportunities. But you must act. A great change is on the near term horizon. The time for action is now. You can survive and thrive through the battle that has just begun for global currency supremacy. Got questions? I can help. Contact me.

Video Commentary

Beginning 2019, I will be providing a short weekly commentary video reflecting on the state of affairs as they unfold weekly. There will be unprecedented events occurring in 2019 and 2020. We will make sense of the madness as Trump takes on the Fed and the Deep State. The first video will be launched here on January 6, 2019 and each Sunday thereafter. Until then, have a Merry Christmas!
See you soon!

Saying You’re Against Fascists Doesn’t Excuse Acting Like One

December 23, 2018/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Culture War, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Despite claims that Antifa fights fascism, the group’s tactics actually mirror those of Benito Mussolini’s regime.

On March 23, 1919, Benito Mussolini, an Italian veteran of the Great War and a publisher of socialist newspapers, created the Fasci di Combattimento (commonly known as the Fascist Party) with the help of a few syndicalist friends.

Nearly one hundred years later, the word fascism remains at the forefront of our political discourse even though fascism is all but dead as a political force, and the word has lost much of its meaning (if not its power).

So why are we still talking about fascists?

The Rise of Antifa

On November 8, the late-night TV host Stephen Colbert took to Twitter to condemn a mob that had attacked the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

“Fighting Tucker Carlson’s ideas is an American right,” Colbert wrote. “Targeting his home and terrorizing his family is an act of monstrous cowardice. Obviously, don’t do this, but also, take no pleasure in it happening. Feeding monsters just makes more monsters.”

The attackers consisted of a group who called themselves Antifa. Few Americans had heard the word “Antifa” prior to 2016. But that’s no longer the case.

In addition to the attack on Carlson’s home, numerous high-profile incidents involving Antifa—the “Battle of Berkeley,” the tragedy in Charlottesville, and a series of street battles in Portland—have thrust the loosely organized political group into the national spotlight. (It’s difficult to miss gangs of black-clad individuals who wear masks, tote weapons, and pick fights with political opponents.)

Antifa, if you have not already guessed, is short for anti-fascism. Conduct a Google search, and you’ll see Antifa oppose fascist ideologies, people, and groups.

This is part of the brilliance of Antifa. Unlike most fringe political groups, Antifa is not named for something. Their name expresses opposition to an ideology, one that is at once vile and nebulous.

We’re All “Fascists” Now

More than seven decades ago, the British writer George Orwell observed that the term fascism had lost any coherent meaning.

“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable,’” Orwell wrote in his essay “Politics and the English Language.”

Because of the ambiguous nature of the word, Antifa and other alt-left groups have been able to brand thinkers as diverse as Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan B. Peterson, and Ben Shapiro as “fascist.”

Moreover, by branding themselves as “antifascist,” Antifa inoculate themselves from the criticism that usually is directed toward extremist groups.

Colbert’s condemnation of Antifa’s attack on Tucker Carlson’s home notwithstanding, there has been a cultural reluctance to condemn Antifa’s political violence and tactics.

In 2017, following the tragic events in Charlottesville, which involved a showdown between white supremacists and Antifa members, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said it was wrong to equate fascists and anti-fascists.

“No, not the same,” Romney tweeted. “One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.”

Fascists and Antifa: Not as Different as You Think

Romney expressed a common belief, but Antifa is hardly the polar opposite of fascism. An examination of Antifa and the fascists of the 1920s and 1930s reveals striking similarities.

Many historians and political writers describe fascism as a right-wing movement, and the claim has an element of truth to it. When Mussolini and his syndicalist friends created the Fasci di Combattimento, it’s true they embraced Italian nationalism. Yet the party also called for the seizure of church lands, the confiscation of finance capital, and the abolition of the Italian monarchy and Senate.

In fact, Mussolini was an ardent Marxist for years. The son of a socialist-anarchist craftsman, he was well-versed in the works of Karl Marx, whom he praised as “a magnificent philosopher of working-class violence.” The extent to which Mussolini’s fascists simply copied their socialist predecessors has often been overlooked.

In his magnum opus Modern Times, the historian Paul Johnson explains that Mussolini was highly influenced by Kurt Eisner, who was cited several times in Mussolini’s fascist programme. Eisner’s “Bavarian fighting squads,” which inspired Mussolini’s Fasci di Combattimento, were themselves inspired by Lenin’s “men in black leather jerkins,” Johnson points out. Mussolini’s use of the term “vanguard minorities” to describe the shock troops of his revolution was almost certainly inspired by Lenin’s “vanguard fighters” (a term Lenin first used in 1903).

Communists and fascists of the 1920s and 1930s were unified by one thing above all else: their willingness to use political violence to achieve political goals. Mussolini, like Lenin, had no qualms about using violence in his effort to “make history, not endure it” (a Marx quote Mussolini was fond of employing).

The Perils of a Philosophy of Violence

The use of violence to attain political goals is a stance Antifa similarly embraces.

Antifa openly advocates and employs violence and intimidation. Like Mussolini’s “vanguard minorities,” they dress in black garb (though Antifa members often also cover their faces) and use intimidation and violence to prevent political opponents from assembling. These tactics include launching feces at law enforcement and using bricks, bats, chains, and knives in their street wars.

The methods are ostensibly reserved for fascists, yet so many have shown a willingness to overlook the fact that Antifa is employing fascist tactics. Antifa is given a pass because labeling the other side as “fascist” automatically makes them “good,” for they are the ones fighting against fascism. It’s a brilliant rhetorical trick. As Chris Cuomo said in defense of Antifa on a carefully-worded CNN segment in August, “fighting against hate matters.”

In a moral universe where the ends justify the means, using fascist tactics to fight fascists (or people deemed fascists) is entirely proper. The dangers of embracing the philosophy of violence, however, are severe. For as Solzhenitsyn observed, the first casualty of violence is the truth.

“Violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood,” the Russian writer observed prior to his exile from the Soviet Union. “Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle.”

Solzhenitsyn’s point is one Antifa should seriously consider. If they do not, and they persist in their defense and employment of violence as a means to their political ends, Antifa will continue to be “interwoven with falsehood.” Their grandiose aims will prove as empty and sterile as those of the Jacobins and Bolsheviks who preceded them.

In our next piece on the rise of Antifa, we will explore the root of their philosophy and examine precisely why they think it’s justifiable to use fascist techniques in the name of fighting fascism.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. Serving previously as Director of Digital Media at Intellectual Takeout, Jon was responsible for daily editorial content, web strategy, and social media operations. Before that, he was the Senior Editor of The History Channel Magazine, Managing Editor at Scout.com, and general assignment reporter for the Panama City News Herald. Jon also served as an intern in the speechwriting department under George W. Bush.

Tyler Brandt

Tyler Brandt is a Content Associate at FEE. He is a graduate of UW-Madison with a B.A. in Political Science. In college, Tyler was a FEE Campus Ambassador, President of his campus YAL chapter, and Research Intern at the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column from FEE with images is republished with permission.

Restoring Civilization: We Can’t MAGA Unless We MAMA

December 23, 2018/in Culture War, Featured, Policy, Politics/by Selwyn Duke

They can sense it. They can feel it. Something is seriously wrong in our civilization, and many people know it. This is why despite the relatively good economic times, most Americans polled say our country is on the “wrong track.” Yet many are like a gravely ill man who knows he’s not well but can’t precisely identify his ailment. Most often, Americans have only a vague sense of cultural malaise, or they “self-diagnose” wrongly.

Years ago I had a brief “state of the nation” discussion with a very fine, older country gentleman. While no philosopher, he did offer the following diagnosis. Struggling for words and gesticulating a bit, he said, “There’s…there’s no morality.”

Most believe morality is important both personally and nationally. We generally agree that an immoral man treads a dangerous path; of course, it’s likewise for two immoral men, five, 53 or 1,053 — or a whole nation-full.

Echoing many Founders, George Washington noted that “morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” The famous apocryphal saying goes, “America is great because America is good, and if she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” For sure, we can’t MAGA unless we MAMA — Make America Moral Again.

Yet if immorality is the diagnosis and restoring morality the cure, we must know what this thing called “morality” is. Ah, that’s where agreement can end.

Talk to most people today — especially the people who study people, sociologists and anthropologists — and they’ll “identify morality with social code,” as Sociology Guide puts it. They’ll essentially say what sociologists Durkheim and Sumner do, “that things are good or bad if they are so considered by society or public opinion,” the site continues. “Durkheim stated that we do not disapprove of an action because it is a crime but it is a crime because we disapprove of it.” Yet true or not, would the majority really view an action as a crime, in the all-important moral sense, if they came to believe it was true?

Consider a man I knew who once proclaimed, “Murder isn’t wrong; it’s just that society says it is.” Clearly, “public opinion” isn’t swaying him much.

Yet how do you argue with him? Barring reference to something outside of man (i.e., God) dictating murder’s “immorality,” you’re left with a striking reality:

Society is all there is to say anything.

Then “Man is the measure of all things,” as Greek philosopher Protagoras put it.

Yet acceptance of the “society says” thesis presents a problem: Now you must convince others to equate “public opinion” with credible, binding “morality.” This is mostly fruitless because, frankly, it’s stupid.

Man’s opinion is just that — opinion. If the term “morality” is essentially synonymous, it’s a risible redundancy. If we’re acting as slick marketers, trying to elevate “opinion” via assignment of an impressive-sounding title, it’s false advertising. So if that is all we’re really talking about — “opinion” or “societal considerations” — let’s drop the pretense and just say what we mean:

We sentient organic robots (soulless entities comprising chemicals and water) have preferences for how others should behave (subject to change with or without notice). No, we can’t call these tastes “morality” — but, hey, we can punish the heck out of you for defying our collective will (see North Korea et al.).

To cement the point, consider my patent explanation. Who or what determines what this thing we call morality is?

Only two possibilities exist: Either man or something outside of him does. If the latter, something vastly superior and inerrant (i.e., God), then we really can say morality exists, apart from man. It’s real. Yet what are the man-as-measure implications?

Well, imagine the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla. Would this make vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? It’s just a matter of preference, of whatever flavor works for you.

Okay, but is it any more logical saying murder is “bad” or “wrong” if we only do so because the vast majority of the world prefers we not kill others in a manner the vast majority considers “unjust”? If it’s all just consensus “opinion,” it then occupies the same category as flavors: preference.

This is the matter’s stark reality, boiled down. It’s why serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer’s darkness-enabling attitude was, as his father related in a 1996 interview (video below; relevant portion at 40:26), “If it [life] all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules?” It’s why occultist Aleister Crowley, branded “the wickedest man in the world,” succinctly stated, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” (Preference Über Alles 101).

[Please insert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw0x0TxRO8]

This perspective engenders what’s often called “moral relativism,” the notion that “Truth” (absolute by definition) is illusion and what’s called “morality” changes with the time and people. But saying all is preference is actually moral nihilism, the belief that “morality” (properly understood) doesn’t actually exist — because, again, “opinion” isn’t morality.

Of course, few think matters through as thoroughly as a Dahmer or Crowley. (In fact, a possible reason sociopaths may possess above-average intelligence is that they’re smart enough to grasp the “morality” question’s two possibilities — either morality exists as something divinely-authored, something transcendent, or there is no morality — but draw the wrong conclusion.) Yet moral relativism/nihilism has swept Western civilization. And hell has followed with it.

How relativistic/nihilistic are we? A Barna Group study found that in 2002 already, most Americans did not believe in (absolute) Truth, in morality; in fact, only six percent of teens did. Thus are they most likely to base what once were called “moral decisions” on…wait for it…feelings. Surprise, surprise.

Such prevailing philosophical/moral rot collapses civilization. For anything can be justified. Rape, kill, steal, violate the Constitution as a judge, commit vote fraud? Why not? Who’s to say it’s wrong? Don’t impose values on me, dude.

To analogize it, imagine we fell victim to “dietary relativism/nihilism” and fancied the rules of nutrition nonexistent. With only taste left to govern dietary choices, most would indulge junk food; nutritional disorder would reign and health deteriorate. Moreover, considering one man’s poison another’s pleasure, we might sample those pretty red berries the birds gobble down. Hey, if it tastes good, eat it.

This reflects what’s befalling our “If it feels good, do it” Western civilization. Considering the rules of any system non-existent or irrelevant brings movement toward disorder — and a point where those who can impose their preferences restore order, a tyrannical one.

Having said this, discussing “Truth” and God evokes complaints, as the morally relativistic/nihilistic world view influences even many conservatives, and secularists find faith-oriented talk unsettling.

So let’s focus here on not faith but fact. As to this and the world’s Dahmers, Crowleys and the murder-skeptic man I knew, call them names, but don’t call them illogical. Within their universe of “data”— that “God doesn’t exist” and thus only organic robots can be the measure — they’re right: Murder’s status isn’t “wrong,” just “unpreferred.”

Note that moral principles cannot be proven scientifically any more than God’s existence; you can’t see a moral under a microscope or a principle in a Petri dish. Science only tells us what we can do, not what we should. Finding guidance on “should” necessitates transcending the physical and venturing into the metaphysical. It requires, pure logic informs, taking a leap of faith.

Something else not a matter of faith but fact is man’s psychology: People operate by certain principles. Like it or not, believing as Dahmer did (when young) about God leads to believing as he did about morality. “If man is all there is to make up rules, why can’t I just make up my own?”

As I put it in 2013, “Just as people wouldn’t abide by the ‘laws’ of physics if they didn’t believe they existed (the idea of jumping off a building and flying sounds like fun), and there weren’t obvious and immediate consequences for their violation (splat!), they won’t be likely to abide by morality if they believe its laws don’t exist.”

Of course, this rarely leads to serial killing. But it always — at population level — leads to serial immorality. This is an immutable rule of man.

So how should we combat our time’s moral relativism/nihilism? First, realize that from the Greek philosophers to the early/medieval Christians to the Founding Fathers, Western civilization was not forged by relativists/nihilists. It won’t be maintained by them, either. “If it feels good, do it” yields a healthy society even less than “If it tastes good, eat it” does a healthy body.

Thus, one needn’t have faith to understand that belief in Truth is utilitarian. As George Washington warned, “[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Second, know that moral relativism/nihilism’s appeal is that it’s the ultimate get-out-of-sin free card. After all, my sins can’t be sins if there are no such things as sins, only “lifestyle choices.” Yet also know that we can have this seemingly eternal but illusory absolution — or we can have civilization. We can’t have both.

So act as if Truth exists; seek it, speak it, love it, for it will set you free. Realize also that relativism is juvenile pseudo-philosophy. For if everything were relative, what you believed would be relative, too, and thus meaningless. So let’s talk about what’s meaningful.

The alternative? Well, it was expressed nicely by an old New Yorker cartoon. It featured the Devil addressing a large group of arrivals in Hell and saying, reassuringly, “You’ll find there’s no right or wrong here. Just what works for you.”

It’s an alluring idea — and a powerful one. It creates Hell on Earth, too.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

RELATED VIDEOS:

America’s Anti God Rebellion

The Make America Great Formula.

EDITORS NOTE: This article is the second in a series on exposing modern (liberal) lies, explaining the disordered leftist mind and restoring civilization. The first is here. The “American’t” essay, which illustrates our problems, is here. The edited featured photo by Jonny Swales on Unsplash.

Getting Priorities Straight: House Democrats and the Public

December 23, 2018/in Culture War, Gun Rights, Policy, Politics/by NRA Institute for Legislative Action

Anti-gun organizations and their sycophants would have you believe that the 2018 midterm elections were a referendum on gun rights. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi “vows to fight” for “bipartisan, common sense” gun control and announced gun control “will be a priority” even before she had secured the Speaker’s gavel. The eagerness to curtail Constitutional rights isn’t limited to Nancy Pelosi; Representative Mike Thompson, head of the Democrats’ “gun violence prevention task force” and incoming Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Representative Jerry Nadler are both on record confirming they’ll push gun control early next year.

As soon as they’re in power.

They claim that it’s what the American people want. So, is it?

According to a Gallup poll conducted earlier this month, gun control and guns rank at the very bottom of the list of what adults say is the country’s top problem – coming in at three percent.

That’s tied with the economy in general, unemployment, and ethical/moral/religious decline. Only slightly behind crime and violence (4%), and about half as highly ranked as several categories of social issues including race relations, poverty and homelessness, and healthcare.

The top two problems facing the country, according to adults nationwide, are government (19%) and immigration (16%). Both issues fall under the purview of Congress and yet the next Speaker of the House couldn’t announce the new majority’s intentions quickly enough despite a complete lack of evidence that so-called “universal” background checks will have an effect on crime. In fact, readers may recall one study, lauded by anti-gun organizations and talking heads, actually found that background checks are associated with an increase in homicides.

Of course, the model in that study was misspecified but that hasn’t stopped anti-gunners from using it to push their agenda.

In looking at Gallup data for this year, guns and gun control was cited by only 1% of adults as the most important problem facing the country in October of this year. That number doubled all the way to 2% in November, and the midterm election was right in the middle of the November survey period. Gallup has asked the most important problem question monthly and shared the results from June 2018 onward, and gun control has never been higher than 4% (June 2018).

The top two specific problems every month since early summer have been the government and immigration. Lest you believe that this is somehow unique to Gallup, let’s take a look at some other polling data.

A Marist Poll conducted from November 28th through December 4th of this year found that 8% of registered voters said guns should be the top priority for the next Congress. Immigration was the top issue (18%), followed by the economy and jobs (17%) and health care (17%). Guns weren’t even the top issue for Democrats, coming in tied for third with climate change. Health care (24%) and the economy and jobs (16%) were ahead. Six percent of Independents think guns should be the top priority, well behind the economy and jobs (18%), health care (17%), immigration (15%), federal taxes and spending (14%), opioid addiction (12%), and climate change (9%).

Suburban adults put four issues before guns. This is getting repetitive, but maybe eventually Representative Pelosi will align her priorities with the American people.

Probably not, but maybe.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NRA Statement on Bump Fire Stock Rule

Let Freedom Swing! Judge Rules Nunchucks are Second Amendment Arms, Chops New York Ban

Twist: American Criticizes UK Shooting Traditions?

EDITORS NOTE: This column by the NRA with images is republished with permission.

Net Neutrality Repeal: The Internet Apocalypse That Never Came

December 23, 2018/in Culture War, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Whether the naysayers are willing to admit it or not, less government regulation results in better outcomes for both companies and consumers.

This month marks one year since the FCC repealed the controversial net neutrality rules, officially killing the internet as we knew it forever—or so net neutrality proponents would have liked you to believe. But as we take a closer look at what has actually happened in the year since the rules have been abolished, we find that the (often hysterical) rhetoric doesn’t reflect reality at all. On the contrary, the internet has actually improved since regulations were relaxed.

Hysteria Ensued

The internet has been a household commodity available for public use since August 6, 1991. However, according to net neutrality’s most fervent supporters, the internet didn’t truly take off until February 2015, when the FCC passed and adopted the new rules.

In both the lead up to the vote on net neutrality and its subsequent repeal, mass hysteria ensued in which many people were honestly convinced that without government intervention, all the online services we enjoyed would cease to exist. In an article called “How the FCC’s Killing of Net Neutrality Will Ruin the Internet Forever,” the magazine GQ even went so far as to say:

Think of everything that you’ve ever loved about the Internet. That website that gave you all of the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City cheat codes. YouTube videos of animals being friends. The illegal music you downloaded on Napster or Kazaa. The legal music you’ve streamed on Spotify. …The movies and TV shows you’ve binged on Netflix and Amazon and Hulu. The dating site that helped you find the person you’re now married to. All of these things are thanks to net neutrality.

It’s rather shocking that this sentiment was so widely accepted as truth considering that every single one of the listed examples existed prior to net neutrality. In fact, the only reason the internet was able to become such an integral part of our lives was that it was left virtually untouched by regulatory forces. And since spontaneous order was allowed to occur, internet users were blessed with unbridled innovation that brought forth a robust variety of services, which GQ prefers to attribute to government action that wasn’t taken until nearly 24 years after internet use became the norm.

These small details were, of course, ignored by much of the public, and the panic continued. The ACLU joined the frenzy, telling readers that without net neutrality we “are at risk of falling victim to the profit-seeking whims of powerful telecommunications giants.”

We now realize that these dire warnings actually came to fruition, reminding us just how absurd the push for net neutrality rules was in the first place.

What Is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality sought to define the internet as a public utility, putting it in the same category as water, electric, and telephone services. Doing so left it open to regulatory oversight, specifically when it came to connection speeds and the price providers were allowed to charge consumers for its use.

The new rules mandated that each internet service provider was henceforth forced to provide equal connection speeds to all websites, regardless of content. Prior to its passage, providers had the freedom to offer different connection speeds to users, including the option to pay more for faster speeds on certain websites.

If, for example, Comcast noticed that a majority of its users were streaming content on Netflix, it might offer packages that charge extra for the promise of being able to connect to the site at quicker speeds. In reality, this is just the market responding to consumer demand, but not everyone saw it this way. Others saw it as an abuse of power by “greedy” internet service providers.

Then-President Obama praised net neutrality, saying:

For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information—whether a phone call, or a packet of data.

Unfortunately for those who think net neutrality rules are a good idea, the railroad industry serves as a perfect example of just how hazardous declaring consumer goods “public utilities” can truly be.

Like the internet, railroads changed the world by connecting us with people, ideas, and goods to which we did not previously have access. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created specifically to regulate railroads in order to “protect” consumers from falling prey to the “profit-seeking whims” of the railroad industry. Much like today, the concern was that powerful railroad companies would arbitrarily increase rates or partner with other companies in a way that harmed consumers, just like the aforementioned Comcast/Netflix example. And as a result, the ICC made the railroads public utilities. But the ICC ended up doing more harm than good.

As Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post writes:

The railroads needed ICC approval for almost everything: rates, mergers, abandonments of little-used branch lines. Shippers opposed changes that might increase costs. Railroads struggled to meet new competition from trucks and barges. In 1970, the massive Penn Central railroad — serving the Northeast — went bankrupt and was ultimately taken over by the government. Others could have followed.

Without the freedom to innovate and provide the best possible service to consumers without having to first jump through a series of regulatory hoops, the railroad industry’s hands were tied, and progress was stagnant.

In 1980, the negative impacts became too much for even the government to ignore, and the ICC was abolished. Shortly thereafter, the industry recovered. Not only did freight rates and overall costs decrease, but railroads were also finally able to make a profit again—something that became a struggle in the wake of the ICC’s creation. In other words, the repeal of regulatory oversight resulted in a win-win situation for all parties involved. And it appears the same is true of the repeal of net neutrality.

You’ve Got to Admit It’s Getting Better

If we were to believe the hype being spread last year, by now the sky should have fallen and the internet made obsolete or exorbitantly expensive, as Banksy implied, from the lack of oversight. But that has not been the case. Instead of costs skyrocketing or connection speeds slowing down, things have actually gotten much better.

According to Recode, internet speeds actually have increased nearly 40 percent since net neutrality was abolished. Uninhibited by government regulations, service providers have been free to expand their fiber optic networks, allowing for greater speed:

Finally some good news: The internet is getting faster, especially fixed broadband internet. Broadband download speeds in the U.S. rose 35.8 percent and upload speeds are up 22 percent from last year, according to internet speed-test company Ookla in its latest U.S. broadband report.

You’d think this news would have inspired a slew of “oops, we were wrong” articles to be written by those who worked so diligently to spread fear in the lead-up to the repeal. But this has not been the case.

Wired, which published many articles in favor of net neutrality, did publish an article called “A Year without Net Neutrality: No Big Changes (Yet),” where it admits that none of the scary predictions actually came true. But it still clung to its paradoxical belief that an internet free from regulation is not truly free.

Whether the naysayers are willing to admit it or not, less government regulation results in better outcomes for both companies and consumers. So the next time we are told that a lack of regulation is going to be the end of life as we know it, we would do well to remember what really happened when the government finally freed the internet from its grasp.

COLUMN BY

Brittany Hunter

Brittany is a senior writer for the Foundation for Economic Education. Additionally, she is a co-host of Beltway Banthas, a podcast that combines Star Wars and politics. Brittany believes that the most effective way to promote individual liberty and free-market economics is by telling timely stories that highlight timeless principles.

EDITORS NOTE: This column by FEE with images is published with permission.