Policy Archives - Page 1733 of 1775

Effectively Irrational: 30 common fallacies used against libertarians by Max Borders

March 26, 2014/in Commentary, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

By now you have probably heard of Bryan Caplan’s “rational irrationality.” The idea is that if the cost of holding irrational beliefs is low enough, there may be more irrationality demanded. Indeed, if holding an irrational view makes someone feel better about himself or keep membership in some in-group—but holding the view doesn’t directly harm the holder—she may very well stick with that view.

Caplan contrasts this with the idea of “rational ignorance,” which is more familiar to our readers. That simply means the cost of acquiring enough information to have a truly informed opinion about some issue is generally high, so people remain ignorant.

Both of these behaviors certainly play a role in the preponderance of dumb policies and dumb views. But are there corollaries in debate tactics?

Most libertarians find they’re arguing in social media these days. So they’re not only finding new people on whom to test their ideas, they’re finding new fallacies in response. And sometimes these fallacies work, despite being fallacious, which is probably why they’re so commonplace. This is especially true on social media, where one can quickly learn that the real point of these exchanges is to play to the audience, to provide them with an excuse to withdraw into whatever biases they already hold. Still, maybe it’s possible to raise the costs of employing these fallacies—at least a little.

We’ve decided to offer you a fun list of them, which you can use as a handy guide in the process of engaging in well-mannered, reasoned discourse online.

Argument ad KochBrotherium: This fallacy is a cousin to the genetic fallacy and guilt by association. The twist, of course, is that anything that the Koch Brothers ever say, said, fund, funded, might fund, came close to funding, could have funded, will fund, walked by, looked at, support, think about, or mention is invalid by virtue of, well, “Koch Brothers! Boo!”
The Unicorn: You’ll recognize this fallacy from the question, “Why does no libertarian country exist anywhere in the world?” Embedded in the question is the assumption that libertarian countries don’t exist because they are fantastic creatures, like unicorns. Of course, just because something doesn’t exist yet does not mean it can’t exist. Indeed, the Internet in 1990 and the American Republic in 1775 beg to differ. And the unicorn fallacy fundamentally confuses the libertarian worldview with some “L”ibertarian platform that might be the product of some electoral processes—processes most libertarians reject. Michael Lind and E. J. Dionne have brandished this fallacy rather shamelessly, and have had it parried rather effectively by better minds.
Nut-Picking: This fallacy has nothing to do with Jimmy Carter. In this style of argument, the arguer finds the kookiest or most insane person who self-identifies as libertarian and then ascribes all of that person’s beliefs or claims to all libertarians. (This one could also be called the Alex Jones fallacy.) This is a tough one to counter simply because there are plenty of nuts to pick from, and plenty of them use the L-word.
Must Be Scared/Have No Answer: This one’s pretty simple really, and a unique creature of “debate” via social media. The libertarian leaves his computer or signs off for a while and the opponent accuses the libertarian of not being able to answer his or her Facebook claims, which the libertarian simply never saw or had no time to answer.
The Tin Man: This fallacy was identified and named by Cole James Gentles (here), who inspired this article. With the tin man the arguer either concludes or falsely assumes that the libertarian “has no heart” because she argues against some favored policy. This cousin of the straw man (scarecrow) fallacy assumes a direct line between sympathies and outcomes. Any failure to support some means amounts to a failure to support the wished-for end.
The tin man fallacy is rooted in the assumption that one’s opponent, often a libertarian, has no heart. Unlike the straw man fallacy, in which the debater needs to mischaracterize their opponent’s position, the tin man fallacy allows the debater to build a sturdy-looking, if hollow, general facsimile of their opponent’s position (“You are against state mandated universal health care?”), but not give him a heart (“Then you don’t care about poor people who don’t have access to affordable, quality insurance, or people with pre-existing conditions!! You heartless monster! WHY DO YOU HATE THE POOR?!” Heard that one before?)

The frightening part of this fallacy is that its wielder usually thinks exitus acta probat.
Availability Cascade: Something big and bloody happens on the news (or goes viral), so the arguer implies or concludes that it’s a widespread occurrence. Example: A mass shooting has occurred, which points to an epidemic of gun violence. It’s not clear that if gun violence is at a multidecadal low point, the incident reflects an “epidemic.” The ready availability of some story leads one to conclude that a problem is widespread and demands a drastic response. Cass Sunstein, known for his work on “nudging,” gets credit along with Timur Kuran for identifying this phenomenon. (An availability cascade doesn’t always have to involve specious reasoning, but it very often does.)
Man on the Moon: Remember Rachel Maddow standing in front of the Hoover Dam? She’s trying to convince her viewers that the government (which she calls “the country”) must tax and build some major make-work project in order to revive the economy (or whatever). Maddow is employing a form of the man on the moon fallacy, which takes the form, “If we can put a man on the moon, we can do X.” But it misconstrues any reservations about big, awe-inspiring State projects as doubts about “America’s” ability to do big things. It’s just assumed that anything requiring extensive collaboration must be done via State power for it to count. Questions of the value, cost, or feasibility (or some combination thereof) of any particular project are sealed off from the word “if.” And of course “we” is never carefully unpacked.
The Gap: I wrote a whole book about why the following involves fallacious thinking. The fallacy goes something like this: “The free market widens the gap between rich and poor.” Now, strictly speaking that claim might be correct. But so what? I’ll pass over the problem that the “free market” has probably already been attacked with the unicorn fallacy at some prior point in the same hypothetical conversation. In any case, because economies are dynamic, the “rich” and “poor” change from day to day, and measured in quintiles, we don’t know whether the “gap” will be greater or smaller from one day to the next, even assuming a free market. The real problem with such reasoning is the built-in assumption that a gap itself is a bad thing. Suppose a really tall man moves into my neighborhood. Apart from my suddenly wishing I were taller, does the presence of the tall man make me worse off somehow? Of course not. The existence of the rich person doesn’t make me worse off, either, unless he got rich by using political means to transfer money from my pocket to his. This happens all the time. But such transfers have nothing whatsoever to do with free markets.Measuring an asset gap in and of itself tells us little. Indeed, without the functional story of how any gap came to be—stories, not snapshots matter here—we can’t make any judgments about it whatsoever. “Gap” talk is just a fetish that ignores how much better off the poor are thanks to the existence of innovators and entrepreneurs who got rich by creating value. And the unstated assumption is that if any group of people has more wealth at any particular point, the people with less are somehow being wronged simply because the other group has more. The gap fallacy is also meant to preempt debate, usually in the service of another agenda (which is rarely more than reinforcing the opponent’s opinion of himself as a good guy).
The Two-Step: Some opponents will simply change the subject in the middle of a discussion, leaving the original claim by the wayside. Usually neither party notices the two-step. For example, the opponent may refuse to answer the libertarian’s direct question and instead respond with another question. Or the debater may slide into one or another irrelevant point that has no bearing on the original point at issue. This process can go on for a while unless the libertarian rigorously brings the opponent back to the original point. The red herring, ad hoc, and non sequitur are similar enough fallacies, so the two-step may also be classified as an evasive tactic.
Panglossian Fallacy: Because the military-industrial complex was somehow involved in developing aspects of what later became the commercialized Internet, it follows that government funding is indispensable for such wonderful things to appear—and that all the things that go along with the funding (and revenue-collection) apparatus are therefore also acceptable. This variation of the post hoc fallacy is seductive particularly because we can never know what would have happened in the counterfactual private sector. Form: If it happened, it must be the best of all possible worlds. (See also the “The Government R&D Canard.”)
Your Side: Also known as tarring with the same brush, this fallacy has a couple of related forms (see No. 1 and No. 3). An opponent may accuse the libertarian of being a Republican or Tea Party conservative because he or she happens to agree with a majority of Republicans on some particular issue. One hears: “Your side thinks . . . ” when in actuality the libertarian doesn’t have a “side” per se. It works even better as a tactic if there is really no connection at all apart from being something the opponent’s “side” would never say. The “your side” fallacy allows the opponent to appeal directly to tribal biases, which are more immediate and powerful than any argument. When it’s intentional, this rhetorical maneuver is meant to appeal to others who may be watching—the hope being that they’ll swerve into the ditch that is their own biases.
The We/Society Fallacy: This common form of hypostatization occurs when the user ascribes rational individual agency to “society” and conflates or confuses society with the State. Both usually happen immediately, or somewhere hidden, before the opponent even speaks. The opponent wants his moral position or emotional state to be reflected somehow in the organization of society. Although “we” or “society” is a useful ersatz word that appears to confer legitimacy on some aspect of the opponent’s claim, it is almost always an intellectual sleight-of-hand. Only individuals can act. Groups must work through processes of either collaboration or coercion. (Note: “The market” is often misused this way by both supporters and detractors.)
Deus ex Machina/Market Failure: People is people. And yet opponents sometimes think that it’s enough to argue that governments, by dint of largess and force, have the power to fix certain kinds of problems, which they label “market failures” because they happened outside the purview of State action. Note that this only works in one direction: Problems in any area covered by the State are usually chalked up to being problems merely of execution, whereas “market failures” allegedly reflect an inherent deficiency. Even if one agrees that one set of people working in voluntary cooperation cannot solve some problem (or at least haven’t yet), it does not follow that another group of people—“the government”—can. Indeed, greats like James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock have given us very good reasons why government is not likely to solve problems and will likely make matters worse.
The Organic Fallacy: Such arguments take the form, “It’s organic, therefore it’s good or good for you.” Or similarly, “It’s not organic, therefore it’s bad or bad for you.” One hears this rationale to demand regulations and food labeling. And while there may be independent reasons to justify such regulations or labeling, these are not justified by the organic fallacy. It’s not clear that Socrates would argue for the health benefits of natural hemlock, nor would people with thyroidectomies argue they should go without Synthroid. I would add that, until there is more evidence to the contrary, there are plenty of GMOs that are good for me. (Note: Plenty of libertarians commit this fallacy too. Just because Monsanto is a rent-seeker doesn’t mean all its products are bad.)
Nobel Fallacy: You may recognize the form “X has a Nobel Prize in economics, who are you to argue against his claims?” I don’t care whether Krugman or Stiglitz has a Nobel Prize, they’re wrong about just about everything. And the truth or falsity of one’s claim doesn’t depend on his credentials. (Meanwhile Nobel Laureates James Buchanan, Vernon Smith, Elinor Ostrom, Douglass North, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek are mostly always right. I mean, that’s like 6–2 for the good guys. [*rimshot*])
No Parks for You: Snarkier opponents of libertarianism rhetorically ask why libertarians avail themselves of all the goods and services government happens to provide. “If you’re going to live by your principles, you can’t use X or Y” (insert: state universities or public roads). Of course, it does not follow that one should not avail himself of some good or service he thinks should be provided by other means. Indeed, one could argue that he is more than justified in consuming some good or service he has been forced to pay for against his will.
The Self-Exile Fallacy: Snarkier still is the opponent who argues that “If you don’t like it, why don’t you just leave?” Implicit in this question is the suggestion that there is some positive duty for one to leave a condition he doesn’t like and/or that by one’s staying, he his implicitly consenting to whatever the system is. By this “logic,” if you have just bought a house with an ‘80s bathroom, instead of improving, changing, or upgrading it, you should just take a bath in the kitchen sink.
Somalia: Opponents love to tell you that Somalia must be a “libertarian paradise.” Everyone laughs. If you respond with a phrase like “comparative institutional analysis,” everyone’s eyes glaze over and you lose, despite being correct. Somalia has been better off on most dimensions without a central government than it was under a brutal, centralized regime—warlordism notwithstanding.
Social Contract: Rousseau left a terrible intellectual legacy. And progressives use his “social contract” to justify anything under the statist’s sun. Of course, there could be a real social contract, but libertarian opponents prefer the one that allows them to justify anything under . . .
Start Somewhere: You’ve slogged through the data. You’ve offered a completely rational response. You’ve explained the ins and outs of why your opponent’s policy X won’t work and why it may even make things worse. The response? “We’ve got to start somewhere.” The idea here is that it’s better to do, well, anything—even if it might result in calamity. And, of course, the State must do that potentially calamitous thing. (See also No. 23.)
Social Darwinism: “The free market is just social Darwinism!” This is actually a pretty old meme. It was used by progressive academics in the 1940s to smear the work of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was a biological Darwinist to be sure. And he also thought the market and social phenomena like institutions and ideas would be subjected to analogous evolutionary forces. But the unit of survival in markets is the business, not the individual. In other words, businesses that fail to create value for customers die. But advocating for free people to engage in voluntary exchange is not advocating that people leave the weak, poor, or vulnerable to suffer. Quite the contrary. Most advocates of the free market believe a robust philanthropy sector is part and parcel to a system of voluntary exchange. Herbert Spencer thought so too. He writes: “Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated.”
Argumentum Ad Googlum: This fallacy proceeds when the libertarian makes a good point or builds a stellar case, or asks a question the opponent can’t answer. The opponent disappears for a while, frantically Googling away. The opponent comes back with a series of links that stand in for argument. To be fair, this isn’t always a fallacy, as some will use links to support their claims. But often the tactic is used to thrust the burden of debate back onto the libertarian who is expected to read through the links and infer some point. At best, it’s bad form.
We’ve Got to Do Something!: Related to the “start somewhere” fallacy, “We’ve got to do something!” is an argument that really means (a) the State has to do something, and (b) State action is preferable to both no action or private action. Numerous examples of this fallacy appear when opponents think any action riding on good intentions is good enough, consequences be damned. Often, however, it can be demonstrated that it is better for government to do nothing and to stop doing what it’s already doing. (Examples include stimulus spending, regulation, and other forms of intervention.) For government to do nothing is rarely presented as premise subject to debate and evaluation. Someone genuinely open to ideas would ask, “What should be done about this?” and “Who should do it?” Someone genuinely interested in answers would have the courtesy to make explicit what they already believe: “The government has to do something, which is beyond debate. Here’s what I think that something should be.”
Empirical Fallacy: A familiar opponents’ refrain of late is: How do we know X isn’t going to work until we try it? We have to wait and see the empirical evidence before calling X a failure. With such reasoning we should let monkeys go to Washington and type randomly into a big machine that spits out statutes at random. Well, we already do this in a manner of speaking, but it might be a good idea to look at some well-established economic theory and economic thinking before sallying forth into legislative adventures that could have both predictably perverse and unintended consequences. More importantly, the opponent presumes it is the prerogative of the State—and, by extension, any governmental group within the State apparatus—to experiment on those under its auspices, and that it is the duty of the subjects in that jurisdiction to submit to the experimentation. (Also called the Pelosi Fallacy.)
No True Libertarian: Ever heard of the no true Scotsman fallacy? Usually it’s applied by someone in a group to question another’s membership in that same group in terms of their ideological purity. Libertarians are famous for saying to each other, “If you think X, you’re no libertarian.” But libertarians’ opponents use a variation of this too. They’ll say something like, “Libertarians believe in X. If you don’t, you’re no libertarian.” (X might be natural rights, collective non-State action, a social safety net, etc.) The no true Libertarian fallacy is a way of trying to force the libertarian to choose between a subtle variation in his argument and his own doctrine. It implies the libertarian lacks credibility: “This clown doesn’t know what he thinks!” Of course, such a tack has no bearing on the truth or falsity of either party’s claims, or the validity of their arguments. Libertarianism is a diverse school of thought. It is not a monolith. One need only demonstrate the consistency of his argument.
Fascist Ignorance: This one should be familiar: Libertarian opponents were outraged—OUTRAGED—when John Mackey pointed out quite correctly on NPR that Obamacare is a fascist policy. Fascism is, of course, a doctrine that calls for significant State control over private industries, to be carried out in the service of State ends. So the fallacy of fascist ignorance is a form of ad hominem in which a libertarian opponent refers to the libertarian or his views as “fascist” despite, strictly speaking, holding fascist views herself. (One might also refer to this as the “chicken calling the cow ‘poultry’” fallacy.) In the interests of good discourse, however, it’s probably not wise for anyone to evoke the power of the “F” word at all, given how much baggage it carries.
Just One Life: The emotional appeal, grounded in nothing substantive, is meant to be a moralistic shutdown card. It goes “I’m sorry, but if we can save just one life with this policy, it’s worth it.” What does that even mean? Does it mean that every life has infinite value? Does it mean that saving lives at the expense of others and all other considerations is the purpose of government? Or does it mean that “worth it” is completely vague, but you just care a lot? It’s a heroic-sounding sentiment, but it demonstrates only the speaker’s commitment and earnestness—not any analysis of the policy itself.
Consensus: This hybrid of the bandwagon and appeal to authority fallacies infects lots of discourse. It takes the form, “Lots of really smart and educated people believe X, therefore it’s true.” From the USDA food pyramid dieticians to macroeconomists, authorities are not always right. There are limits to any individual’s ability to understand all the nuances of a given issue. Prediction and forecast are even more difficult. Political decision-makers must confront the same cognitive limitations as mere mortals, which is why they, like libertarian debate opponents, rely far too heavily on expert “consensus.”
Logo-phallo-euro-centric: Opponents accuse libertarianism of being hostile to women, minorities, homosexuals, and other marginalized groups. The fallacy lies in the idea that if your doctrine doesn’t acknowledge that groups deserve special, State-sanctioned treatment at the expense of other groups or individuals, it’s tantamount to some ism. Some even go as far as to say that if you use certain language some construe as racist, sexist, or homophobic, it invalidates libertarian doctrine. While many libertarians act like idiots and should probably not overreact to collectivist PC victim narratives with foul language, libertarian doctrine is at root a doctrine of anything peaceful—voluntary cooperation, decentralized power, and radical community formation. The heroes of libertarianism (of all races, sexes, and ethnic backgrounds) know that collectivism and Statism are interdependent world views: It takes evoking collectivism and inventing group rights (or wrongs) to justify most State actions, and the State has historically had the power systematically to prop up or tear down people by group.
Who Will Build the Roads?: This familiar duck has a thousand variations, but the idea is that because the opponent has never seen it nor can imagine it being done without the State, it follows that it can’t. But of course, it (roads, aid, education, and the rest of it) can. (See also No. 13.)

I encourage readers to add more to the comments section below.

Note: huge credit to Cole James Gentles, Jeff Ellis, Sarah Skwire, and Zach Spencer for their assistance in compiling these fallacies. Thanks also to Michael Nolan for help in fleshing these out.

Max Borders

ABOUT MAX BORDERS

Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also cofounder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

Keystone XL: Who benefits? Who loses?

March 26, 2014/in Commentary, Energy, Environment, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Richard C. Savage, Ph.D.

Last Thursday, 20 March, the Washington Post published an amazing article by Juliet Eilperin, their Environment reporter, claiming the Koch brothers are the major owners of Canadian “tar sands” – the source of oil to be shipped through the Keystone XL . Specifically the article said:

“The biggest leaseholder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers.”

In doing so, Eilperin and the Post relied on a recently issued report from a far-left outfit called the International Forum on Globalization (IFG).

Ms. Eilperin is a longtime advocate of action to save the earth from “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW), the old name before it became “climate change” or “carbon pollution.” It is not terribly surprising that Eilperin opposes the pipeline, whoever is invested in it. The surprise is that Eilperin rushed so quickly and gullibly into an obvious hoax.

The recent IFG report is a supplement to one issued in October, 2013, which became a laughingstock when John Hinderaker of Powerline blog tore it apart, noting that even IFG admits Keystone XL would provide competition for Koch oil sales in the American Midwest, costing them about $120 billion. In addition, Koch Industries has never lobbied for the Keystone XL. Also, one does not just drive up to a Keystone XL terminal – assuming one ever exists – and pour in a truckload of oil. A would-be user has to pay, in advance, for a quota of oil to be shipped, an allowance of a portion to be used (of a total 830,000 bbl/day). Koch Industries hasn’t bought a quota. Needless to say, Hinderaker had a lot of fun ripping the WaPo and Eilperin.

A wise journalist – or, at least, an honest one – would have issued a retraction and an apology to the readers. Eilperin and the Post have done neither. Nor has the Post’s Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, the man who issues “Pinocchio” awards to liars, said anything about the article.

Pinocchios courtesy of the Washington Post.

This lie ought to get Eilperin four pinocchios.

So, what did Eilperin offer in response? She said:

The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. That’s why we wrote the piece.

Oh. The fact that someone – not even Koch Industries – tried to rebut a complete lie is justification for printing the lie in the first place – since it “stirs and inflames public debate.”

But wait, as the TV salesmen say, there’s more.

Juliet Eilperin is married to Andrew Light, who formulates environmental policy for John Podesta’s Center for American Progress (CAP). Light is also a member of the Obama Administration, as a Senior Advisor to the Special Envoy on Climate Change in the State Department. As you remember, Climate Change is the most important issue facing the world – according to the Secretary of State, John “A Child Could Understand This” Kerry. Today President Obama is in Europe, discussing with NATO and the leaders of the European Union, what we can do to blunt the Russian control of the EU energy supply.

As you probably remember, John Podesta was recently made a “special advisor” to Obama – and specifically to advise on climate for the guy who once promised to make your electricity costs “skyrocket.” Mr. Podesta strongly and unequivocally opposes the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. He wants more study – as has been done for Keystone XL pipeline, for five years.

Who benefits if the Keystone pipeline goes ahead? Millions of Americans who will see gasoline prices decrease. Millions of Canadians who will see taxes flow into their national treasury. Thousands of Americans and Canadian workers. American energy independence, a priority since the 1970’s. Certainly not Koch Industries.

Who benefits if Keystone is not approved?

Tom Steyer, hedge fund billionaire and major Democratic Party contributor. Steyer is offering $100 million to Democrats in 2014 who oppose Keystone. Prior to the Democratic Senators’ talkathon, the leaders visited Steyer’s home in New York. Does anyone believe Mr. Steyer cares for the environment and global warming $100 million worth?

The feature image is a picture of Brad Johnson, a staff writer for Podesta’s Center for American Progress, admonishing the Washington Post against telling lies – when the Post dared print a column by Charles Krauthammer that suggested climate science is not “settled science.”

The American Physical Society (APS) recently appointed a panel of members, including three prominent sceptics, to review its previous endorsement of global warming as a matter of concern. Sounds pretty unsettled. I don’t often agree with Johnson or the rest of Podesta’s gang, but I also wish the Washington Post and its environment writer, Eilperin, would stop telling lies.

Obama Killing the Cornerstone of US Naval Power: The Tomahawk and Hellfire Missile Programs

March 26, 2014/in Budget and Finance, Must Read, National Security, News, Policy/by Joseph R. John

At a time when there is fear that all-out war may break out in Ukraine, President Obama is taking action to disarm the US Navy. Please review this article by Adam Kredo on the canceling of the US Navy Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs. Not only is Obama reducing the US Navy to less than 200 ships from President Reagan’s 600 ship fleet, but Obama is also effectively telling the Chinese, Russian, and Iranian Navies that we are raising the white flag, and they will be able to attack US Navy more easily after he leaves office. The Navy’s tomahawk stock will be completely depleted by 2018, with no replacements missiles to come online for 10 years.

By his actions, Obama is minimizing the defense of US Navy ships at sea from shore based missiles and enemy fleets. He is putting the lives of all Naval personnel at sea and the entire fleet in extreme danger.

This certainly should be viewed as a plan make the US Navy a second rate Navy, as his plans to degrade the US Army to a level below WWII strength, and reduce the US Air Force in numbers of combat aircraft that would be inadequate to protect the Republic; the plans to execute those reductions are already well underway by Obama’s civilian appointees at DOD, and being driven by the pretender in the Oval Office. Obama has worked diligently for 5 years to negatively affect the unit cohesiveness, personnel moral, religious freedom, and the “Combat Effectiveness” of the US Armed Forces.

The ineffective Republic leadership in the House that controls the purse strings has done very little to combat it for the last 3 years, but they did vote to reduce the retirement pay of military personnel until we protested—forcing them to cease and desist.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, General Dempsey, who helped Obama cover up the fact that US military rescue forces were prevented from saving the lives of the Americans in The Battle of Benghazi. He and Admiral Mullen covered up the fact that Obama refused to authorize “Cross Border Authority” which is required before the Pentagon can deploy a rescue force. Multiple rescue forces were ready and waiting on the tarmac 450 miles away ready to fly the 90 minutes to reach Benghazi during the commando style attack by 125-150 Al Q’ieda terrorists on the US Mission in The Battle of Benghazi, and we continue to watch while the CIA, the State Department, the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs–of-Staff, and left of Center liberal media establishment are all complicit in the cover up.

Every Navy Veteran and every US Naval Academy graduate should contact their Congressional Representative, their US Senators, and the media in their states to demand Obama be stopped dead in his tracks from effectively destroying the US Navy at a time when Russia is going to war in the Ukraine.

Every day another shoe drops, and the “feckless and inept ” Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and the “anti-American and leftist” Democratic leadership in the US Senate do not act to prevent the continued destruction of the US Armed Forces by Obama.

Unless the leadership groups in both Houses of Congress act to prevent Obama from destroying the US Navy, “ALL” those Congressman and Senators in leadership of both houses who are perpetuating this and are standing for re-election in November must be defeated at the polls.

The Austrian Influences on Bitcoin by Jeffrey A. Tucker

March 26, 2014/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Must Read, News, Policy, Regulation, Taxes/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

There is a bit of Menger, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and Kirzner in every satoshi.

Bitcoin seemed to emerge out of the blue in early 2009 as a unified monetary and payment system, something anticipated by no one. It’s true that the people who saw its merits and viability early on were code slingers and hackers. They posted their masterworks in strange places, and they are not available at university libraries. It’s all a little much to get your mind around, and there’s no academic literature about it. But then, the beauty of bitcoin is that you can jump in, start using it, and learn from the ground up.

For my part, I was incredulous about Bitcoin for two years after I heard about it. It just seemed crazy that money could somehow be created by a computer without any external or physical foundation. In some ways, this seems contradictory to everything we know about money.

But now that the currency has taken hold, its infrastructure is being built, cash-to-Bitcoin machines are going up everywhere, and mainstream opinion is gradually coming around. Cryptocurrency is real and not going away.

It’s time for a retrospective on exactly who among economists anticipated such a radical idea that markets themselves could discover and sustain a money independent of the State. When looking for economists, we need to begin with those who regarded money as a market good, created through entrepreneurial experimentation.

That points directly to the Austrian School.

Carl Menger (1840–1921). “Money is not an invention of the state,” wrote the great founder of the Austrian School. “It is not the product of a legislative act. Even the sanction of political authority is not necessary for its existence. Certain commodities came to be money quite naturally, as the result of economic relationships that were independent of the power of the state.”

This runs against most of what we think we know. Money is produced by the State today and has been in most places in the world for the better part of one hundred years. This creates an illusion that the State is the reason for money’s existence.

This is untrue. Money was nationalized away from markets, just as the roads and schools were. None of the reasons for this development are good. Government likes to control the money because it can depreciate it and thereby have another revenue source besides taxes. It can guarantee its own debts to prevent markets from evaluating them realistically.

The banks oblige this wish. In exchange, they are protected from market competition and enjoy protection against bank runs. In essence, the government grants banks the right to counterfeit so long as government can enjoy the first fruits of the printing press.

Once you release yourself from the myth that government created money, new possibilities emerge. Menger describes the emergence of money in evolutionary terms. There is trial-and-error. There is innovation. There are fits and starts. Something can be money in one place and not in another. Its emergence is gradual and goes through many iterations. “This transition did not take place abruptly, nor did it take place in the same way among all peoples.” This is a good description of the emergence of Bitcoin.

Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973). In a book published in 1912, Mises deepened and broadened Menger’s original theory about the origin of money. He was seeking an answer to the question of money’s original price in terms of goods and services. He explained that at any one time, there are many goods competing for money status—that is, that the good would be acquired not just to consume but also to trade for other goods.

He explained that it is impossible for anything to just be labelled money and for it to obtain value. There must be more to it than that. Gold and silver, for example, obtained their money value by virtue of their prior use in barter. In this sense, money must extend from a living market experience.

How does this apply to Bitcoin? The underlying value of Bitcoin is connected to its incredibly innovative payment system. The technology combines a distributed network, a ledger updated and verified for each transaction, cryptography, and a direct peer-to-peer system of exchange to create the blockchain. Users played around with the results for fully 8 months before the attached currency (Bitcoin) obtained its first market value.

Giving value to this digital currency was not something that could be done by government or social contract. It takes real market experience with a value good—or, in the case of Bitcoin, a wonderful service that the whole world needs. Such is the origin of Bitcoin’s value. In fact, if there were no payment network bound up with the currency, the currency itself would have no value at all.

In my experience in explaining this to people, this is a real sticking point. Most people think of money and a payment system as different entities (dollars vs. Visa). With national money, this is entirely correct. But Bitcoin is different. It unites the two in one. That’s hard to think through.

Mises made two additional contributions. He said that central banking was not necessary and predicted that it would be detrimental to the soundness of money. History has proven him right. In his ideal, money would function entirely apart from the State—just as Bitcoin does. Also, Mises closely tied the cause of sound money to freedom itself. He compared sound money to constitutions that guarantee fundamental human rights.

F.A. Hayek (1899–1992). Hayek was Mises’s colleague in pushing for fundamental monetary reform for many decades. Together they warned of the dangers of central banking. They demonstrated how expansionary credit policy leads to price inflation and business cycle, and also fuels the growth of government. They begged and pleaded to reverse course. But they were doomed to be prophets of decline.

One year after Mises’s death, Hayek decided to take a different course. In 1974, he wrote “The Denationalization of Money.” He gave up on the idea of government involvement in money at any level and concluded that there had to be a complete separation, even at the level of reform. He suggested a revolution from below.

He once favored the gold standard, but with this book he said, in effect, “We certainly can do better than that, though not through government.” He explained that “we have always had bad money because private enterprise was not permitted to give us a better one.” He endorsed a system of privately created monies based on a variety of technologies, included indexes of commodity baskets. These monies would all compete for market dominance, same as with any other good.

This book seemed mind-blowing at the time. But with Bitcoin, it’s not so crazy. The technologies were not around during Hayek’s day but now we can see how much we’ve been missing in the age of nationalized money. Money has gotten worse rather than better—and this is different from other private commodities, like phones, cars, and computers. Money can indeed be a product of private enterprise. The right reform plan is to just forget about the government’s system and move onward to something more wonderful. In the competition for money and payment systems, the market system will win.

Murray Rothbard (1926–1995). The first I ever heard of the idea of private coinage, it was from Rothbard’s 1963 book, What Has Government Done to Our Money. The idea astonished me, though, again, the notion seems not entirely outlandish now. New research has emerged that has shown that private currency is a huge part of modern history, from England in the Industrial Revolution to the American nineteenth century.

This wasn’t his central contribution. Rothbard was a theorist of the idea of private property, spelling out its implications for the whole of the social order. It is private property that brings order, secures liberty, rationally allocates resources, keeps conflict at bay, allows for the adjudication of disputes, incentivizes production, and generally shores up human liberty. Rothbard firmly established that money is and must remain private property.

Why does that insight matter? It comes down to one word: banks. They first existed as warehouses, made necessary because of safety and the costs of transport. The function of banks as lenders is really something different. In either case, the rights to who owns what ought to remain clear. Alas, it was not to be the case. Banks love ambiguity over ownership. If they can warehouse your stuff and make money lending it out at the same time, that’s all the better for them. If they can get government backing for the practice, that’s even better.

Rothbard’s best idea of reform—spelled out at great length in his 1983 book The Mystery of Banking—was to re-institutionalize property rights in the realm of money. No more should there be confusion and uncertainty about the titles to money property. Just as in the rest of the world, there should be clear distinctions. You can warehouse your money or your can loan it to a lender at a risk but there should be no mixing of the two. In today’s world, no one has a clue who has a right to what.

Now consider Bitcoin. When I own it, you don’t. When you own it, I don’t. There are no intermediaries, no charge backs, no confusions about how many there are or to whom they belong. To pay is to transfer, not just on some fictional ledger that may or may not reflect. This is a Rothbardian dream come true.

To be sure, Mt. Gox muddied the situation substantially, but that is not intrinsic to Bitcoin itself. It was a result of one firm that was poorly run, and this firm was compromised by a hacking theft, a cover up, incompetence, or outright fraud (it’s still just starting to be sorted out—for instance, Mt. Gox just found 200,000 BTC it didn’t realize it had). But the beauty of the situation was that even with that institution’s obfuscation, users knew of the foul play. For years prior to bankruptcy, it was obvious that something was amiss. Bitcoin is still being traded. The newest firms are going the extra mile to make it clear that they hold all your property at all times. Plus, with paper wallets and cold storage, you don’t have to use third parties at all.

Unlike the gold that Rothbard favored as currency (he died in 1995, just as the web was privatized and began to mature), Bitcoins are both weightless and spaceless. This means that the warehousing function of Bitcoin is technically unnecessary. Every owner can be his or her own banker. This is a dream in many ways, since the the warehousing function is technologically contingent, not an eternal feature of the world.

Israel Kirzner (1930– ). Kirzner is a student of Mises’s who has dedicated his life’s work to understanding and expanding upon an insight of his teacher. Mises saw that economics resisted formal modelling for many reasons but a major factor was the presence of entrepreneurship. There is a reason that textbooks neglected this topic for decades. It contradicts the goal of perfect prediction and perfect control. Entrepreneurship introduces an element of chaos that defies every expectation. Kirzner elaborated.

This is the act of discerning unmet technologies and needs in a market setting and bringing them to life for consumption and production. Entrepreneurship means introducing something new that had previously been unknown. There is an element of surprise that is essential to entrepreneurship that drives forward the process of market development.

When we think of Bitcoin, how can we not think of entrepreneurial surprise? It was released not as a traditionally capitalist product but rather on a free forum. Anyone could download it and starting “mining” Bitcoin. But only those super-alert to the opportunity did so. One of those was the inventor himself, who is a very rich person today. This is what it means to be alert to and discover an opportunity.

Today there are many thousands of businesses that have grown up around Bitcoin. There are wallets, exchanges, retail and wholesale stores, service companies, and so much more. Each one represents a risk. Most will not make it. But some will. What determines their success or failure (leaving aside government regulations) is whether they meet the needs of the consuming public. No one can know the results in advance.

Kirzner is the master of describing this process, one that Menger said is at the heart of causing a new money to emerge. Thus have we come full circle: 120 years of scholarship that describes the very economic heart of cryptocurrency. To most people it is mystifying and amazing, and truly it seems that way. But there is a logic to it all, even if it is only obvious in retrospect.

How many years will it be before the economic science of the non-Austrian variety catches up? For now, most professionals in this field are politely ignoring the fact that Bitcoin has blown up nearly all conventional wisdom about monetary theory and monetary policy. (Konrad Graf, though, is already on the story). Indeed, Bitcoin was necessary in part because the current State-based system has utterly failed to keep up with the times. Had the market been allowed to work all along, instead of being restricted and truncated by state control, the system would likely be further along than it is.

Now is a good time to look back, dust off those neglected books, and rediscover the school of thought that anticipated all the core of what makes Bitcoin so incredible.

ABOUT JEFFREY A. TUCKER

Jeffrey Tucker is a distinguished fellow at FEE, CEO of the startup Liberty.me, and publisher at Laissez Faire Books. He will be speaking at the FEE summer seminar “Making Innovation Possible: The Role of Economics in Scientific Progress.”

Mark Twain said, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness” — But Not for NPR’s Rick Steves

March 26, 2014/in Must Read, National Security, Policy/by Tabitha Korol

One radio station that I seldom listen to, in order to keep my blood pressure at its normal low, is NPR, National Public Radio, which I once renamed, “Notorious for Palestinian Revisionism.” However, while surfing the stations the other day, I paused at NPR long enough to hear, “settlements,” a term exclusive to Israel’s housing developments. Someone was spewing the usual Islamic propaganda about Israelis constructing housing for Israelis in Israel. It was one of the station’s fundraising programs, and the guest speaker was Rick Steves, a Washington state-based, self-proclaimed travel guru.

He then proceeded to assure the listeners that the “settlements” are illegal, which is absolutely not the case. He probably knows, but emphatically denies with purpose, that Israel’s boundaries are explicitly defined for the Jews in the ancient Hebrew Bible, the Torah, and established by the League of Nations in 1920 and the United nations in 1948.

A sculpture by Henry Moore, in front of Tel Aviv Museum of Art. Picture taken by David Shay.

Meanwhile, Jordanian Muslim scholar, Sheikh Ahmad Adwan, has joined others who declare, “Allah gave Israel to the Jews. There’s no Palestine,” admonishing those who distort the Koran. Blogger Elder of Ziyon quoted the Koran, saying Allah assigned Israel to the Jews until the Day of Judgment (Sura 5:21), and that the Jews are the inheritors of Israel (Sura 26:59). Adwan continued, “I say to those who distort . the Koran: from where did you bring the name Palestine, you liars, you accursed, when Allah has already named it ‘The Holy Land’ and bequeathed it to the Children of Israel until the Day of Judgment. There is no such thing as Palestine in the Koran.”

These settlements – more aptly, neighborhoods – in the territories are entirely legal, although politically contentious. Most of these communities were built on undeveloped land during 1967-77 (after Israel won the defensive wars) in order to provide security for the Jews from their aggressive Muslim neighbors. After 1977, communities were built on unallocated government land, and by 2005, there were about 150 communities -about 200,000 Israelis – living on less than two percent of Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank). The Jews’ right to settle is a “legal right assured by treaty and specifically protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter, and precisely equal to the right of the existing Palestinians living there.”

Nevertheless, the Palestinians thrive on public relations and propaganda, not unlike the Nazi propaganda that led up to World War II, to make their claim for the land they covet, just as Muslims have done to conquer the rest of the Middle East over 1400 years. And revisionists and anti-Semites are more than eager to broadcast those assertions against the 3500-year-historical, legal, and security-related claims of the indigenous Jews.

Without his ingrained mindset, Steves might have acknowledged history – that the Gazan Muslims and their descendants (not citizens of Israel) who chose to leave Israel when their fellow-Arabs attacked, were indeed from Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. The Muslims who chose to stay in Israel are now, with their descendants, two million-plus citizens of Israel. He might then have concluded that despite originating from those warring countries, they were not permitted to return to them for, as squatters, they are regarded as valuable pawns in the never-ending Muslim jihad war against the Jews – the quintessential way of harnessing world opinion against them.

Further to Steves’ lies, his website illustrates that he has joined the Muslim jihad at war with the West. He indulges in Islamic taqiyyah (lies for Allah) by choosing the most anti-Israel groups to reinforce his accusations, by referring to a distorted PBS documentary about the “Holy Land” (whose very name aims to discredit Israel’s sovereignty), and the George Soros-supported, pro-Hamas, virulently anti-Israel lobby in Washington, DC, J-Street, that solicits funds for the congressional candidates who are openly hostile to Israel.

In his brief time on NPR, he used guile to deceive his audience by speaking of the Israeli children who played with toy guns, as he, himself, “once had as a young boy, ” in order to shoot at the Palestinians, adding that it would be so much better if “the wall” were dismantled so that the children could get to know each other. He failed to mention that the Palestinian children do not play with toy guns. Rather, they indulge in the deadly drive-by, rock-throwing attacks at Jews.

For the sake of misinformation, he did not acknowledge that Jewish, Christian and Muslim children do attend school and play together in Israel, but that Mahmoud Abbas vowed that no Jews would ever live in a future Palestinian state. Palestinian children are taught by their teachers, TV programs, imams and the Qur’an that Jews are “dogs and pigs” to be hated and killed, and their leader refuses to recognize that the Jewish children are there, so playing together in a Palestinian state is entirely out of the question.

Rothschild Blvd. in wintertime, facing south. Tel Aviv, Israel.

As a world traveler, Steves undeniably knows that there are walls throughout the world that keep one people safe from another, and this wall and fence combination is actually a protective shield that Israel had to erect to keep her citizens safe from those whose raison d’etre is to kill the Jews who will not accept Allah as their god. In fact, since the erection of the barrier, the number of attacks is said to have declined by more than 90 percent. So, surely, Steves understands that removing the wall would provide easy access for the Palestinians to attack and kill Israelis, but perhaps that is his objective.

If Steves could face reality, he would grasp that Muslims are in the United States for the same reason that Israel built the shield. They showed their hand when they bombed the World Trade Center on September 11, with the Fort Hood massacre, and with the Boston bombing, to name the most infamous. Another sign of “arrival for a purpose” is the increased number of mosques nationwide, requiring footbaths in public places, allocating Islamic books to libraries throughout the US, and funding and distributing Islamized textbooks to our K-12 schools and universities.

If he were functioning properly, Rick Steves would realize that Muslim emigration to foreign countries results in gradual changes, from non-assimilation to riots, terrorism, violence and death, to Islamic rule, as they institute Shari’a law. He would then come to understand that the bloodshed throughout the Middle East, Africa and Asia are a natural outcome of more than 14 centuries of such invasions and arrive at the realization that unless he too fully acquiesces, he will surely bleed as did all the others when they were decapitated, a favorite Islamic technique.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the beaches in Tel Aviv.

What Common Core Looks Like In Desperation

March 26, 2014/in Culture War, Education, Featured, News, Policy, Politics/by Mercedes Schneider

It seems that the protests of the American citizen against the so-called Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has become proverbial grains of sand in the works of the mammoth corporate reform machine.

Die-hard supporters of CCSS are becoming desperate, and such is showing in their words and actions.

Consider Jeb Bush’s declaration, “In Asia today, they don’t care about children’s self esteem….”

This hard-nosed attitude is supposed to appeal to the American public and advance CCSS?

Jeb is definitely pushing CCSS whether America likes it or not– but he is becoming sloppy in his rhetoric.

He is not alone in his desperate, Save CCSS efforts.

Founder and director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools Caroline Roemer-Shirley (sister to our state board of education president) wrote this op/ed for the Baton Rouge Advocate on March 24, 2014.

Not surprisingly, she is pro-CCSS.

Notice the authoritarian desperation in her closing statement:

It’s critically important that all of us — parents, educators, community leaders and businessmen — oppose efforts to derail the Common Core State Standards.

Good public education is the key to success for our children and we must help them get there by all means available. A quality education is one of childhood’s most basic civil rights. Our goal must be to get our children into the top tiers nationally. That means pushing aside anything or anyone standing in the way of their success. [Emphasis added.]

Roemer-Shirley equates CCSS with “a quality education.”

The same day at Roemer-Shirley’s op/ed, education historian Diane Ravitch posted a marvelous piece that unequivocally demonstrates CCSS as not even qualifying as standards given its secretive, controlled, stakeholder-absent creation and declared rigidity:

In the United States, the principles of standard-setting have been clearly spelled out by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). …

[CCSS] were written in a manner that violates the nationally and internationally recognized process for writing standards. The process by which they were created was so fundamentally flawed that these “standards” should have no legitimacy.

Setting national academic standards is not something done in stealth by a small group of people, funded by one source, and imposed by the lure of a federal grant in a time of austerity.

There is a recognized protocol for writing standards, and the Common Core standards failed to comply with that protocol. [Emphasis added and some text order reversed.]

Monday, March 24, 2014, also gave us blogger Peter Greene’s fine post on the purpose of CCSS to tag student data down to the very classroom assignment.

Roemer-Shirley does not care for protocol that honors the democratic process, and she does not care about the invasive, science-fiction nature of CCSS data tagging. Instead, she is willing to “push aside anyone standing in the way of their (let’s be real, folks– she doesn’t mean students’) success.”

Hmm.

The creepy-desperate CCSS push does not stop there. On March 18, 2014, both national union presidents met with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO– one of the two CCSS copyright holders), with in attendance all desiring to save CCSS.

It seems that AFT members can expect their national president to cling to CCSS no matter what her constituency thinks:

Weingarten added that she expects that many of her members would call for outright opposition to the standards during the AFT’s summer convention, even though both the AFT and NEA support the standards and Weingarten said she wouldn’t back away from the common core. [Emphasis added.]

If the AFT membership opposes CCSS “outright,” how is it, then, that “AFT supports the standards”?

Does a declared, “official” position outrank the desires of AFT’s own membership?

Apparently so.

NEA (not the membership, mind you) is right there with AFT in its protection of CCSS:

During the same discussion, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel… said the union remained squarely behind the standards themselves….

What is one to do in order to ensure CCSS support? Why, one must promote a positive CCSS message in the media:

… (South Dakota) Education Secretary Melody Schopp expressed concern that enough wasn’t being done to push more positive common-core stories to the public: “The media’s not hearing that.” [Emphasis added.]

All of this “pushing” so-called reform “to the public.”

Genuine standards are not “pushed.” Genuine standards are elicited.

Nevertheless, in our current, for-profit reform era, it’s all about the spin. No organization knows that better than Stand for Children (SFC). (I debated SFC Louisiana twice on CCSS– see this link and this link.)

The question is, how far will SFC go in its CCSS-desperation spin?

Well beyond the ethical, it seems.

In their efforts to “push” a positive CCSS message, SFC Oklahoma decided “positive” need not necessarily be honest:

…Some names on a petition, from a group hoping to keep Common Core, were faked. The group, Stand for Children Oklahoma, presented a petition to legislators in early March with 7,000 signatures, but many people whose names are on the list said they didn’t sign it.

Sherri Crawford is one of those. She’s adamantly against Common Core. …

When asked if she signed it, she responded, “No, absolutely not.”

Sherri found out her name was on the petition after a group of moms, who oppose common core, got a hold of it and started checking the names. They said they found not only several obviously fake names, like Barack Obama, but more than a thousand they have personally verified didn’t sign it. [Emphasis added.]

Yes, my fellow lovers of the democratic process, we have indeed become grains of sand in the greasy wheels of the pro-CCSS engine.

The very idea makes me smile.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Rennett Stowe. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

What if the Green Movement is not saving the planet but enslaving humanity?

March 26, 2014/in Featured, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

For decades the Green Movement has claimed that Earth is threatened by the activity and even the existence of mankind. Green policies dictate that the noble response is relinquishing our liberties to “save” the planet from peril. Award-winning filmmaker JD King sets off on a cinematic journey to challenge these Green philosophies, and overturn the tables on issues like carbon emissions, climate change, overpopulation, natural resources, and unmasks the UN’s Agenda 21 plan. BLUE casts a bold new vision: that through greater freedom we can realize a fuller potential for our fellow man and this beautiful blue planet we call home.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABCDEFGH[/youtube]

Connect: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bluebeatsgreenTwittter: @BlueBeatsGreen #Blueisbest #BlueWorld Instagram: http://instagram.com/bluebeatsgreen

Official Website: http://www.bluebeatsgreen.com/movie

Featuring: Leighton Steward, Cal Beisner, Robert Zubrin, Lord Monckton, Steven F. Hayward, Mark Baird, Mike McKenna, Joe Voetberg, Michael Shaw, Vishal Mangalwadi, and many more.

The Plan for Police Nullification

March 26, 2014/in Culture War, Featured, Gun Rights, News, Policy, Regulation/by Selwyn Duke

“I [sic] give my left n** to bang down your door and come for your gun,” said the cop. This statement, made by Branford, Ct., police officer Joseph Peterson in a Facebook conversation earlier this month, created quite a blogosphere firestorm. Internet commenters from Sacramento to Saratoga struck a note of defiance and e-shouted the ancient words of Spartan King Leonidas, “Molon labe!” On the other side there’s Ct. governor Dannel Malloy (D), who said to a gun owner at a March 13 town-hall meeting that the anti-Second Amendment set won and “you lost.” But it occurs to me that in-your-face actions can go both ways.

Pondering this brings to mind yet another type of response to the (anti) Constitution State door-banger: from law-enforcement officers (LEOs) vowing not to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. One of them, a retired career detective responding to Officer Peterson’s statement that his job is only to enforce the law — and that he must do so no matter what form it takes — called Peterson a “fool” and wrote, “Part of the filtering process in criminal justice IS the police choosing whether or not to enforce a law at a particular point in time on a particular person.” This gets at an important point: the “good soldier” cop argument is bunk. No LEO tickets everyone driving 31 in a 30 zone, many laws are on the books but not enforced at all, and no moral cop would obey a command to round up all members of a certain ethnic group for extermination. Police use discretion all the time.

And, if our constitutional rights are to be secure, we need fewer Officer Petersons in the world and more, let’s say, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. We don’t need good-soldier cops — we need good-citizen cops.

The solution to this problem lies in the LEO selection process. If your area is electing a sheriff, there must be an explicit litmus test:

Will you protect constitutional rights?
And will you disobey unconstitutional orders, no matter their origin?

Any waffling or hesitation should disqualify the candidate. We need LEOs who won’t just yes us to death, for electoral ambitions have a way of greasing the tongue. We need LEOs who are passionate about the issue, stout-hearted cultural and constitutional warriors. And while we can’t read minds, remember this: if you want to know what a person wants you to believe he believes, listen to what he says. If you want to know what he really believes, listen to how he says it. While some people are A-list actors, it’s hard to fake true passion.

But even this isn’t enough. The candidate must also agree to incorporate as part of regular deputy training a comprehensive course on the U.S. Constitution. This course must reflect what is called a strict “originalist” view of the document, but what is really just the only lawful, correct view. (It would be silly to call someone who follows the rules of poker an originalist and someone who doesn’t a “pragmatist.” The latter is called a cheater.) It must emphasize that an unconstitutional law is no law at all.

This brings us to something else Gov. Malloy said to the gun owner at the town hall: “[W]e have courts. Courts are where the constitutionality of things are [sic] decided.”

Actually, no, they’re not.

Courts are where the courts’ position on constitutionality is decided.

As for actual constitutionality, that’s an objective reality that cannot be changed by cheaters who rationalize that rules can be “living” (which is convenient when you‘ve assumed the power of life and death over them).

And “assumed” is the operative word. Nothing in the Constitution grants the courts the power to be the ultimate arbiter of the document’s meaning. So who did grant the courts this power?

The courts themselves!

Chief Justice John Marshall took it upon himself to assert this right in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. This started the transition from the rule of law to the rule of lawyers.

This is why the LEO Constitution course must also incorporate Thomas Jefferson’s correct position on the courts’ role. Our third president wrote in 1819 that he denied “the right they [the courts] usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution…,” saying that if that right became status quo, “then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se.” That’s Latin, of course.

It means “suicide pact.”

And no American has an obligation to be party to a suicide pact.

Jefferson went on to explain, “For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial review] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.” Quite right. And if the courts can unilaterally decide that they have ultimate-arbiter power, guess what?

We can unilaterally decide they don’t.

Yes, in-your-face actions can go both ways.

As for law enforcement, what if you can’t vote for your head LEO because you live in a city in which the mayor appoints a police chief? Then the litmus test a sheriff would have to pass must be applied to a mayoral candidate. If he’s a Bolshevik Bill unwilling to appoint a Constitution-loving-and-fearing chief who will institute the aforementioned Constitution course, tell him sorry, but only true Americans need apply.

As first responders, LEOs can also be first persecutors or first protectors. What they actually will be is up to us.

BREAKING: Florida “Cultural Indicators Report” Released

March 25, 2014/in Culture War, Featured, Healthcare, News, Policy/by Dr. Rich Swier

The Florida Family Policy Council (FFPC) released the Florida Cultural Indicators Report which was commissioned and published by the FFPC and evaluates the cultural, social and economic condition of our state. The study will be delivered to every member of the Florida House, Senate, and Cabinet, all legislative committees, media and news agencies across Florida. The 55 page Florida Cultural Indicators Report is available in PDF format here.

Video footage of the announcement including FFPC President John Stemberger’s remarks:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/3-dBCNgRuh8[/youtube]

The 55 page full color document provides statistical data for 37 cultural indicators in 7 different categories including vital statistics, crime, education, family, health, poverty & welfare, and business & government. Each indicator compares Florida’s status to the rest of the country by using charts, graphs and color images to accompany the raw data.

Among the more remarkable findings of the study include:

While Florida’s violent crime rate has fallen 55% since 1990, since 1960 Florida’s violent crime rate has always been 36% above the national average.
On average, 83,000 couples are divorced each year. Florida has the ninth highest divorce rate in the nation and the divorce rate has been above the national average for more than 50 years.
Florida taxpayers pay $1.95 billion dollars annually as the cost of family fragmentation from divorce and unwed childbearing.
The total number of births out of wedlock has jumped from 28% in 1960 to 62% in 2012. Since 1960, the percentage of births to non-white unmarried women has increased by 126%.
Since 1960 the number of single parent families has risen by 260%.
Enrolment in Medicare by Florida’s seniors has risen by 61%.
Florida has the fifth highest HIV infection rate in the nation with 78% of HIV in men being the result of male on male sexual contact.
One in six Floridians now receive food stamps quadrupling this rate since 2008.

John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the FFPC was on hand to comment and offer analysis regarding the results and implications of the study. Stemberger stated, “Virtually every domestic policy issue in this report is connected to the level of thriving in marriages and families. While government’s role is limited in shaping culture, there is still much that legislative leaders can do to strengthen these institutions. Our plea to government officials and public opinion leaders all across Florida is to begin a dialogue and discussion about how Florida can strengthen the institutions of marriage and family. Our hope would be that future legislative leaders would create a joint commission, a workshop, a summit, or an OPPAGA study on marriage and family to explore solutions to reduce family fragmentation and increase the thriving of marriages and families.”

Does Climate Change Play a Role in Putin’s Aggression in Ukraine?

March 25, 2014/in Culture War, Energy, Environment, Featured, National Security, News, Policy, Science/by John Casey

1. Russian President Vladimir Putin has bested US President Obama in the Ukraine including the recent annexation of Crimea.

2. Putin is trying to rebuild the former Soviet Union, but may also want Ukraine’s wheat and all the warm water ports of the northern Black Sea because of a potentially dangerous new cold climate.

3. Global warming ended years ago and the next global cold climate epoch has begun because of the Sun going into a reduced state of energy output called a ‘solar hibernation’ – a once every 206 year event.

4. During past cold eras, Russians were heavily dependent on the Ukraine for wheat and the warmer water ports of Crimea. Russia is a cold, far north nation. Most of it lies at the latitude of Alaska.

5. Russian government scientists and their media are free to talk about the new cold climate where US scientists are punished for telling the truth about the climate. The US mainstream media is silent on the coming cold. Russian scientists have said a new “Little Ice Age” begins this year!

6. Russia is no stranger to the ravages of cold and starvation and they are therefore more concerned about the next cold climate. In the US, most have never experienced either. Russian scientists have said their country must prepare for what the new cold epoch will do to them. In the US, just the opposite is happening! President Obama has even said global warming is “accelerating!” – a shockingly false statement.

7. Putin will do what he can to prevent the European Union or the US or western agricultural conglomerates from getting Ukrainian wheat thus depriving Russia of food for its people. The US food conglomerates are well aware of the next cold climate.

8. Putin will try to stop the US or NATO from controlling northern Black Sea ports for its Navy. If the next “Little Ice Age” (LIA) begins as predicted, Russia’s northern ports along the Baltic Sea will be frozen in for most of the year – crippling its Navy.

9. Putin may be listening to what his scientists and his media are saying about the need to prepare for the coming difficult cold epoch. President Obama continues to place US citizens in harm’s way by making sure we are totally unprepared for the coming food shortages and extreme cold weather.

QUESTION: Does Climate Change Play a Role in Putin’s Aggression in the Ukraine?

Certainly, it looks as though the primary reason for the Russian action in Ukraine is part of Putin’s long range plan to reconstitute the former Soviet Union. Is climate change on his mind as he executes his militaristic Ukrainian strategy while taking full advantage of the feckless foreign policy of President Obama? Maybe. Should it be? Absolutely!

Putin, two steps ahead of President Obama on international affairs, is actually years ahead of President Obama on climate change. Our hapless President continues to reinforce the myth of man made global warming and engaging in active deception of the American people on the subject. Putin, however, appears to be doing exactly what he needs to do to prepare for the predicted extreme cold climate that my climate research company, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC,) and Russia’s leading climate scientists have warned about. That’s right, for those who haven’t been informed yet; global warming ended years ago and a potentially dangerous new cold climate has begun!

The next climate change to a predicted long cold epoch which threatens Russia’s control over the vital national resources of wheat and its long standing need for a warm water port, may be among the more important and undiscussed drivers underlying the Russian aggression in Ukraine. Securing these resources may cause him to insure he has complete control over all of the Ukraine beyond the just annexed Crimea and as much of the northern Black Sea as he can take. This bold assertion rightfully demands some explanation.

The new cold climate, a once-every-206-year event, is brought on as a result of the Sun making historic reductions in its energy output, which is leading us inextricably down the path to a much colder Earth. This “solar hibernation” has already brought about a stunning reversal from the past global warming to a new colder climate leaving the ‘warmist’ and environmental communities scrambling for new reasons for existence, e.g. ocean acidification. The widely available real world temperature data shows that not only have we had no global warming for seventeen years, but that oceanic and atmospheric temperatures have been declining for much of the last eleven years. Sea ice extent globally has reached record levels. The brutal record cold winter of 2013-2014 is but one example of many, that a fundamental change in the climate has arrived. This new cold is like the solar hibernation that has caused it, unstoppable!

The absence of discussion by our media and government, much less action to prepare for the next cold climate epoch in the US, is completely opposite in Russia! It is ironic and deeply saddening that in what was the former communist Soviet Union, scientists are more free to tell the truth about what is really happening with the Earth’s climate, than are their US colleagues. As a result, Russian climate scientists are way ahead of their shackled US counterparts on the status of this next change to a long cold climate. Tragically, here in the US, it would be a career ending move if a government scientist or government funded university climate researcher told the truth about this new cold phenomenon. President Obama has made it clear that US scientists are to mislead the people about what is happening with the climate. He has done so via executive order and in public statements where he has made public policy. In June 2013 at Georgetown University, for example, he made the statement that global warming was “accelerating” – a shockingly false statement.

Similarly, the Russian media has no problem printing articles from their climate experts about the coming cold climate and its potentially calamitous effects. With the exception of a relatively few like Newsmax and the Orlando Sentinel, major US media outlets are silent on what may become the most important news story of the century. In Russia, the media have reported that researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences are warning that a new “Little Ice Age” is coming, possibly in 2014! It is this new extreme cold epoch and its many ill-effects that could be an important secondary driver behind Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Unlike the US, Russia is no stranger to bitter cold and nationwide food deprivation. Their history is full of such episodes caused by natural forces and augmented by political turbulence and warfare. It is part of their country’s historical, social, and political makeup. There is a stark difference therefore, between the current US and Russian view of the next climate change. In the US, there is no future cold climate threat! Yet many ‘in the know’ in Russian view it as ‘a clear and present danger!’ As a result, while on the surface their rationale for a Ukraine invasion is political, underneath, the Russians well understand what other ‘jewels’ Ukraine has to offer.

I believe one of those jewels and reasons for a Russian takeover starting in the Crimea, is to secure complete access to Ukrainian wheat and other crops as they did in days of the former Soviet Union. In 2012, Russia proper produced 38 million metric tons of wheat, fifth largest in the world. Ukraine came in with 16 million tons about half of Russia’s output yet, making it number eleven in the global rankings. It is possible under current cold climate scenarios published in the Global Climate Status Report©, a product of the Space and Science Research Corporation, that Russia may see a substantial loss of its grain crops during the next cold climate. This could result in them becoming partially or totally dependent on the Ukraine for much of the bread on Russian tables. The quantities are not the only point – the geography matters too.

The Russian homeland is centered along latitude 60 degrees north. This is the same as northern Canada and Alaska! Russia in the winter is a vast cold land. Even the Ukraine, near the southern most extent of Russia, is about the same latitude as the wheat belt of southern Canada. What if the Russian Academy of Sciences is correct and we see another Little Ice Age start this year or in the next five or even ten years. What if Russia loses much or all its harvest of wheat for years in a row? They will turn as they have before – to Ukraine.

The March 10, 2014 Global Climate Status Report states that this new cold climate will likely “…result in substantial, global, social disruption and loss of life.” The US government, US agricultural conglomerates and the US mainstream media are well aware of the new cold climate because of frequent updates provided to them over the years by the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC).

Putin cannot allow the western leaning Ukrainian government to permit European, or US agricultural conglomerates to have access to Ukraine’s wheat during the coming cold climate, leaving his people without the food they will be demanding.

History has shown that when the people begin to starve, they take down their government and wars begin. The French revolution of 1789, which eventually placed Napoleon Bonaparte on the throne, took place at the very beginning of the last 206 year solar cycle’s cold phase. Doubtless, President Putin has no interest in seeing any political upheaval on his watch. He will want Ukraine’s crops and will do what is needed to keep European and US agriculture conglomerates out of the way.

But what about the warm water port issue. The world has long known that Russia has historically sought out warm ports where its navy could hold up during winters and to be able to respond year-round to Russian military requirements as they also attempt to project their military force globally. But during this new cold climate, it will be different. The port issue will be paramount!

Again, if the Russian climate researchers are correct, then the far northern waters of the planet especially the Baltic Sea and waters around Russia’s northern ports could be frozen over, not just for a few months in winter, but for most if not all of the year! During the coldest time of the Little Ice Age from 1615 to 1745, the Baltic Sea was so cold for so long that roads, hotels, and shops were built on the frozen sea and people walked between counties over the thick ice. No, this would not be just another cold winter adversely affecting Russia’s fleet for a predictably short few months. This could be a period of time when Russia’s military, especially its navy, could be crippled, making it vulnerable to other foreign designs. Putin cannot permit that either. He will want to hold on to the recently annexed Crimea and its ports and as many other warm water ports along the Black Sea that he can capture, thus prohibiting NATO naval forces from moving in.

All the while, the wily Russian President Putin remains way ahead of President Obama. In the United States, the manmade climate change deception has become a joke. In Russia, as its history of incredible hardships shows, the changing climate may be viewed today as a matter of life and death. The incursion into the Ukraine though essentially political, may also be the first steps the Russians are taking to prepare for the coming cold!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is of a Russian winter in Arzamas. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

Dutch MP Geert Wilders: “To the last gasp of breath, I will always be heard”

March 25, 2014/in Elections, Featured, National Security, News, Policy, Politics/by Jerry Gordon

March 19th , the Dutch Labor and conservative liberal parties in the ruling coalition of PM Mark Rutte were crushed in municipal elections in The Netherlands. They were looking for someone to blame for their debacle and seized upon a TV video of Geert Wilders’ election night remarks at a Hague campaign event. He was shown rousing Freedom Party members to address the societal and criminal problems occasioned by Islamization of Dutch Moroccans. The PVV loyalists at a Hague campaign rally were shown saying that country needed to have “fewer, fewer, fewer”, meaning Moroccans criminals.

That footage went viral pushed by the Dutch media and even promoted as race hatred by the Justice Minister who heads the Public Prosecutors Office. Dutch police were supplied with pre-filled Wilders compliant forms, prepared to deliver them to the homes of those requested them. There were even execrable graphic comparison of Wilders innocuous remarks with intercut footage of Hitler and Goebbels. A few PVV parliamentary delegation members left the party over the relentless criticism of Wilders.

As a result of the kerfuffle raised by the political losers in the March 19th municipal elections, Wilders answered unapologetically with a masterful repudiation of the press, ruling coalition Justice Minister and Labor and liberal Conservative party leaders.

Gates of Vienna (GoV) put up a post today of the translation of Wilders’ March 22nd press conference remarks, replete with his characteristic Churchillian phrasing, “To the last gasp of breath, I will always be heard”:

Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, gave an historic speech on March 22, 2014.

He spoke out spontaneously, without a prepared text, before answering media questions. His remarks were prompted by the recent controversy over an incident when his supporters chanted a call for “fewer Moroccans”.

In the following video you’ll notice a poignant parallel the PVV leader’s words: one of his well-trained bodyguards stands behind him, constantly scanning the room in a professional manner, alert to the possibility that one of the thousands of people who want to kill Mr. Wilders may appear on the scene at any moment.

Many thanks to SimonXML for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling.

Watch the YouTube video of Wilders’ press conference:

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

We will be publishing a New English Review article about this latest outburst against the truth of Islamization in The Netherlands, “Geert Wilders Once Again Endures a Firestorm of Criticism”.

Note our concluding comments:

To paraphrase England’s Henry II regarding the fate of former boon companion, Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Beckett, the Dutch political and media establishment might say: “who will rid us of this upstart meddlesome blonde.” We hope that those Dutch folks who went to the polls on March 19th and gave the PVV victories in several smaller municipalities may be joined by others in the majority, who didn’t vote. That might provide the PVV with a victory in the May EU parliamentary elections. We have seen Wilders bounce back from previous episodes like a proverbial cat with nine lives. His Eurosceptic alliance partners, especially Ms. Le Pen in France, would deem that a stunning and well deserved turnabout. Wilders’ opinion poll standing may have temporarily been dented by the outbursts of his left liberal opponents in the Hague Parliament. However, the cogency of his warnings about Islamization of Holland through the Dar al Hijrah stealth Jihad strategy of mass Muslim immigration and the enormous cost to the nation still resonate.

It is left to Bat Ye’or who gave this closing comment in an email about this hateful episode unfairly targeting Wilders. In reply to this comment, “It would appear that the world has gone topsy turvy, morally.” she said, “Exactly, and this is called dhimmitude.”

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

School choice ESAs receive favorable ruling from Arizona Supreme Court

March 25, 2014/in Courts & Law, Education, Must Read, News, Policy/by Friedman Foundation

PHOENIX, AZ — The Arizona Supreme Court today declined to review a lower court’s decision on the state’s education savings accounts (ESA) program, essentially deeming the ESA program legal. Opponents claimed ESAs support private schools in violation of the state constitution.

However, in 2013, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected opponents’ opinion, declaring the program constitutional in that ESA funds are directed “solely upon how parents choose to educate their children.”

The ruling could prompt Arizona policymakers to expand the ESA program further and encourage other states to consider the innovative education policy. For the most comprehensive information on ESAs, read the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice’s studies below:

Click here to read “The Way of the Future: Education Savings Accounts for Every American Family.”

From the author: “Arizona’s ruling now gives other states more reason to consider #schoolchoice ESAs” @MatthewLadner

How do parents use ESAs?

Click here to read “The Education Debit Card: What Arizona Parents Purchase with Education Savings Accounts.”

From the author: “The Arizona ruling is great news for parents using ESAs and those wanting more #schoolchoice” @LindseyMBurke

Are families happy with ESAs?

Click here to read “Schooling Satisfaction: Arizona Parents’ Opinions on Using Education Savings Accounts.”

From the authors:

“#Schoolchoice has another quality resource for families to consider with Arizona’s court ruling” @GoldwaterInst Jonathan Butcher

“Arizona’s ESA ruling reaffirms core principle of #schoolchoice: Parents are in charge” @JasonBedrick

For more information on ESAs, other court rulings, and legislative developments on school choice in every state, follow the Friedman Foundation @edchoice on Twitter.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Soldieranabi. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

The “International Baccalaureate Unraveled” by D.K. Niwa

March 25, 2014/in Education, News, Policy, Video/by Dr. Rich Swier

Costly and unnecessary International Baccalaureate (IB) programs are carelessly being adopted in K-12 public schools throughout the U.S. — often without the knowledge and approval of the general public (including taxpayers).

Since my August 2012 presentation, 200+ more U.S. schools have received “IB World School” status. As of 3/20/14: “There are 1,503 IB World Schools in the United States offering one or more of the three IB programmes. 411 schools offer the Primary Years Programme , 510 schools offer the Middle Years Programme and 807 schools offer the Diploma Programme.” (Source: http://www.ibo.org/country/US/index.cfm)

Learn more about IB (which links to UNESCO and serves as a vehicle to support U.N. Agenda 21 sustainable development plans):

“International Baccalaureate (IB) Unraveled” by Debra K. Niwa, Arizona Delivered August 11, 2012, Maine, USA

[youtube]http://youtu.be/wrCNrk-ZTjE[/youtube]

NOTE: Near the end of the video, you will learn a key reason why high school students in IB Diploma Programs — who may take and pass the full measure of academic requirements — are not awarded an IB Diploma.

Also please watch Jane Aitken’s presentation (Jane, a retired public school teacher, also discusses IB):

“A Teacher’s Testimony: The Agenda in Public Schools” by Jane Aitken, New Hampshire Delivered August 12, 2012, Maine, USA

[youtube]http://youtu.be/l5jTQJ7F6vA[/youtube]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Islam Exposed

March 25, 2014/in Must Read, National Security, News, Policy/by Dave Gaubatz

Below is the full text of a recent interview I had on Islam Exposed. It is very extensive and outlines the various Islamic issues in a concise and easy to understand manner. I thank Lisa Michelle from Islam Exposed for inviting me to do this interview and the panel members and fans for their insightful questions.

Lisa Michelle, Islam Exposed (IE) Moderator: We are privileged to welcome Dave Gaubatz as our guest for “Ask the Expert.” Welcome and thank you for joining us. We now immediately segue into our question-and-answer segment with a few questions by us followed by fans.

The title of your book, Muslim Mafia, implies a parallel between Islamic operations and organized crime, particularly with groups such as the Mafia or “Mob.” Would you elaborate on why you make such a comparison in your book and what that parallel is?

D. Gaubatz

The title Muslim Mafia was well-thought out by the publisher (WND) and myself. The undercover project upon which the book is based pertains to CAIR [Council of American-Islamic Relations] National in Washington, DC. It is well known and documented. They are a Muslim Brotherhood front. CAIR is a well-organized and financed terrorist-supporting organization. Its primary objective is to raise funding for Islamic-based terrorist organizations such as Hamas, as well as for Al Qaeda. It is a business and is a criminal enterprise like the Italian mob.

Adina Kutnicki, Israel Administrator: Can you please explain to readers the connection between Sharia law compliant financial instruments and their nexus to terror, specifically narco-terror? Too many believe the spin put forth that Sharia law finance is exclusively a means to enable Muslims to stay clear of investments considered “impure” according to Islamic principles.

D. Gaubatz

Sharia financing is a very dangerous aspect of the Islamic ideology and Sharia law. Islamic scholars want people to believe it is all about usury (interest on loans). Sharia financing goes all the way from the poppy fields of Afghanistan to the heroin users on the streets of New York, LA, and across the U.S. It is a tool used by Muslims to keep the bookkeepers of illegal funds and illegal bookkeeping from the eyes of organizations such as the IRS.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: We hear all time from politicians and media about terrorist cells and organizations, which obviously pose a threat to our national and international security. We also hear the terms Islamic “extremists,” “moderate” Muslims, and “Islamophobes” bantered about with little to no attention on the insidious nature and risks of stealth or “civilized” Jihad posed by so-called “moderate” Muslims, the rapid increase of mosque building here in America and abroad, and groups such as CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, etc.

By the same token, many of these groups and individuals do indeed seem to have assimilated and adapted to Western society. What is really going on behind the scenes at these institutions? In your educated estimation, what percentage of Muslims are in fact moderate and peaceful and how much of a threat do or will they present if their population in America continues to rise as it has in Europe?

D. Gaubatz

A “radical Muslim” is a “practicing” Muslim. A “Moderate” Muslim is a “non-practicing” Muslim or otherwise known as an “Apostate of Islam.” I ask readers to read my prior article, “The Fallacy of the Moderate Muslim.” There are essentially four types of people associated with Islam.

You have the “Pure Muslim” who does everything he or she can to be an example of what Islam was mandated to be by Prophet Mohammed (the founder of Islam). These folks are the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a dozen other Islamic terrorist groups. They are otherwise known as the band of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The second group are Muslims who found and lead such organizations as CAIR, ISNA, MSA [Muslim Students’ Association], MANA [Muslim Alliance in North America], etc. They spend millions on public relations to make themselves appear as peaceful Muslims only wanting to help other Muslims in need. In actuality, these groups are simply fronts of the Muslim Brotherhood to help fund their illegal operations.
The third group consists of what the world describes as “Moderate” Muslims. They have little to do with Islam and Sharia law. The majority of them are simply Apostates of Islam. The dangerous part is that some of these so-called moderates will side with Islamic terror groups when “the time is right.”
The fourth type of group is made up of liberals worldwide who are non-Muslim but who support the Islamic ideology before they would support their own governments in America, Egypt, UK, etc. They are a grave danger, because they provide cover for terror groups.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: What about interfaith dialogue? Do you think that the concepts of multiculturalism and engagement in interfaith dialogue between Muslims, Israel, the Jewish people, and the West in general are productive or do they pose a danger to us and why?

D. Gaubatz

Interfaith dialogue is very, very dangerous. It is nothing but a deceptive tool originated by Islamic organizations such as CAIR and a dozen other Islamic-based terrorist supporting groups. Islamic scholars have informed me during my undercover operations that interfaith dialogue is used by Islamic groups to get naive Christian ministers, pastors, rabbis, etc., to side with them on Islamic issues and to denounce anyone critical of Islam. Islamic groups have a confidential database of human sources. They recruit Christian leaders unwittingly. They know that if a pastor of a large church gives them support, it doesn’t matter what the 2,000 people in his/her congregation feel about Islam.

Ricki Elliot (U.S.): What are some of the most common techniques that Muslims use to become accepted members of U.S. society?

D. Gaubatz

The vast majority of people who identify with Islam in America do not adhere to Sharia law 100 percent as Islam dictates. They are essentially Apostates of Islam. There are thousands, if not millions, of Muslims who assimilate into the American culture by going to our colleges, obtaining legitimate employment, and swearing by the U.S. Constitution just to avoid scrutiny by the U.S. intelligence organizations. They are known as “Sleeper Cells.” When the timing is right, they will openly support physical Jihad operations against America and Israel. Our “Mapping Sharia” study shows that 75 plus percent of the mosques and Islamic centers in America have materials calling for hate and violence against non-Muslims and their respective governments.

Ann Bell (United Kingdom): Why are so many Muslims emigrating to the West?

D. Gaubatz

The ultimate objective of Islam is to establish a worldwide Islamic Ummah (nation) under Sharia law. In order to do this, Muslims must be in every part of the world and multiply. They are doing this throughout the world, especially in England, Germany, and the U.S. If they can populate these superpowers, they are closer to victory. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, MANA, Brooklyn, New York, said it best: “The U.S. can bomb us in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., but they can’t bomb us in America.”

Luis Monge (Costa Rica): We in Costa Rica have more than a few mosques. Should we consider every mosque a potential breeding ground for sleeper-cell terrorists, since the only difference between Muslims who carry out violent acts and peaceful ones seems to be how devout they really are?

D. Gaubatz

Every mosque throughout the world is a breeding ground for Islamic-based terrorism. The mosques are considered safe houses. Over 75 percent openly have material calling for Jihad against non-Muslims. This applies in Costa Rica.

Rickie Elliot (U.S.): How can we successfully block the establishment of a mosque within a city, particularly Norfolk, Virginia, and its surrounding cities?

D. Gaubatz

The chance of blocking a mosque or the expansion of a mosque in America is virtually zero. They will fight for decades to achieve their goal. Mosques in America are strategically placed (all 2,300). Until we can convince America’s leaders and law enforcement that Islam is a danger to our nation, we are fighting an uphill battle. There is only one slight chance of stopping the building of a mosque: you must provide first-hand evidence of what they are teaching.

George McCallum (U.S.): Do you think that it is possible to have a moratorium on Islamic immigration and the building of any new mosques in the United States? If so, how do we structure it so that it will hold up under any court challenges?

D. Gaubatz

I think what you suggest about a moratorium on new mosques and immigration of Sharia compliant Muslims into America is the only way we (Americans) have a chance to defeat our number-one enemy. The number-one enemy in America is not Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. It is the Islamic ideology itself. Until more Americans begin to understand this and are able to convince our politicians that the Islamic ideology is a hate and violence-filled doctrine that must be viewed for what it is, we have little chance of stopping the building of mosques and preventing “Sleeper Terrorists” inside our country. There are approximately 2,300 mosques in America and growing.

Yavi Ore (Canada): Jammat al-Fuqra is a terrorist group in the United States that has terrorist training camps on American soil. How is this possible, and what can the average American do to put an end to this Islamic takeover?

D. Gaubatz

The 30 plus Jammeat Al Fuqura compounds are a grave danger to our national security. I have been to several of the compounds and have met several of their members. They are a group of thousands, bound together to fight for an Islamic Ummah (nation) worldwide. They are planning and training for physical Jihad within their private camps. There is ample evidence to show their true intentions. Yet, U.S. law enforcement agencies ignore their actions. We need the top leadership of our country to denounce and criminalize them, but this will never happen with Obama in charge.

Ricardo Medina (Peru): Why is the U.S. government still supporting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, knowing that it funds many terrorist cells around the world?

D. Gaubatz

America stands behind Saudi Arabia through ignorance and for financial gain. Saudi Arabia pumps billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, and, as we know, Congressmen and Senators get a piece of the pie. Saudi Arabia is “Pure Islam.” Sadly, our President is more Sharia compliant than he is a supporter of the U.S. Constitution. Saudi also controls much of our media, which includes Fox News. When you control the media, you control the actions of politicians.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: As the first civilian Federal Agent deployed into Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, part of your mission was to identify weapons of mass destruction (WMD). You uncovered their sites, but the WMD were later taken by insurgents. Do you have any idea where they are now and how much of a current threat they pose to us?

D. Gaubatz

In April 2003, my team and I (a group of six U.S. Federal Agents) were deployed to southern Iraq to locate Saddam and his forces and to identify WMD sites for exploitation. We had numerous Iraqis near Nasiriyah, Iraq, who came forward and stated there were four primary WMD sites in southern Iraq. We went to each of these sites.

Per the methods of Saddam, the WMD were buried deep beneath the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. You would need heavy equipment and numerous personnel to excavate them. We wrote our classified reports to the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), to top officials within DOD [Department of Defense] and the Pentagon, and to the White House.

We could not get anyone to respond to the sites and to excavate them. We were told there is a war going on and it was dangerous to travel to the locations we identified. We just shook our heads. The Iraqis had informed us that if we didn’t excavate the sites, Saddam Fedeyeen and insurgents would. They advised that the WMD would be shipped to Syria for safekeeping. Several Iraqis gave their lives to assist the U.S. in identifying WMD. Many lost their lives because they helped us. America let them down.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: Then why were you and your team sent on a mission to uncover WMD in the first place? Failure to excavate them led many Americans to believe that the Bush administration had deceived them about a needless war.

D. Gaubatz

The ISG (Iraq Survey Group) let Bush down. Top military knew the sites were never checked but sent reports to the White House stating that all sites were checked. Leaders on the ground in Iraq truly let down Bush.

Eulene Johnson (U.S.): Are there more terrorists in the U.S. than the average citizen knows about?

D. Gaubatz

There are an estimated million plus Muslims in America who will support physical Jihad actions against America when the time comes and they are called into action. They represent all walks of life in America — doctors, engineers, college students, police officers, military, and politicians.

Prayingpat (U.S.): Is our present administration ignorant of Islam’s goals or just fearful of them? Why is it that they think we can negotiate with those who are willing to die themselves in order to kill us? I just don’t get it.

D. Gaubatz

Our current administration is led by a man who is closer to Islam and Sharia law than he is the U.S. Constitution. Obama is a very smart man. He knows exactly what he is doing. Destroying America is at the top of his list. The best way to destroy a nation is from the inside. One of Obama’s top friends was Bill Ayers. He and his group (Weather Underground) tried to destroy our country in the sixties by bombing U.S. government buildings, such as military recruiting centers. Ayers is a mentor to Obama. Obama and crew know you can’t negotiate with Islamic based terrorists and their supporters, but he also knows most Americans don’t realize this and do not understand the Islamic ideology. Obama plays into the hands of the naïve Americans by trying to negotiate with people who desire death before life.

Samanmal Bandara (Sri Lanka): It is clear that the holy book of Islam, the Qur’an, consists largely of human rights violations. Why then does the United Nations and international system of law still recognize Islam as a true religion, rather than banning it and labeling the Qur’an as a terrorist guide book?

D. Gaubatz

The Qur’an and related Islamic material are filled with hate and violence. Islam has been dangerous and killing non-Muslims for over 1,400 years. One need only look around at the world to see the wars that involve Muslims. The only way to defeat Islam is to brand the Islamic ideology as a violent and dangerous form of government, and it must be criminalized. To do less is a sure way to lose our country.

Larry Estavan (U.S.): Can you provide us with more details about why you denounced Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and Bridgette Gabriel?

D. Gaubatz

First of all, I never mentioned any names in reference to the article I wrote about conservative non-profit organizations. I respect Spencer, Gaffney, and anyone who strives to educate Americans about the dangers of Islam. It is my belief that as a conservative non-profit organization your rights to fully explain the truth about Islam and politicians who support Islamic-based terrorists is limited.The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the government organization that monitors 501 non-profit organizations. We all know the IRS is a tool for Obama. As a non-profit, there are strict limits about what you can say about politicians. You can’t support one over another. As a non-profit, your hands are tied by the IRS.Anyone who has ever been involved in a non-profit organization knows that they are money-making businesses. The leaders and employees of a non-profit make a very good living off of tax-exempt donors. Very little of the money goes into real work and research. A non-profit is more of a billboard with rantings about various issues.I do not belong to any non-profits, and I have no limits on what I can say about Obama or Islamic-based terrorist organizations. The IRS does not control my actions. I conduct first-hand research of Islamic groups using my money and with small support from concerned Americans.

Nicolai Sennels (Denmark), Prior Guest Expert: How is Islam as an organization infiltrating the European Union?

D. Gaubatz

Islam and Sharia law have taken over the countries of Europe. England, Germany, France, and others have already reached the point of no return. Sharia roots have already been accepted throughout Europe, and, once the tentacles of Sharia take hold, you will never rid yourself of its abuses. Sharia is like a terminal cancer. It just continues to spread, even if you conduct surgery to remove it. Sharia is terminal.

Luis Monge (Costa Rica): I recognize the threat from Islam in the West. Do you know anything about where sleeper cells are in Central and South America? Specifically, what Latin countries are importing Islam?

D. Gaubatz

Columbia and Peru are key points for Islamic sleeper cells and for Islamic narcotics suppliers. See Muslim Organizations in Latin America for more details.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: Israel is often blamed for the violence that has erupted in the Middle East — most recently with the Arab Spring — and for Islamic hostility towards the West due to its support for Israel. Is Israel really to blame for it and impeding our efforts towards peace, and why or why not?

D. Gaubatz

Israel and the Israeli people are America’s closest friends when it comes to our love of the Jewish people and for our national security. Israel is wedged between Islamic countries that have been terrorizing the Jewish people for over 1,400 years. There is absolutely nothing the Jewish people in Israel can do to be safe from Palestinian terrorists (Hamas and others).Islam has taught innocent Muslim children for centuries that the Jewish people are their enemies. Innocent Muslim children often grow up to be martyrs for Islamic-based terrorists and Islam. I encourage every American to always stay and work with the people of Israel. If Israel were to fall, America would as well.Israel, England, France, Russia, Germany, and dozens of other countries also have been attacked by Islamic-based terrorists. The attacks are not the fault of any one country or government. The attacks all come down to this: Islam is a violent and hate-filled ideology. “Pure Muslims,” who follow Islam as it was dictated by Prophet Mohammed, kill Jews, Christians, and any race or culture of people who are non-Muslim. This is what is taught by Islamic scholars.Even if Israel did not exist, there are still hundreds of millions of non-Muslims in the world of whom they would attack. The goal of Islam is to establish an Islamic Ummah (nation) all over the world to live under Sharia law. The Islamic ideology teaches that in order to establish a worldwide Ummah, the non-believers must be killed. I highly suggest non-Muslims support one another.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: What, if anything, is Israel doing differently than we are in the U.S. to deal with terrorist cells?

D. Gaubatz

Israel has known the primary reason Muslims commit terrorists acts against them is because this is what they are taught to do by parents and Islamic leaders. The Israeli intelligence and investigative organizations fully understand that Muslim terrorists commit their murders in the name of Islam.

Dretch K (Israel): If counterterrorism is to be 100 percent effective, wouldn’t simply banning Islam be the way to go?

D. Gaubatz

Criminalize Islam worldwide and we will have peace worldwide. This is the only way innocent people worldwide will not have to suffer the hate and violence within Islam. This may seem hard for some to digest, but it is reality.

Mark Diamond (U.S.): How likely is it that the U.S. will confront civil war/unrest in the near future? What role would jihadi infiltrators and Muslim terrorists have in this scenario?

D. Gaubatz

I have written papers on the likelihood of a civil war in America. I will attach a link to one, “A Civil War in America,” from December 29, 2013. America is caught in a snare that likely will not be broken. There is actual hate against liberals and conservatives. The turning point of a civil war will happen if President Obama attempts to stay in office after his term ends in 2016. Millions of Americans will view this as the destruction of our U.S. Constitution. Millions of Americans will not allow this. Islam will play a large role. Obama is closer to the Muslim Brotherhood than he is to U.S. law. Islamic fighters will fight for Obama and the collapse of America. This is what Islamic scholars desire.

Mark Diamond (U.S.): How can we prevent this outcome from taking place?

D. Gaubatz

When it comes down to the point that Americans feel the U.S. Constitution has been abolished by liberals, there will be a civil war. The only way to prevent a civil war is if conservative Americans perceive that liberals love America and support the Constitution. This will not happen, so the only conclusion is for another civil war in America.

Christopher Logan (U.S.), President of North American Infidels & Creator of Logan’s Warning: Do you think we will win this war if we do not end Muslim immigration and ban Islam?

D. Gaubatz

America can’t win any war if our government leaders do not name the enemy. The enemy is the Islamic ideology itself — not Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. These terrorist groups are just fall-outs of Islam. America must view the Islamic ideology as evil. This will not happen, and we will see fighting in America with brother against brother, and father against sons.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: How then do you suggest that we prepare for such an event?

D. Gaubatz

The best way to prepare for a civil war is to support pro-Constitutional organizations. In addition, the American people should have in storage large amounts of food, water, guns/ammunition, and items to barter/trade with. There will be no winners in a civil war, but I believe there is no way America can avoid one.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: Thank you for what has been a riveting and extremely eye-opening segment. And, of course, thank for your invaluable expertise. We would also like to thank our panelists for their thought-provoking questions and to stress the need for our readers to share this vital interview with their family and friends.

Panelists (in alphabetical order):

Samanmal Bandara (Sri Lanka); Ann Bell (United Kingdom); Mark Diamond (U.S.); Rickie Elliot (US); Larry Estavan; P. Dave Gaubatz (U.S), Our Guest Expert; Eulene Johnson (U.S.); Dretch K (Israel); Adina Kutnicki, Israeli Administrator, Islam Exposed; Christopher Logan (U.S.), Creator of Logan’s Warning and President of North American Infidels; George McCallum (U.S.); Ricardo Medina (Peru); Lisa Michelle (U.S.), Islam Exposed Moderator; Luis Monge (Costa Rica); Yavi Ore (Canada); Prayingpat (U.S.); and Nicolai Sennels (Denmark), Our Previous “Ask the Expert” Guest.

Democrats can be racists, too

March 25, 2014/in Commentary, Culture War, News, Policy/by Raynard Jackson

Two weeks ago, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) set off a firestorm of controversy by saying on the syndicated radio talk show of Bill Bennett: “…we have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities, in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work; and so there’s a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with…”

To read the unedited interview, go to: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2014/mar/14/context-paul-ryans-poverty-comments-racial-attack/

This made up controversy about Ryan is a bunch of garbage. People need to be much more judicious in labeling someone as a “racist.” It is a very damning term that should only be used under the most extreme of circumstances.

What Ryan said was stupid, but not racist. In the 80s, Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as “Hymietown.” Like Ryan, it was stupid but doesn’t make Jackson anti-Semitic. Professional athletes using the word fa**ot in the locker room doesn’t necessarily make them homophobic, but it may be stupid to use in today’s PC climate.

We, who are in public life or have a media platform, all say stupid things at some point in our lives. But our lives should not be destroyed by the mistakes we make. Rather, our lives should be affirmed by the totality of the contributions we make to society. By this standard, Ryan is definitely a good guy.

Not surprisingly, members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) sharply criticized Ryan. Strangely, they never direct similar anger at President Obama, even after he for willfully disrespected them and ignored them for five years and counting. Republicans are constantly accused of ignoring the Black community because they are racists. So does that also make Obama a racist? Just asking.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), former head of the CBC, called Ryan’s comments a “thinly veiled racial attack.” House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) spokesman called his remarks “shameful and wrong.”

If you only go by the media coverage, a person can only be a racist if they are a White Republican. So, allow me to give you a little Democratic history.

During the Democratic primary of 2008, our “real” first Black president, Bill Clinton had this to say about Obama’s campaign, “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” The response from the CBC and white Democrats? Crickets! Nothing. Laryngitis.

The morning after Obama’s 28-point blowout of Hillary in South Carolina, Bill Clinton called Obama another Jesse Jackson (meant in a negative way). Of course, who could forget Bill Clinton’s Sista Soulja moment from the 1992 campaign? Again, Crickets! Nothing. Laryngitis.

I could go on forever with examples of Democrats doing the same thing that Ryan is accused of, but you get the point.

There is also the issue of what I call “White Republicanitis.” I have warned Ryan about this issue, but he didn’t get it. Bob Woodson, founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, has been taking Ryan all across the country to meet with inner city Blacks to discuss possible policy solutions to deal with some of the issues they deem important.

Ryan refused to do any media surrounding this personal initiative with him and Woodson because he’s doing it because he cares, not because he wants media attention.” Paul, they are not mutually exclusive; it’s not either or, but both and.

This is what I call “White Republicanitis:” doing the right thing but in the wrong way. If Ryan had followed my counsel, then he would have some goodwill in the bank to draw down from during his moment of crises.

I have done several media interviews about this Ryan flap and in every instance the comment was made that maybe Ryan needs to go into the Black community and talk with a few Blacks before he opens his mouth. When I shared with the interviewer/host what Woodson was doing with Ryan, they all indicated that they had no knowledge of this. Most looked shocked, as though they couldn’t reconcile the idea of a White Republican going into the Black community because that is the antithesis of their view of a Republican.

Maybe now Ryan will start engaging with the Black media.

But, it’s not just Ryan. I have had similar conversations with the House and Senate leadership about this same issue to no avail.
As far as this feigned outrage from members of the CBC and Pelosi, weak people take strong positions on weak issues.