When the Left says “social justice” hold on to your freedoms

“Social Justice” is a term you hear almost every day. But did you ever hear anybody define what it actually means? Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute tries to pin this catchall phrase to the wall. In doing so, he exposes the not-so-hidden agenda of those who use it. What sounds so caring and noble turns out to be something very different.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/rtBvQj2k6xo[/youtube]

You can support Prager University by clicking https://www.prageruniversity.com/dona…. Free videos are great, but to continue producing high-quality content, even small contributions are greater.

Petroleum exports: good for consumers, coffers, companies by Paul Driessen

Eliminating prohibition on exporting US oil and gas will help families, security, allies.

America’s crude petroleum export ban is an antiquated byproduct of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Repeal is long overdue.

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has sent U.S. oil, natural gas, and propane production soaring. Natural gas output is up 36% since 2005. Oil output is expected to increase another 780,000 barrels per day (BOPD) in 2014 and reach 9.6 million BOPD by 2019. The United States is now importing half of what it did in 2005.

All this activity has created millions of oil patch and downstream jobs. Royalty and tax revenues have skyrocketed, and cheaper natural gas fuels and feed stocks have fostered a manufacturing and petrochemical renaissance.

Expanding natural gas use has also reduced carbon dioxide emissions, which should encourage people who still worry about “dangerous manmade climate change.”

petroleumbyproducts

For a larger view click on the pie chart.

Increased production has also enabled companies to export more gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, lubricants, and other finished products, since refined product exports were never prohibited. Indeed, U.S. refining capacity is at record levels.

However, because they were designed to process heavier crude oils, refineries are limited in how much domestic sweet crude they can handle. Exports would provide an important outlet for excess crude supplies. That in turn would encourage additional exploration and production, protecting jobs, further revitalizing our economy, and multiplying royalty and tax revenues.

That exploration and production must go beyond state and private lands, though. Opening more federal onshore and offshore lands to leasing and drilling is essential and would magnify these benefits many times over. These resources belong to all Americans, not only to those who oppose fossil fuel use.

In many cases, adding fracking to the equation would expand supplies even further, by making otherwise marginal plays more economic to produce, reinvigorating old oil and gas fields, prolonging oil field life, and leaving fewer energy resources behind in rock formations.

Asia needs the energy to fuel its growing economy and support its still inadequate petroleum production infrastructure. Most of Europe’s natural gas comes from Russia, which charges high prices, engages in energy blackmail, and is rattling sabers in Crimea, Moldova, and Ukraine.

Right now, many European countries prohibit fracking, and EU climate and renewable energy policies have sent business and family energy prices into the stratosphere, killing jobs and preventing families from heating their homes properly.

Expanding domestic U.S. oil and gas production and exports would aid EU workers and families, while also improving America’s gross domestic product, balance of trade, national security, job growth, and prestige. Contrary to what some have argued, American consumers would also benefit, because exports would help stabilize global supplies and prices, keep OPEC and Russian price hikers at bay, and make the United States less reliant on imports and less vulnerable to supply disruptions.

What actually hurts consumers are government and environmentalist opposition to leasing, drilling, fracking, pipelines, and hydrocarbons – and their support for expensive, land-intensive, water-hungry, lower-energy-content ethanol and biofuel “alternatives.”

It is possible that the current $9 per barrel difference between U.S. and global oil prices could shrink slightly if some oil is exported. Barclays Bank says eliminating the export ban could add $10 billion a year to overall national gasoline costs.

However, this potential increase is just 3% of an average household’s annual $2,912 gasoline outlay. That’s $87 a year or $1.68 a week – half the price of pumpinggasone Starbucks Latte Grande.

The consumer impact of America’s massive land and petroleum resource lockdowns is much higher.

Of course, realizing these benefits requires producing more, ending the export ban, and building more pipelines, natural gas liquefaction plants, and shipping facilities. That can and should be expedited.

Europe can and should produce more of its own oil and gas. It has vast petroleum potential waiting to be tapped via fracking. Opposition to producing this petroleum is no more ethical than environmentalist demands that the United States keep its own enormous untapped petroleum supplies locked up, while we deplete other countries’ assets and put their wildlife habitats at risk from production-related accidents.

Nor is it ethical or sensible for President Obama to ask Saudi Arabia to send us more oil, rather than telling his energy and environment regulators to foster more production here at home.

In short, America should produce more here at home, export both crude and refined petroleum to Europe and Asia, and support companies that want to take their fracking technology and expertise overseas.

These actions will benefit American companies, workers, families, consumers, balance of trade, environmental quality, and government revenues. We must not let anti-hydrocarbon ideologies or misinformed policy positions perpetuate this antiquated ban.

NOTE: This article first appeared in Investor’s Business Daily.

About Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is sponsoring the All Pain No Gain petition against global-warming hype. He also is a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

An Open Letter to Tallahassee: The FPSC has NO Jurisdiction over Health, Safety and Privacy

AN OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR SCOTT, FLORIDA STATE SURGEON GENERAL JOHN ARMSTRONG, FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI, AND FLORIDA STATE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES:

Please STOP forwarding the e-mails and letters you get from Florida residents pertaining to any health, safety or privacy issues for smart meters to the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) for resolution. It is pointless. The FPSC has determined in ORDER NO. PSC-14-0146-FOF-EI, issued on April 1, 2014 (was this an April fools joke?), Docket NO. 130223-EI the following (page 10):

“Since such health, safety or privacy concerns have not yet been addressed by the Commission the Protestors contend this is the appropriate venue to raise these issues which the Protestors believe are within the Commission’s jurisdiction. However, none of the Commission’s authorizing statutes confers upon it jurisdiction over personal health, safety or privacy issues raised by the Protestors. Nor is the Commission authorized to enforce these extra-jurisdictional issues, which are the purview of the other agencies.” (Emphasis added)

The bottom line is the Florida Public Service Commission has mandated that all 4.5 million customers must accept Florida Power & Light Company’s (FPL’s) smart meter or pay an extortion fee, but apparently they have NO jurisdiction to ensure health, safety or privacy for that product.

When you forward the letters you receive from residents to the FPSC, they turn around and send them a letter stating that there is a proceeding being protested by citizens on this matter and hearings will be held later this year. The FPSC gives them a link to the docket page. The residents go to the FPSC Docket page and find my e-mail and address (since I am one citizen with a protest filing pending on this docket) and the residents call or e-mail me.

Since the issues of health, safety and privacy raised in the petition have been denied by the FPSC, as they claim they have no jurisdiction, could you please do your job and tell the people of Florida directly that NO Florida government agency wants to take responsibility. Will you be brave and tell them yourself that

• our Florida State Constitution is null and void as it pertains to privacy rights in one’s own home or private property rights and that the utilities get to decide who owns the data taken from their homes and they are compelled to give it to the utility or they may alternatively pay a fine to keep it private?
• all issues of health, safety and privacy has been relegated to the Federal Government and are outside the jurisdiction of the Florida government (the republic is officially over)?

If this is not the case, I ask the Governor, Attorney General, State Surgeon General as well as each legislator (who has jurisdiction over the FPSC) – who in Florida’s government does have jurisdiction to ensure that Floridians health, safety and privacy are properly safeguarded from the FPSC Orders?

Here are some of the main issues:

HEALTH:

Issue 1: Many customers have alerted the FPSC that they have either medical conditions (sensitivities to RF radiation and electro-magnetic fields) or medical implants and devices for which their doctors have advised them to avoid exposure to RF radiation.

FPSC response – not my job. Take the meter or pay up to comply with doctor’s advice.

Issue 2: Many residents with or without prior sensitivities to RF radiation became ill when such smart meters were placed on their homes. When the device was removed, their good health was returned.
FPSC response – not my job. Take the meter or pay up to protect your health.

Issue 3: FCC guidelines and approval only cover acute short-term exposure to RF radiation. They do not test for or cover long-term chronic exposure or accumulated exposure to RF, nor do they consider any biological effects. You cannot turn a smart meter off to avoid exposure.

FPSC response – not my job.

Issue 4: The legislative branch gave the State Health Dept. jurisdiction over non-ionizing radiation in Statute 501.122 – Consumer protections.

FPSC response – no responsibility to coordinate with the Health Dept.

SAFETY:

Issue 1: Smart meters are installed on homes and businesses in places that are wide open and accessible to the general public. It is possible for any citizen to lean up directly against these meters. The FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization (OWS-NIC514) for the Silver Spring Network radio module (900 MHZ) for utility meters, that FP&L is using in their GE smart meter, states the following on its grant notes: “The antenna(s) used for the transmitter must be installed to provide a separation distance of at least 20cm from all persons and must not be co-located or operating in conjunction with any other antenna or transmitter.”
The vast majority of Florida citizens do not even know what a smart meter is or the fact that it contains two transmitters, one for the NAN and one for the HAN. They do not know to stay 20cm away. We also haven’t figured out how they can co-locate two transmitters.

FPSC response – not my job.

Issue 2: Smart meter installations have resulted in fires and damage to customer equipment and appliances.
FPSC response – not my job.

PRIVACY:

Issue: The smart meter contains a computer and storage and is taking detail measurements (4 hours today, 15 minutes in the future), which will be stored by the utility, and is available to all government agencies (Third Party Doctrine). Such data means surveillance of citizens in their homes and such data is NOT needed for billing. The FPSC is fully aware that each utility it regulates regards the ownership of such data differently.

FPSC response – not my job to develop privacy rules.

PROPERTY RIGHTS:

Issue 1: In 1988 under Order 18893, the FPSC, at FP&L’s request, transferred the ownership of the meter enclosure to the customer. They said that it was not part of the utility function and simply housed a meter. Therefore the customer must bear all the costs and burdens of ownership and maintain the meter enclosure. In 2010, the FPSC mandated the smart meter, which is really network management and communication equipment (that also contains a meter). Such equipment establishes a wireless neighborhood area network through the meter, performing more than measurement functions, on our homes. It violates the terms and conditions of Order No. 18893. Essentially customers now have the costs and burdens of ownership but no rights and privileges, such as refusal of equipment that does not satisfy the original terms.

FPSC response – we have the powers of police state. (That they do!).

Issue 2: Many Floridians own rental properties and do not wish this equipment placed on their buildings. If the electric is in their tenant’s name, FP&L claims they have no right to decide, the tenant gets to choose the equipment.

FPSC response – okay by me.

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING:

Issue: If you live in a multi-family dwelling and have a bank of meters behind your bed, how do you opt out?

FPSC response – we can’t answer that question so we will continue to ignore it.

Please direct your staff to prepare answers for the above issues and answer the inquiries from residents directly. I have decided that since I can’t answer their questions, I am now advising all residents that call me to vote Independent in this next election. If we get rid of the corrupt establishment politicians and officials and vote for an independent, such as Adrian Wyllie for Governor, who appears to be devoted to the Constitution, then maybe we can get a Public Service Commission that understands that they have two stakeholders – the utilities and the customer.

Question: Which Louisiana Teachers Wrote Common Core?

When I debated Stephanie Deselles of the Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL) in November 2013, she mentioned “three Louisiana teachers” who were involved in writing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

Never mind that “three” is an embarrassingly low number. Deselles provided no names.

During testimony on the writing of CCSS and its test, the Partnership for Assessment of College and Career Readiness (PARCC) test, Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) member Holly Boffy is unable to readily provide the names of Louisiana teachers who participated in writing CCSS to Louisiana State Representative Jerome “Dee” Richard.

Here is a powerful one-minute video on Boffy’s failure to answer:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/adRaM05Tulw[/youtube]

 

Note that Boffy has a clear conflict of interest from her financial connection to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), one of the CCSS license owners.

If it is only three teachers, as Deselles stated in November 2013, why is it so difficult for Boffy to offer specific names??

The Truth About the Minimum Wage

People don’t like to think that anyone’s labor is worth less than the minimum wage. Someone might end up flipping burgers for $5.00 an hour. You might think the minimum wage is a way of paying some sort of dignity premium–hence language like “living wage.” People with such good intentions look at the direct beneficiaries of these policies, say, burger flippers now making $7.50 an hour. They pat themselves on the back. But they rarely count the invisible costs: willing human beings who never get hired in the first place.

“But $5.00 an hour is not enough to live on!,” they’ll say. For whom? A teenager living at home with his parents? An elderly person who wants simply to stay active? A single mom with three kids? A single woman sharing an apartment with 2 roommates? Of course, not all of these people could live off of $5.00 an hour. But some of them could given the opportunity. Concerns about those who couldn’t don’t justify minimum wages even if we ignored the invisible costs of the policy, which include reduced margins to businesses that might otherwise grow (and hire more people).

In other words, if you take off the bottom two rungs of the income ladder, many will never climb it. That’s the effect of the minimum wage. The more cynical side of me says that’s how many politicians and the overpaid teamsters want it.

Enjoy this great video and some timeless pieces on the minimum wage by some of FEE’s excellent scholars.

– The Editors

The Truth About the Minimum Wage

[youtube]http://youtu.be/siW0YAAfX6I[/youtube]

 

Further Reading:

Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly by Walter Williams

“While there is a debate over the magnitude of the effects, the weight of research by academic scholars points to the conclusion that unemployment for some population groups is directly related to legal minimum wages. The unemployment effects of the minimum-wage law are felt disproportionately by nonwhites. A 1976 survey by the American Economic Association found that 90 percent of its members agreed that increasing the minimum wage raises unemployment among young and unskilled workers. It was followed by another survey, in 1990, which found that 80 percent of econo­mists agreed with the statement that increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth and low-skilled. Furthermore,­­ whenever one wants to find a broad consensus in almost any science, one should investigate what is said in its introductory and intermediate college textbooks.­ By this standard, in economics there is broad agreement that the minimum wage causes unemployment among low-skilled workers.”

Raising the Minimum Wage Will Do No Harm? It Just Ain’t So! by Richard McKenzie

“With the money-wage hike and the reduced benefits, workers can be left worse off since the fringes and slack work demands taken away were provided in the first place because workers valued them more highly than the wages forgone for those benefits. Given the findings of his own as well as other researchers’ studies, Wessels deduces that every 10 percent increase in the hourly minimum wage will make workers 2 percent worse off.”

The Minimum Wage: An Unfair Advantage for Employers by Donald Boudreaux

“Minimum-wage legislation prohibits wages from falling low enough to equate the number of people seeking jobs with the number of jobs being offered. As a result, the supply of unskilled labor permanently exceeds the demand for unskilled labor at the government-mandated minimum wage.
Minimum-wage legislation thus creates a buyers’ market for unskilled labor. And as in all buyers’ markets, buyers (employers) have an unequal bargaining advantage over sellers (unskilled workers).”
“There are three principal effects of this general increase in wage compensation:
1. Employers will tend to reduce non-wage compensation in an effort to minimize their overall production costs. That is, employer-provided benefits are a casualty of increases in the minimum wage.
2. As labor costs (generally) rise, producers will hire less labor and more capital. There is no worse time for labor generally (and unskilled labor specifically) to contemplate an increase in the minimum wage than when technological advances are reducing the cost of capital. The high cost of middle-management labor combined with rapid reductions in the cost of computer-processed information was the driving force behind the corporate restructuring of the late 1980s and early 1990s that put hundreds of thousands of white-collar workers in the unemployment lines.
3. Although it may appear that ratcheted-up wages benefit lower-wage employees, the appearance is deceptive. In the long run, less-skilled workers are disproportionately harmed by artificially induced increases in wages.”

Frank Woolworth and the Minimum Wage by DANIEL J. SMITH, ZAC THOMPSON

Woolworth’s five-and-dime stores pioneered a discount retailing model that was a godsend to consumers and employees across the country. Minimum-wage laws, however, would have kept their founder, Frank Woolworth, from even getting close enough to the retail business to have his moment of entrepreneurial insight.

Woolworth was born in 1852 in upstate New York to farmers. By contemporary standards, he grew up poor and deprived. He spent the vast majority of his childhood pitching hay, shoveling manure, feeding farm animals, and performing other duties required by his family’s farm. Little Frank’s farm life was so demanding at times that he had to sacrifice time spent in school.

By his 16th birthday, Woolworth knew he wanted out. His mother had saved for furthering Frank’s education, so he completed a semester of bookkeeping classes in nearby Watertown, New York. But classroom experience wasn’t enough; he had no relevant experience and failed to latch on anywhere. Frank spent an additional five years trapped in the life he longed to escape, until he heard of an opening at a dry goods store, Augsbury & Moore, in Watertown.

Uncertain and skeptical of Woolworth’s capabilities, Moore agreed to take a chance and bring Woolworth on for basic grunt work. When Woolworth asked how much he would be paid, Moore replied in an astonished tone, “Pay you? Why you ought to pay us for teaching you the business! When you go to school you have to pay fees. Well, we won’t charge you any tuition fee but you’ll have to work for nothing until we can decide if you are worth anything and how much.”

Initially, Moore wanted Woolworth to work for free for six months. While his lack of experience made opportunities hard to come by, Woolworth made up for it in part by negotiating the trial period down to three months, followed by a wage of $3.50 per week. It seems unfair at best, by contemporary standards, but Moore actually did Woolworth a favor by putting him on the course to vast wealth.

It got off to a rocky start. The inexperienced Woolworth habitually blundered during the trial period, requiring Moore to devote significant resources to training him and placating inadequately-served customers. But after the first three months, Woolworth earned steady, small increases, eventually attaining a comfortable $6 per week.

A minimum-wage policy would have precluded even this. With a minimum wage policy, competition among workers favors those with more experience, better education, and more connections. Should an employer have to choose between two workers, both of whom would be legally required to earn the same wage, any self-interested businessperson would choose the more qualified and certain choice, rather than bet on an inexperienced or uncertain worker. To Frank’s advantage, no such policy existed, and he could compete with higher-skilled workers by offering his services for lower compensation.

Woolworth made the most of his opportunity. Often working 82-hour work weeks throughout those early years, Woolworth consistently added skills, proving himself more than capable of clerical work, interior decorating, housekeeping, and bookkeeping. His newfound experience in business caught the eye of other employers, which brought him offers of higher wages. Arguably for the first time in his life, Woolworth was in control of his own destiny.

Leaving Augsbury & Moore to work for higher wages, Woolworth continued life in small business and recalled how Augsbury & Moore had a section of goods specifically designated to be sold at five cents per item. Designed to dispose of low quality goods or supplement consumers’ larger purchases, the five-cent section of Augsbury & Moore remained obscure and uninteresting, but Woolworth pondered the concept with intense curiosity. He realized that a real market existed for a store that exclusively sold five-cent goods. Approaching his former boss, Moore, for assistance, Woolworth managed to secure capital and a store location in Utica, New York, to experiment with his new idea. “Woolworth’s Great Five Cent Store,” launched in 1878, was initially a failure, but Woolworth kept at it. By 1881, Woolworth, along with his brother Charles, had developed a business model incorporating 10-cent merchandise and the chain had begun to flourish.

Woolworth’s 5 & 10 Cent Store quickly captured large sections of the retail market, allowing Woolworth to expand his business. Reaching out into larger cities, Frank began opening larger stores with a more diverse selection of goods. At the end of his first year in business in 1879, Woolworth had two stores in operation with gross sales of $12,024. Within 30 years Woolworth’s Stores had well over 200 locations, with gross sales of over $23 million. Woolworth’s business brought great wealth to him and his family, but more importantly it enriched the lives of millions of consumers and employees.

Domestically, Woolworth’s turned into a miracle-maker for the average poor consumer. Woolworth’s Stores made available cheap goods to lower-income individuals, particularly immigrants, improving their standard of living. It also employed thousands of people facing situations similar to young Frank’s.

Woolworth himself was well aware of this. In his annual letter in 1892, Woolworth wrote, “When a clerk gets so good she can get better wages elsewhere, let her go—for it does not require skilled and experienced sales ladies to sell our goods . . . It may look hard to some of you for us to pay such small wages but there are lots of girls that live at home that are too proud to work in a factory or do housework. They are glad of a chance to get in a store for experience if nothing more and when they get experience they are capable of going to a store which can afford to pay good wages. But one thing is certain: We cannot afford to pay good wages and sell goods as we do not, and our clerks ought to know that.”

Woolworth employees either moved up within the company or moved on to better opportunities outside of it. Alvin Edgar Ivie joined Woolworth’s at age 16 as an office assistant and retired decades later with both a city mansion and country estate. The son of a farmer, Charles C. Griswold, worked his way up to the position of Woolworth store inspector, writing detailed reports of stores for Frank Woolworth. In fact, a major motion picture and book in the 1920s, “The Girl from Woolworth’s,” actually featured a leading female character successfully rising from Woolworth counter girl to musical star.

A worker’s productivity determines the wage they will be able to secure in the marketplace. Thus, a minimum wage restricts occupational opportunities to only those workers productive enough to earn the minimum wage. Workers who do not have the education and experience to earn the minimum wage are denied the opportunity to gain the relevant training, experience, and references on the job that are necessary to raise their future productivity and wages. Instead of helping low-skilled workers, minimum-wage advocates take away their best opportunity to get into the market in the first place.

ABOUT DANIEL J. SMITH

Dr. Daniel J. Smith is an assistant professor of economics at the Johnson Center at Troy University.

ABOUT ZAC THOMPSON

Zac Thompson is a senior economics major at Troy University.

Revisited: Penn State’s ironic ‘child sex abuse’ conference

erickson2

Rodney A. Erickson, President of The Pennsylvania State University

Rodney A. Erickson, Ph.D., the new president of Penn State, delivered welcoming remarks to attendees at the very first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference Oct. 29-30, 2012. Erickson assumed the presidency Nov. 9, 2011, after the disgraced Graham Spanier was forced to resign as president following exposure of his foreknowledge of Coach Jerry Sandusky’s infamous rapes of young boys.

The 2009 well-funded Penn State Justice Center for Research partnered the conference with the College of the Liberal Arts and University Outreach. The Justice Center’s “press releases,” which appear on the Web, began in 2010. These press releases, like the October conference speakers, ignored the infamous child sex abuse Penn State network.

logoI never heard the names of former “Coach Sandusky” or “President Spanier” mentioned by a single carefully vetted Penn State child sex abuse speaker. Nor was there a mention of The Second Mile, the nonprofit charity founded by Sandusky & Co. – of course, to help local underprivileged and at-risk youth. The conference speeches are posted on the Internet, so if someone noted these names or events when I sneezed, kindly email those citations to me.

While Mr. Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse in June 2012, Mr. Spanier has recently been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. In plainer English, Spanier is accused of a long-time cover-up of Sandusky’s homosexual child rapist preferences.

The conference, attended largely by sexuality “experts,” therapists and survivors, was visible in its denial of a multitude of related facts about the violation of children.

Indeed, many therapists and survivors in the audience were stunned to hear the famous keynoter boldly claim a steep decline in substantiated child sex abuse (Finkelhor) and public safety resulting from sex offender treatment (Kaufman).

Although it would be dandy to believe Finkelhor and Kaufman’s fantasy “statistics,” telling us that all is improving so we must be doing things right, one critic said the massive child sex abuse decline parroted by the sexperts suffers from “the smell test – we on the ground see the problem of child sex abuse getting worse, not better.”

In fact, the expert child abuse denier, Dr. David Finkelhor, is the director of the Crimes against Children Research Center, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory and professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Finkelhor has so successfully pleased all big-government political administrations that he – like the Kinsey Institute and similar agencies – has received government grants from 1978 to today.

Despite the exposure of 5,200 Pentagon staffers found downloading “child pornography,” neither this well-known phrase nor “pornography” make it into the sexperts’ prevention lexicon. Who were these people at Penn State to protect? Not children.

Earlier in writing about pornography’s link to adult and child rape, I exposed some of the phony stats cooked by law professor Glenn Reynolds. Glenn and Northwestern law professor Anthony D’Amato claim “Porn up, Rape down” – with psychologists and therapists grabbing onto that shibboleth like a hungry dog on a bone.

The child abuse speakers didn’t dare claim, like D’Amato, that since “teenagers and adults” are using pornography fewer children are raped, yet their silence strongly implied that is the case. They all know the truth. U.S. News and World Report (April 24, 2000) said, “Facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the New York PPD’s Sex Crime Unit sat on (thousands of) reports of rapes and other sexual assaults.” One officer snarled, “The way crime was solved was with an eraser.”

In 2000 even the FBI admitted that one district “failed to report between 13,000 and 37,000 major crimes.” “A 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report found from 1997-1999, of 300,000 sex crime reports, thousands of rapes got relabeled ‘investigation of persons’ or ‘investigation, protection, and medical examination’ – non-crime codes.” “This puts one in four rapes in a non-crime category.”

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (ret.), a West Point psychology professor, said, “Violent crime … is still about five times greater today, per capita, than it was in 1957.” He adds, “We’d have to let 1.5 million convicted offenders go to get down to a 1970s-level incarceration rate. We are lying about the
data.”
The National Institute of Justice Managing Adult Sex Offenders (1997) reported: “The number of adults convicted annually of rape, child molestation, or other forms of sexual assault and sentenced to state prisons more than doubled between 1980 (8,000) and 1992 (19,100). In 1994, state prisons held 88,100 sex offenders compared to 20,500 in 1980.”

Adds Grossman, “Crimestat” had cops bring down crime. “When the NYPD police union went over the data the crime rates doubled in New York City.” Other than murder (reduced via medical technology), “police artificially ‘bring crime down,’ we cook the books.”

The American Police Beat,” May 2005 quotes Denver Police Lt. James D. Ponzi, a Regis University professor: “Compstat turned into ‘Compscam’ as departments cooked the books to lower crime rates,” never making it into the “National Incident Based Reporting System [NIBRS].” Adds Ponzi, “These ‘lower’ rape statistics don’t reflect what is truly happening in sex related crimes.” For example, “LAPD reported a 28 percent drop in violent crime in 2005, the same year the department reclassified domestic assaults in which the victim suffered minor injuries or had no injuries.”

“In Atlanta, 22,000 crimes were left out of the crime reports. In New York, the crime rates doubled in a precinct when the proper classification was applied by the police union. The list goes on.” Bureaucrats are happy, but “the citizens … get nothing but a false sense of security about the safety of their cities.” Although pornography is absolutely causal in child sexual abuse, other critical falsehoods were given to the attendees.

Again ignoring the massive increase in child sex abuse that coincides with “school sex ed,” Finklehor wants more of the same to lower child sex abuse rates. He claims boys who are “gay” should be supported in their decisions, without any reference to any sex abuse that these boys probably experienced. Hence we lower rates of child sex abuse by labeling children “gay” and saying they liked it.

All speakers ignored the fact that younger victims are more likely to have developed traumatic amnesia; they ignore the increasingly violent nature of child sex abuse, pedophile rings, pedophile proponents, child sex trafficking, institutions harming large numbers of children, child protective services workers refusing to protect and instead reunifying children inappropriately, courts ordering children to live with reported offenders and coordinated disbelief of children when they report sex abuse. Attorneys and advocates in divorce situations advise their clients not to report child sex abuse, since the children are almost always placed with the abusers (Neustein & Goetting 1999 and Steubner, 2011).

Finkelhor also claims “low” recidivism for sex offenders. Ludicrous. Numerous studies show a steady increase in recidivism over time. One attendee stated, “Dr. Kaufman’s talk was disturbingly offender friendly.” Statistics are commonly used to falsify reality. I’ve written extensively on that in my books on the statistical and criminal frauds of Alfred Kinsey. Interesting, that one of the speakers defined statutory rapists as children’s “partners,” the word coined by Kinsey for child rapists.

The speakers claims that a rapist is a child’s “partner,” that children are “engaged in prostitution” and that “children with a crush” can lie to have sex speaks to adopting a predator worldview.

The objection to sex offender registration as “draconian measures” is more predator-protector language, as is, “Children may like the attention,” and “not all victims experience problems.” These claims are disingenuous since problems develop throughout the life cycle and there is no way to assess that truth. “Kids having problems prior to the abuse put them at risk of being abused” again lays the blame on the children. All this while hiding the role of mainlining pornography as the primary culprit in child-on-child and adult-on-child sex abuse.

A very serious complaint came from one survivor who said, “The family courts are really criminal enterprises. Even the Center for Missing and Exploited Children is part of the problem. I collected fliers over five years and found that NCMEC sent four times more fliers looking for women abductors than for men, although men abduct more often. I was appalled. I confronted the president and shortly NCMEC stopped sending fliers and moved to the Internet.”

As violent sex crimes increase, including all sodomy and use of objects, and photos, etc., many professionals, themselves users and/or abusers, must minimize the horror of the growing child sex abuse pandemic. To many hearing these speakers, this appears to have been the subtext of the first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference.

RELATED GRAPHIC:

Gerald_Sandusky_Sexual_Abuse_Findings_of_Grand_Jury

Gerald Sandusky Sexual Abuse and Related Cover-ups. Illustrated from “Report of Thirty Third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury”. Pennsylvania Attorney General. Retrieved 10 November 2011. For a larger view click on the chart. Chart courtesy of Skoch3.

RELATED ARTICLE: Assemblyman Travis Allen: California Democrats legalize child prostitution – California Political Review

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo “Penn Campus” was taken by Bryan Y.W. ShinThis file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

All Those Obamacare Stories You Told Us Were Untrue

“There’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue.” – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

“Many of the tall tales that have been told about this law have been debunked.” – President Barack Obama

Amy Payne from Heritage writes, “Last week was ‘victory lap‘ week for liberals on Obamacare. After years of telling the American people that we just don’t understand the health law enough to love it properly, the president and his allies are now crowing that all debate should be over. Our readers have told us about Obamacare’s effects in their lives—hiking their insurance costs and canceling many of their plans. I guess Harry Reid thinks you guys made these up.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/UNeHvIJ1CmU[/youtube]

Payne notes:

But he didn’t stop with insulting everyday Americans. Reid took a dig last week at Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), himself a doctor who is resigning from the Senate to continue cancer treatment.

Coburn initially lost his cancer specialist when he was forced into the Obamacare system. But when Coburn voiced concern—from experience—about the lack of cancer treatment centers covered under Obamacare, Reid said he was just “getting into the weeds” and that “I think we need to look at the overall context of this bill.”

The editorial board of Investor’s Business Daily marveled :

We recently called Senate Majority Leader Reid “delusional” on another topic, but to that we can now add “callous” and “insensitive” — in his disregard of cancer sufferers and the hardships imposed on them by administration politics and ObamaCare.

… Reid coldly dismisses people such as Edie Sundby, a stage four cancer patient, who was told that the plan that had paid out $1.2 million and helped her survive all these years was substandard and would be canceled because it didn’t contain the one-size-fits-all coverage mandates of ObamaCare.

Meanwhile, President Obama exulted in claiming that the “tall tales” about Obamacare “have been debunked.” Was he talking about Obamacare’s job-killing effects? Its limiting of patient choices? Its forcing all Americans into a one-size-fits-all health care model?

Thankfully, this isn’t the end of the story. In the same week, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) released a blueprint for health care reform. Heritage experts have been working on patient-centered solutions for years. Americans know that the horror stories are real, and that there has to be a better way to go.

Massachusetts: Bill filed in State House to free Justina Pelletier

Bill to immediately free Justina Pelletier from state custody filed in Massachusetts Legislature, despite reluctance among politicians. The goal: Get Justina home by Easter! Everyone’s help is needed!

This past Friday, April 4, bill HD 1412, written by MassResistance, was filed in the Massachusetts Legislature. It will free Justine Pelletier from state custody immediately and return her to her parents’ custody. It is a simple and unambiguous solution to a situation that has become a national nightmare.

The goal is to have Justine back in Connecticut with her family for Easter — the end of next week. This could theoretically happen very quickly. But everyone’s help (even outside Massachusetts) is needed.

The battlefield will be here between now and Easter!

Passing a bill like this ought to be a “no-brainer.” But unfortunately in the Massachusetts State House it’s not. As usual, the politicians are full of fear and inertia. There is a disturbing reluctance to get involved, a stark contrast to the people across the country wringing their hands over this.

But as a famous US Senator once said, “When I feel the heat, I see the light.”We must make that happen on Beacon Hill!

National outrage over girl being taken from her parents by the state

Justina Pelletier’s shocking story has caused enormous outrage around the country and across the political spectrum. This nightmare needs to stop now.

Justine, a 16-year-old girl from West Hartford, CT, was being treated for a rare genetic disorder last year at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. At one point, a doctor from Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston examined her and decided that she instead had a mental disorder. When her parents and the Tufts doctors disagreed, Children’s Hospital and the Mass. Department of Children and Families (DCF) took her into state custody and put her in a psychiatric ward, where she has been for 14 months. It is outrageous.

Left: Before being taken by the state, Justine was very athletic. Below: After being taken by the state, she’s confined to a wheelchair.

A hostile Superior Court judge has repeatedly refused to release her. The judge even put a “gag order” on her parents. The parents are now only allowed to see Justina for an hour each week, and are not allowed to talk to her new doctor, according to her father. Since Justina has not been getting proper medical treatments, her health has deteriorating terribly, according to reports. There is fear that she may even die.

On Feb. 24, 2014, there was a hearing in Boston where the family’s lawyers were attempting to get Justina back from state custody. The judge would not budge. The emotion was so intense that Justina’s mother collapsed in the hallway outside the courtroom and had to be taken to an ambulance.
[MassResistance photos]

Attempts by well-meaning pro-family groups haven’t worked

Pro-family groups from around the country and even conservative politicians have been trying for months to help Justina. There have been petitions, rallies, prayer vigils, press conferences, appearances on national TV shows, calls for investigations into DCF, and endless venting on radio talk shows. So far none of this has worked. There is now talk about possible court appeals, lawsuits, and even funding cuts by Congress.

Justina and her family have waited too long. We must get her home by Easter. The time has come for action.

Above and right, supporters of Justina stood outside the courthouse in downtown Boston all day during February 24, 2014, hearing.
[MassResistance photos]

This approach WILL get it done.

The Legislature has the ultimate authority to act on this. It has the constitutional power to free Justina. And it could get it done very quickly – if it chooses to.

Most bills take months to work their way through the Legislature. But in fact, a bill can get passed in as little as one day. It happens more frequently than many people realize. For example, a few weeks ago the Legislature wrote, filed, and passed an anti-“upskirting” bill all in one day, after an SJC court decision came down that offended the Legislature. And there are many other examples.

But it takes the will to do it. That’s where all of us come in.

Fear and inertia in the State House

When we started this process at the State House, even we were surprised at how reluctant so many politicians — even Republicans — are to touch this issue Democrats are afraid of crossing the Governor, who apparently supports the DCF’s actions. Republicans are afraid of antagonizing their leadership, which isn’t interested in rocking the boat over this. Politicians in general are afraid of offending judges. And then there’s the fear of angering certain DCF special interests.

“It’s an unpleasant situation, but let it work its way through by itself,” seems to be the sentiment in the State House.

Rep. Lenny Mirra (R-West) agreed to file the bill.

Getting this bill filed at all wasn’t easy. Rep. Lenny Mirra (R-West Newbury) said he’d file it “by request” — which means that a constituent wants the bill filed but the rep is reluctant to file it as his own. Luckily, the constituent in this case is Lonnie Brennan, an outstanding pro-family activist and friend of MassResistance who runs the VoteCoreValues political website and was determined to see it through, or it might not have made it. Even then, it took two days to get the bill filed.

It gets down to the same old story: Citizens must make legislators MORE afraid of them than they are of the leadership and special interests. That’s how things get done!

HOW TO HELP GET JUSTINA HOME BY EASTER!

We don’t have much time, so we must get started immediately. Everyone can get involved on some level, even if you don’t live in Massachusetts.

There are 40 senators and 160 state representatives. They need to hear your anger and outrage. (see below)

We are creating a special Free Justina status page on our website. It will have all the current information on the bill and also a link to the list of all 200 reps and senators showing where they currently stand on this.

1. Can you go to the State House on Monday? (Or another day this week?) We need people to go to the State House and personally visit the offices of the reps and senators. And then get back to us exactly where they stand, so we can post it on the website. These personal visits are very important.

Handout to give reps and senators: The one-page text of the bill.

2. Call and email the reps and senators. This is very critical. And the ones who do not support Justina need to be contacted again. There cannot be too many calls and emails. And let us know what their response is.

3. Get the word out. Post this on websites and Facebook, etc. Call talk shows and get them to discuss this. Anything you can to spread the word. We will be posting and updating all the necessary information on www.MassResistance.org/justina

4. Regularly check our Free Justina Status Page. We will be updating it constantly during this week and next — until she gets home! www.MassResistance.org/justina 

5. Keep fighting. Don’t give up.

LET’S GET JUSTINA HOME BY EASTER!

This sign held outside the courthouse on Feb. 24 pretty much says it all.
[MassResistance photo]

CAIR condemns Brandeis University for awarding a brave woman’s fight against Islamist honor violence

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling on their members to condemn the faculty at Brandeis University for choosing to recognize Ayaan Hirsi Ali with an award for defending Muslim women against Islamist honor violence.   Their call to action email on this issue is posted at the bottom.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the Executive Producer of Honor Diaries and founder of the AHA Foundation. Honor Diaries is the first film to break the silence on honor violence.  In response to ongoing abuses of women’s rights, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her supporters established the AHA Foundation in 2007 to help protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Brandeis University wrote regarding their decision to award Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

“Somali-born scholar and women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali escaped an arranged marriage, receiving asylum in the Netherlands where she worked in factories and as a maid before earning her undergraduate and MA degrees in political science at Leiden University. Having received citizenship, she served as an elected member of the Dutch parliament from 2003-2006, where she focused on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society and on defending the rights of Muslim women. She campaigned to raise awareness of violence against women, including honor killings and female genital mutilation. In 2004 she gained international attention following the murder of director Theo van Gogh, who worked with Ms. Hirsi Ali on her short film “Submission,” about the oppression of women under Islam. The assassin left a death threat for her pinned to van Gogh’s chest. In 2006 she resigned from Parliament when the then Dutch minister for Immigration revoked her Dutch citizenship, a decision that was overturned by the courts and ultimately led to the fall of the government. Ms. Hirsi Ali is currently a Fellow with the Future of Diplomacy Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Harvard Kennedy School and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.”

CAIR issued the following statement that Megyn Kelly of Fox News aired on March 31, 2014:  “American Muslims join people of conscience of all faiths in condemning female genital mutilation, forced marriages, ‘honor killings,’ and any other form of domestic violence or gender inequality as violations of Islamic beliefs. If anyone mistreats women, they should not seek refuge in Islam. The real concern in this case is that the producers of the film, who have a track record of promoting anti-Muslim bigotry, are hijacking a legitimate issue to push their hate-filled agenda.”  Click here for more on this from The National Review.

How can CAIR honestly be concerned about the victims of honor abuse perpetrated by Islamism when they are vigilantly trying to muzzle those who dare speak out against it?  Ironically, CAIR’s email (below) instructs their members to “Send polite comments” to the Brandeis University faculty while in the same breath CAIR intends to degrade Ayaan Hirsi Ali by calling her an Islamophobe.

CAIR has vigorously opposed laws in America that would forbid courts from considering Islamic Sharia law.  CAIR leaders have repeatedly defended well documented terrorist supporters.  Now CAIR is opposing brave women who speak out for other women that are abused and killed during Islamic honor rituals.

Let’s not allow CAIR’s Islamist position to be the only one heard by the faculty at Brandeis University.  Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to counter CAIR’s censure message that is going to Brandeis University faculty.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email to Brandeis University faculty to counter CAIR’s condemnation of awarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 

For contact information please click here.

Silver Star holder Colonel Harry Riley, US Army (Ret.), Speaks to the Nation

harry riley

Colonel Harry Riley, US Army (Ret.)

The following are comments from Colonel Harry Riley, the man behind Operation American Spring:

The lawless in control of our American government are tightening their grip, reining in our freedom, and pushing us toward servitude. It’s just a matter of time, and that won’t be long, until we are tied to the back of the wagon and dragged along by thugs whether we like it or not. Kick and scream all you want, but it won’t help any of us, that is unless we do something about it now?

Patriot members have been pleading with America since December 2013 to join Operation American Spring, a peaceful, non-violent, unarmed gathering, as we descend on Washington, D.C. beginning May 16, 2014 to begin Constitutional restoration.  Our “movement to action” is a grassroots movement by non-partisan Americans committed to Constitutional principles, responding to an unresponsive and dismissive cabal of duly elected, but oath-breaking officials, who ignore the Constitution, in fact are purposefully destroying the US Constitution.

Our demands and grievances are quite common. Everything that’s wrong in America is basically tied to government leadership violations of the United States Constitution.  The majority of America understands those currently in leadership positions are lawless, violating their oath, ignoring legal process, presenting an appearance of tyrants, self-serving personal agendas, and leading the United States toward a socialist, Marxist, totalitarian form of slavery. It must stop.

Every member of Congress (525) will be presented by mid April 2014 with a personal copy of Operation American Spring Declaration of Revision (Demands/Grievances) as well as a researched, prepared, and provable Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama. Congress will have approximately one month to review the documents prior to millions arriving in D.C. for answers.

These documents won’t mean anything unless they are backed by millions of American patriots, in the streets of Washington, D.C.  Millions of citizens will validate, confirm the message that cannot be ignored. Those, of every political party, that ignore our demands will pay a heavy consequence.

Operation American Spring mission calls for the replacement of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and Eric Holder. This group has disgraced the United States of America, subjected our nation to ridicule, kneeled and bowed to nations that have proven to harm us, and worst of all, treated the American people with disdain, scorn, deception, betrayal, and disrespect.  We demand these lawless individuals to voluntarily resign.  Will they?

The answer to the above question is “not likely”, unless, “we the people” display an attitude of “enough is enough”.  The time to use the excuse “let someone else do it” is past. For the sake of our nation, we must  put boots on the ground by the millions in Washington, D.C. and plan to stay until we get an acceptable resolution. The Arab Spring, Ukrainian Spring, and other “mass” gatherings brought corrupt, lawless, arrogant power seekers to their knees, and American’s can do it also. 

Every American is invited to lock arms, stand shoulder-to-shoulder in unity, even at the expense of sacrifice, at this most grave time that threatens the longevity of our nation.  God is the wind behind Operation American Spring, may each of us feel it in our hearts and respond.

We believe this may be our last opportunity to turn our nation back to a Constitutional Republic, as  ordained by our Creator. We pray that every freedom, liberty loving organization in the United States will lay agendas aside for a brief period, announce support, unite as one nation under God, and storm Washington, D.C. in massive/gigantic numbers for one principle every patriot can live with – Restoration of the US Constitution as the law of the land. From there we begin again.

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret.
Operation American Spring

For more information; visit our website at www.OperationAmericanSpring.org or www.oas2014.com.

Gross Dereliction of Duty

Obama administration political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been recruiting and appointing many pro-amnesty lawyers in key management positions throughout DHS. The goal of the Obama administration in placing those pro-amnesty lawyers throughout DHS was to dismantle the deporting infrastructure it took 12 years for the US government to create. Those pro-amnesty lawyers have been preventing ICE Agents, Border Patrol Agents, and CBP Inspectors from enforcing the Federal Immigration Laws they were sworn to uphold.

Those pro-amnesty attorneys have instructed ICE Agents to “walk away” from hundreds of thousands of cases that should be prosecuted. They eventually directed ICE Agents to release 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” into the general public, thus completing the corruption of that once proud Federal Law Enforcement Agency. The “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” were not in jail because of driving infractions—-they were felons who had been tried and convicted in Federal and Superior Courts because of serious criminal infractions, or had been convicted of very serious misdemeanors. Traffic violations like driving under the influence of alcohol or even vehicular manslaughter do not count toward ICE’s description of “Criminal Illegal Immigrant.”

The 68,000 serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” released by the Obama administration will pick up where they left off, and continue with their very serious crime sprees, committing murders, rapes, burglaries, car theft, drug dealing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, armed robberies, attacking law enforcement officers, and much more that they were previously arrested and convicted for.

The pro-amnesty attorneys at DHS could have deported the 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” to Mexico, but opted instead to release those dangerous convicted criminals into the general public.

American citizens who are concerned about the safety of their sons, daughters, grandchildren, sisters, wives, mothers, grandparents, small businesses, etc. will have to be on high alert to protect them from this new and very dangerous threat foisted upon them by the Obama administration.

The “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” releases occurred without the required formal notification of local Law Enforcement Agencies (law enforcement has a need to know whenever dangerous felons are released prematurely, so they can alert police officers of the perceived spike in criminal activity in their jurisdictions), and those dangerous felons were released without notifying the victims of those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” who will be in fear of their lives because they testified against those felons in court, in order to get them convicted. The political appointees at DHS simply unlocked the jailhouse doors and let 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” walk free. Those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” will now prey on American citizens, and will seriously complicate the task of law enforcement officers in their attempt to protect law abiding American citizens.

That unlawful release of those serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and the complete corruption of DHS by Obama’s appointees into key management positions, is further proof that Obama continues to violate the US Constitution with impunity, as well as violate Federal Immigration Laws of the United States.

In an interview on WBEZ-FM in Chicago on September 6, 2001, Obama said “The US Constitution reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day” and said “the US Constitution has deep flaws, and the Founding Fathers had an enormous blind spot when they wrote it.” He also implied in that interview that the US Constitution was outdated, because he said, “it only reflects the time period of the Colonials and our Founding Fathers.”

Obama raised his right hand twice sworn on a bible to uphold the US Constitution when he was inaugurated in 2008 and 2012; he swore “I, Barack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”—–we know by his actions over the past 5 years, that his two sworn pledges were two more lies to add to:

  1. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” and “If you like your current health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” and “Your health care premiums will be lowered by $2500.” and
  2. “The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk before I sign it.” and “I knew nothing about the IRS targeting conservative groups before the 2012 election.” and
  3. “I knew nothing about the “Fast and Furious” gun running operation to Mexican drug cartels.” and
  4. “I will have the most transparent administration in history.” and
  5. “I will restore trust in government.” and
  6. ”In a speech at the UN two weeks after he knew four Americans were murdered in Benghazi by Al Qaeda terrorists, Obama told the entire world; “The attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was the outgrowth of a demonstration against a YouTube video that went bad.”

American citizens are now used to witnessing one lie after another by the occupant of the Oval Office, yet the left of center liberal media establishment continues to cover up the lies emanating from the Oval Office.

You will be able to read the details of the illegal release of the “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” in the below listed news article. We have information that although 870,000 Illegal Immigrants have been ordered to be deported from the United States, following their conviction in trials in US Federal Immigration Courts, that the pro-amnesty attorneys in key management positions at DHS have ignored those court orders, and those 870,000 Illegal Immigrants remain in the United States; ICE has been told to leave them alone, to “walk away” and “not enforce Federal Immigration Laws.”

Over 40 million unemployed Americans citizens are searching for employment in the 5th year of the worst economic recovery in 70 years, yet their search for employment continues to be undercut by nearly 20 million Illegal Immigrants being paid very low wages under the table with no taxes deducted from their cash payments by US employers. There were over 11 million Illegal Immigrants in the United State when I was recruited as an Armed Federal Law Enforcement Officer in the newly established Department of Homeland Security in 2002—DHS knows that over 800,000 Illegal Immigrants continue to enter the United States thru the wide open borders each year, and for the 12 years since 2002 approximately 9.6 million Illegal Immigrants have come across the wide open borders (you might find it interesting to learn that a DHS official testified that US authorities are not “routinely” notified when foreign sex offenders enter the United States.). So the 11 million Illegal Immigrants figure that the Obama administration and the left of center liberal media establishment has kept referring to for 12 years, is more accurately 20 million Illegal Immigrants, not the 11 million figure that were illegally in the US in 2002. It is interesting to note that US military personnel are employed to secure the borders of South Korea, Afghanistan, and the Sinai, and are not employed by the US Congress or the occupant of the Oval Office to secure US borders.

The American people are wondering, whether the Republican leadership of the House and Senate, intends to do anything about the violation of Federal Law by Obama’s civilian appointees at DHS in the unlawful release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” many of whom are violent criminals. The Speaker of the House John Boehner has control of the purse strings and funds DHS. He could have put pressure on DHS’s by threatening to only approve very low salaries for the pro-amnesty lawyers who are aggressively corrupting enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws at DHS.

The current Republican leadership could have done something to stop the release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and could insist that the DHS deport the 870,000 Illegal Immigrants who were ordered deported by US Federal Immigration Courts.

It was always the primary responsibility of every one of the previous 43 US Presidents to enforce all Federal Laws passed by Congress, to protect and defend the US Constitution, to enforce Federal Immigration Laws, and to ensure that American citizens were protected from the threats of foreign convicted felons who had been preying on them. The current occupant of the Oval Office, by his actions over the last 5 years, has been intentionally shredding the “Rule of Law” and preventing Federal Law Enforcement Officers from “ enforcing the “Federal Laws” of the Republic that the 43 previous US Presidents upheld in the execution of their office.

SSA Michael Cutler, INS (Ret) provided the below listed information from Senator Jeff Sessions, and highlights how Obama continues to “shreds the Immigration Laws” that he swore to uphold, and cites examples of how Obama “refuses to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution”:

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) recently released a critical alert about the status of immigration enforcement in the United States. In it, he writes, “DHS has blocked the enforcement of Immigration Law for the overwhelming majority of violations – and is planning to widen that amnesty even further.”

Put another way, “At least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.”

Senator Sessions’ alert continues:

“Those who do not facially meet the Administration’s select ‘priorities’ are free to illegally work in the United States and to receive taxpayer benefits, regardless of whether or not they come into contact with immigration enforcement.”

What we have is an Administration that is creating a de facto amnesty and encouraging more Illegal Immigrants to illegally enter the United States, granting employment authorization to “DREAMERS” and other illegal aliens, all the while American workers continue to struggle to find employment.

SSA Michael Cutler’s most recent commentary for California for Population Stabilization (CAPS) addresses the serious damage being done to America, and Americans by the ongoing expansion of the use of what the Obama administration claims is “prosecutorial discretion” but which, in reality amounts to “Gross Dereliction of Duty.”

RELATED STORY: REPORT: Obama Admin released tens of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals

Exposed: Benghazi Security Fiasco by Judicial Watch

Among the nagging questions left in the wake of the terrorist attack against our special mission compound in Benghazi, Libya, is whether or not more could have been done to save the lives of the four Americans who were murdered, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Judicial Watch already exposed the Obama administration’s lie that no military help was within striking distance by releasing an unclassified Navy map showing that the military had a multitude of forces in the region surrounding Libya at the time of the attack.

And now we learn through a JW investigation that there were serious concerns about the security detail hired to protect the Benghazi diplomatic facility. Serious enough that the firm was flagged as a “do not hire” by a key State Department security official.

On February 28, 2014 we obtained documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing that Blue Mountain Group (BMG), the security firm hired to protect the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, had lost at least two previous private security contracts in Tripoli and was hired despite a warning from the Embassy Acting Regional Security Officer.

According to the documents, which we received in response to our February 25, 2013 FOIA lawsuit, on June 7, 2012, Tripoli Acting Security Regional Officer (ARSO) Jairo Saravia sent the following email to RSO David Oliveira (Temporary Duty Office to Benghazi at the time) and others:

“Just a quick note in regards to Blue Mountain. The company has lost several security contracts here in Tripoli, including the Corinthian Hotel and Palm City Complex. The latest information is Blue Mountain is not licensed by the GOL to provide security services in Libya. I would advise not to use their services to provide security for any of our annexes and/or offices due to the sensitivity this issue has with the current GOL ….”

second email that same day, from RSO Greg Levin, apparently responding to the Saravia email, said that BMG did not have a licensing problem, but did not refute that it had lost several security contracts in Tripoli. In fact, additional emails between State Department personnel in Libya sent that day suggest that licensing for security firms had become an acknowledged problem, with one email stating, “We have got to get legal to change how licensing is done for contractors.”

The documents also reveal that in Benghazi in April 2012, there was almost a physical altercation between a BMG supervisor and a member of the Libyan 17th of February Martyrs Brigade, a Libyan militia that was supposed to provide security at the Benghazi compound the day of the September 11, 2012, attacks. According to an April 18, 2012, email from ARSO Teresa Crowningshield to DS Program Manager Norm Floyd:

“At 1130 hours, a verbal altercation occurred between the Libyan February 17th Martyrs Brigade team member and Mr.[REDACTED]. The team member then notified the brigade team leader of the incident, who then went to the gate to speak with [REDACTED]. At that time, a second verbal altercation occurred between the three and [REDACTED] left the compound. The team leader then came to the RSO office and reported the incident.

“The team leader stated that [REDACTED] made an inappropriate comment with reference to Gaddafi. Then when the team leader came to speak with [REDACTED] he made derogatory comments regarding the team leader’s mother. As the situation escalated to the point of a likely physical confrontation, [REDACTED] left the compound.”

So here we have a security detail with a checkered past, to say the least, openly fighting with the Libyan security detail they were supposed to train!

The role BMG played in protecting the security of the Benghazi facility first came to light shortly after the September 2012 terrorist attack when State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland emphatically denied that State had hired any private firm to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi:

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the claim was made yesterday that a company that is a spinoff of Blackwater, in fact, proposed or contracted the United States Government for this particular kind of eventuality, and it was caught up in some sort of bureaucratic –

MS. NULAND: Completely untrue with regard to Libya. I checked that this morning. At no time did we plan to hire a private security company for Libya.

QUESTION: Toria, I just want to make sure I understood that, because I didn’t understand your first question. You said – your first answer. You said that at no time did you have contracts with private security companies in Libya?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

This exchange was one reason we decided to take a look at the Blue Mountain Group. On December 19, 2012, we filed a FOIA request with the State Department seeking, “Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the $387,413.68 contract awarded by the Department of State to an unidentified foreign awardee for ‘Security Guards and Patrol Services.'”  When State refused to comply with the FOIA request, JW filed its February 25, 2013, lawsuit, which resulted in the documents revealing the BMG had lost previous security contracts in Libya. (JW earlier obtained the BMG contract itself – the one Nuland said did not exist.)

While JW was exposing the red flags raised by the Blue Mountain Group, acting CIA Director Mike Morell’s testimony before Congress inspired outrage from people who were on the ground in Libya during the attack. Per Fox News:

Sources on the ground in Benghazi during the 2012 terror attack are pushing back hard on former CIA acting director Mike Morell’s testimony on Capitol Hill, where he defended his role in shaping the administration’s narrative and claimed politics were not involved.

As part of Morell’s testimony on Wednesday, the former acting and deputy CIA director acknowledged that he overruled the guidance of the top CIA officer in Libya at the time. That official told Morell the attack was not an “escalation of protests,” but Morell said he had to weigh that against analysts who concluded the opposite. He ultimately went with the analysts — whose assessment later turned out to be flawed — saying the chief of station’s report was not “compelling” and was based on loose evidence.

Folks, something is rotten here.

Why on earth would Morell choose to trust the word of “analysts” over intelligence operatives in the field who had their finger on the pulse of what was happening moment by moment at the Benghazi mission?

And “loose evidence”? Was it any looser than the evidence tying the attacks to an obscure Internet video a ridiculous claim peddled by the country’s Secretary of State during a series of television interviews? That’s the narrative the Obama administration fed us. And based on what?

The fact is, any intelligence officer worth his salt wouldn’t have such a horrible error in judgment. So what conclusion are we supposed to draw about this testimony?

It certainly seems to me that Morell is covering for some political operative inside the Obama administration who made the decision to downplay the terrorist connection to these attacks because it might have disrupted the president’s re-election campaign.  Or maybe he is the political operative?  Morell did little this week to excuse his false information and obstruction on Benghazi.  If it were any other administration, there’d be an independent criminal investigation already underway.

What a mess. A year-and-a half after the attacks and we are all still in the dark about what really happened at Benghazi.  Administration officials lied about the terrorist connection to the attack. They lied about the availability of military support that could have potentially saved lives. They lied about the security firm hired to protect our personnel, which we now know had a track record of failure.

And then we have this bizarre testimony from the nation’s former top intelligence officer suggesting he simply didn’t know that it was better to trust intelligence on the ground than “analysts” sequestered in a cubicle.

No wonder we have to battle in court for the most basic information. And it certainly doesn’t help matters that Republicans in Congress have been asleep at the switch, failing to use the full investigative powers available to them to uncover the truth for the American people.

JW, meanwhile, has been all over the Benghazi attack and cover-up, filing multiple FOIA lawsuits, uncovering records no one else could recover, pushing Speaker Boehner for a serious investigation, and issuing a comprehensive report on what our investigators have found. Click here to read all about it.

The FairTax Means Freedom by Rep. Rob Woodall

The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, once said, “Sloth and lack of enterprise flourish when hard work and the taking of risks are not rewarded.”

While I believe this statement to be true, I am grateful it has never characterized the American spirit. Hard work and risk taking are precisely what built our great nation, and it is through these traits in Americans across the nation that we will once again have a thriving economy.

To unleash the tremendous resource that is the American worker, entrepreneur and innovator, we need only to align the tax code with our core principles. That is what excites me about the FairTax.

The FairTax means freedom. Those of us who are fighting so hard for it understand this. It is freedom from a burdensome, manipulative tax code that penalizes the very things we need to grow our economy. The FairTax means freedom for business owners and entrepreneurs to make decisions based on their own resources and vision, not a convoluted, punitive compilation of regulations.

It is no small thing that the FairTax also returns to Americans the freedom of anonymity. No federal bureaucracy should ever know as much about us as the IRS knows, particularly a federal bureaucracy as powerful as the IRS. Our Founders never intended this level of personal intrusion, and the FairTax is a giant step in the direction of personal liberty.

Any proposal that shifts the balance of power from Washington back to the people in such a significant way as the FairTax is certain to encounter political inertia.  From its inception, we have all experienced the pushback of those with a vested interest in the status quo.

The current tax code is by far the most effective tool for politicians to manipulate the behavior of Americans, and the FairTax removes this very powerful weapon from their arsenal. The fact that there is a strong resistance to it can neither surprise, nor discourage us.

The immense dedication of those in the FairTax community across the country is directly responsible for the consistent and significant progress we are seeing in Washington. Members of Congress become a co-sponsor of this bill because their constituents demand it, and that is exactly how it should be.

With 84 co-sponsors, the FairTax has become the most popular fundamental tax reform bill in Congress, and its support continues to grow. Your commitment has led to more FairTax supporters on the Ways & Means Committee than ever before and a committee hearing specifically on H.R. 25 for the first time in a decade.

As the Ways & Means Committee discusses tax reform, the FairTax emerges as a powerful voice in the conversation that is impossible to ignore, try as Washington special interests might. Its strength, however, is not found in bearing the seal of approval from the political establishment, but rather in who fuels the movement: the American people.

If we continue to convince more and more of our neighbors of the benefits of the FairTax, the call to action in Washington will one day overcome the loud voices calling for more of the same. Make no mistake—you all are leading that effort to change hearts and minds across America.

I cannot thank you enough for your commitment to our success and your conviction that our great nation deserves nothing less than the FairTax.

Congressman Rob Woodall represents the 7th district of Georgia and is the sponsor of HR 25.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo was taken by Gage Skidmore. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Magic Words and False Gods Communicating Beyond Society, Market, and Hypostatization by GIAN PIERO DE BELLIS

Any productive action requires clear thinking on the part of the acting person. This is particularly true of communication. In The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science (1962), Ludwig von Mises remarked that the “worst enemy of clear thinking is the propensity to hypostatize, i.e. to ascribe substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts.”

In other words, there’s no such thing as “society.”

Mises continues:

Hypostatization is not merely an epistemological fallacy and not only misleads the search for knowledge. In the so-called social sciences, it more often than not serves definite political aspirations in claiming for the collective as such a higher dignity than for the individual or even ascribing real existence only to the collective and denying the existence of the individual, calling it a mere abstraction.

The fallacy of hypostatization, however, is not confined to people holding collectivist views. It is also practiced by people who stress the importance of individual liberty.

If the so-called collectivist falls into the hypostatization fallacy in using the magic word “society” (“it’s society’s fault”; “society will intervene”) the so-called individualist employs the same fallacy when he uses the magic word “market.”

Duotheism

When people use the terms “society” and “market,” it would seem there is an overarching almighty entity that has a life of its own. This entity is supposed to do everything, to redress any tort, to administer justice, to increase well-being on earth, and to lead us to the promised land.

In doing so, whether collectivists or individualists, they are not only betraying the basic tenets of science based on empirical realities (and not on fictional entities), but they are also ignoring the advice of those to whom they pretend to refer as the source of their ideas. As we have already seen, Mises condemns hypostatization. Libertarians should take notice.

As for the collectivist camp, it is worth mentioning what Karl Marx had to say about the term “society”: “It is above all necessary to avoid postulating ‘society’ once more as an abstraction confronting the individual” (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844).

Hypostatization should therefore be carefully avoided, because the fallacy is unreal, ambiguous, and divisive. It’s unreal because it is devoid of a proper empirical foundation that could clarify, with a certain exactitude, the features and sphere of reference of the hypostatization. It’s ambiguous because it signifies different things to different people; conflicting meanings could be attributed to the same hypostatization. So clearly it is also divisive. It can be taken up by politicians and demagogues in order to invent fake agents and fake enemies that become the convenient scapegoats of those in power.

The continuous use of hypostatizations makes those who would like to exit State power look too much like those who worship government. In fact, it is exceedingly difficult to convince someone that replacing the almighty entity “society” with the almighty entity market” (or vice versa) will make any difference. Perceptive critical minds already see the almighty State behind society and almighty corporations behind the market. And the most perceptive among this group see that the corporate State is a particularly dangerous beast. They therefore remain aloof to such magic fallacies.

So what is one to do without magic words? Consider some solutions.

Concretize: The Orwell Proposal

In his Politics and the English Language (1946), George Orwell, after having dealt at length with the interconnection between sloppy language and sloppy thinking, remarks that “The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.” Orwell suggests it would be “better to put off using words as long as possible and get one’s meaning as clear as one can through pictures or sensations. Afterwards one can choose … the phrases that will best cover the meaning…. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally.”

Before using any other fancy communications techniques, we should follow Orwell by starting with clarity, concision, and concreteness.

Operationalize: The Bridgman Proposal

In The Logic of Modern Physics, P. W. Bridgman suggests operationalizing scientific concepts—that is, describing the operations that transform them into empirical measures and actions. This eliminates ambiguities and possible misunderstandings, according to Bridgman, who wrote that “the true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it, not by what he says about it.” The length of a person, for example, can be defined as the number of times a certain stick can be laid end to end alongside him or her.

So what does this mean for all of our markets talk?

One should: Replace sloppy uses of “the market” with the concrete expression “people engaged in free exchanges,” and then operationalize the expression by measuring the effective level of freedom (accessibility, universality, etc.) or the impediments to those concrete exchanges (tariffs, quotas, etc.), noting any corresponding growth or diminishment in wealth.

In the last decades, technology has been changing social relations in a much deeper way than what has been accomplished by well-intentioned social scientists and social activists of any era. I suspect the reason is that people involved in tech projects need to have clear ideas and clear communication tools for implementing those projects. It is high time for the individuals engaged in changing our social technologies to do the same.

ABOUT GIAN PIERO DE BELLIS

Gian Piero de Bellis is the webmaster of panarchy.org. He manages a Documentation Centre (World Wide Wisdom) in Saint Imier (Swiss Jura).