Naturalization of Palestinian diaspora in Arab countries is potentially the most significant element in Trump’s “ultimate deal”.
In recent weeks, rumors have been swirling as to the substance of the much anticipated “deal of the century”, billed by the Trump administration as a compelling blueprint for resolving the seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has plagued the region for decades. Shrouded in secrecy, it has long been held under wraps by the White House, allegedly waiting for an opportune moment to unveil it.
In this regard, recent reports suggest that Trump may well be planning to present it publically soon after the upcoming elections in Israel in April. While most the attention—and speculation—has been focused on the concessions—principally the territorial ones—that the sides will purportedly be called upon to make, there is another element, just as significant—indeed, arguably more so—that is now being alluded to as comprising a central component of the “deal”. This is the naturalization of the Palestinian diaspora, numbering several million, resident for decades in various countries across the Arab world—particularly Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. This development is an upshot of the Trump administration’s laudable approach to the anomalous UN entity, UNRWA (The United Nation Relief and Works).
I have detailed elsewhere why UNRWA is such an egregious and injurious anomaly and what pernicious consequences result from this perverse situation. According, it will suffice here to point out that because of the unique (read “anomalous”) definition that UNRWA has for determining who is a refugee and mandate of how they are to be dealt with, the number of designated “refugees” has increased dramatically over time. This is in stark contradiction to all other groups of refugees in the world, who are under the auspices of another UN entity, the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)—and whose numbers typically decrease over time.
In this matter, the US administration has—despite hitherto unexplained and inexplicable Israeli reluctance—exposed the fraudulent fiasco of UNRWA. As its erstwhile biggest benefactor, the US has retracted all funding from the organization. But more importantly, it has focused a glaring spotlight on the myth of the “Palestinian refugees” and the spectacularly inflated number of such alleged “refugees”—which even include those who have long acquired citizenship of some other country! This salutary US initiative has the potential to rescind the recognition of the bulk of the Palestinian diaspora as “refugees”.
Thus, even if they continue to receive international aid to help ameliorate their humanitarian situation, this will not be as potential returnees to their alleged homeland in Israel. Clearly, once the Palestinian diaspora is stripped of its fraudulent “refugee” status, the door is then open to settling them in third party countries, other than their claimed homeland, and to their naturalization as citizens of these counties—as is the case with other refugee groups in the world. In this regard, the Trump administration has reportedly undertaken an important initiative–see here; here; and here. According to these reports, President Trump has informed several Arab countries that he plans to disclose a citizenship plan for Palestinian refugees living in those countries.
Significantly, Palestinian sources told a London based news outlet:
“Trump informed several Arab countries that the plan will include Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.”
According to these sources: “the big surprise [is] that these countries have already agreed to naturalize Palestinian refugees.”
Moreover, it was reported that senior US officials are expected to seriously raise an American initiative with several Arab countries—including stipulation of the tools to implement it, the number of refugees, the required expenses, and the logistics demanded from hosting countries for supervising the process of “naturalization of refugees”. It is difficult to overstate the significance of such an initiative!
For, no matter what the other elements of the “ultimate deal” are, it has the potential to remove the ominous overhang of a five million strong (and counting) Palestinian diaspora that threatens to inundate the Jewish state and nullify its ability to function as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
It is therefore, an element that deserves firm support and encouragement—and should be resolutely pursued as a “stand alone” initiative—irrespective of how one envisages any prospective division of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/syria-1034467_640.jpg425640Dr. Martin Shermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Martin Sherman2019-02-06 06:50:452019-11-06 04:42:41Will Trump’s Mid East Deal Naturalize Palestinians in Arab Countries?
Years from now, when history looks back on the Democratic Party, one date will almost certainly stand out: July 25, 2016. That was the Tuesday, in the capital of the Revolution, when everything changed. For the first time in America’s 240 years, a major political party threw its full support behind one of the most savage and violent practices of the modern age: full-term, no-apologies abortion.
It’s just a party platform, some said. It doesn’t mean anything. Try telling that to Americans today, who watched in stunned silence last night as a leader of the U.S. Senate walked to the same floor where giants of freedom have stood and defended the killing of a perfect, fully-born child. It was not just a party platform when another senator, Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.), looked at the other side of the aisle and saw a group of men and women willing to “betray the universal truth of human dignity and [turn] the stomachs of civilized people… in every country on earth.” And it wasn’t just a party platform when, the only other time this issue came up for a vote, every Senate Democrat agreed: infanticide is wrong.
The moment Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) rose to her feet and objected to protecting the survivors of abortion will be a defining one for Democrats. It should have signified to everyone that the radicalization of the party that started in 2016 is now complete. And like so many others, Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) could only look on in horror. “This is the world’s greatest deliberative body,” she said. But “there is nothing great, there is nothing moral or even humane, about the discussion that we have before us today.”
New Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) stood in disbelief. “Is this really the extremism of the Democratic party?” After decades of proving that there was still some scrap of moderation in their abortion agenda, liberals have thrown off any pretense of solemnity or restraint. And just like the Brett Kavanaugh debate, they’ve significantly overplayed their hand. “I can’t imagine a vision less just or less consistent with the goodness and compassion of the American people,” Hawley argued.
He’s right. “Gallup polling from 2018 found that only 13 percent of Americans favor making third-trimester abortions ‘generally’ legal, and only 18 percent of Democrats shared that position,” Alexandra Desanctis warns. Less than a quarter of their own party is willing to follow them into the most radical terrain on abortion ever broached. “Women reject late-term abortion at an even higher rate than men. A Marist survey from earlier this year found that 75 percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, and majorities of Democrats and those who describe themselves as pro-choice agreed.”
With almost an eerie detachment to the issue at hand, Murray tried to frame the bill as unnecessary. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she claimed in her brief justification for stopping its passage. But, as so many have pointed out, only 26 states have “affirmative protections” for born-alive babies. Even if all 50 did, what’s the harm in reaffirming the Senate’s commitment to protecting these innocent survivors? Surely a party that can eat up hours of the legislative clock with a passionate plea to save the Delta Smelt can spare some sympathy for endangered children.
Even after yesterday’s disgrace, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has no intentions of walking away from survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, who wouldn’t be alive today if Democrats got their way. Before the vote, McConnell cautioned that if the other side stopped the bill, it “would make quite a disturbing statement.” If they do, he vowed, “I can assure them that this will not be the last time we try to ensure that all newborns are afforded this fundamental legal protection.”
To almost every American, “health care” does not include the killing of innocent newborns. “But in defending bills that expand the right to abort [living children], Democrats are giving away the game,” Desanctis predicts. “Most people, even those who favor some abortion access, instinctively recoil from what they see. These late-term abortion bills do more than reveal Democratic radicalism. They draw back the veil of euphemism to expose abortion for what it is: At every stage of pregnancy, it is the taking of a human life. For the anti-abortion movement, it is a pivotal moment to insist upon that truth.”
That’s where you come in. If you haven’t contacted your senators about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act, make sure you do today. Let them know that extremists like Patty Murray stand alone!
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/020519_murray_770x400-e1549416026479.jpg372640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-02-05 20:21:492019-04-17 06:38:35Killer Party: Dems Stand Alone on Infanticide
My previous article for FrontPage Magazine focused on specific threats to the United States that were linked to border security issues raised in the January 29, 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Worldwide Threats that was itself predicated on the Intelligence Community’s just-released World-Wide Threat Assessment.
I used the information disclosed at the hearing and contained in that threat assessment report about the dangers to America created by transnational criminal organizations and translational gangs such as MS-13 and the drug cartels in Mexico, as well as the crimes and activities of human traffickers that support the Trump administration’s demands for a border wall, a wall that unbelievably, the leaders of the Democratic Party adamantly oppose.
However, the report included much more material about other global threats that confront the United States and its interests. Simply stated, the world is a dangerous place.
Among the other threats addressed in the report were those posed by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Today we will take a hard look at China and how its aggressive and relentless pursuit of global dominance threatens America.
Before we go any further, we must remember that China is led by a totalitarian Communist regime that is not an ally but rather a serious adversary of the United States.
President Trump is the first American President in decades to take a strong position against Chinese transgressions against the United States where trade, currency manipulation and espionage are concerned.
China has moved swiftly to consolidate its stranglehold on its own citizens by politically eliminating presidential term limits and exploiting ever more sophisticated technological tools such as social media, facial recognition technology, and other such hi-tech means.
On January 13, 2019 CBS News’ 60 Minutes aired a report on the developments in artificial intelligence (AI) brought about by venture capitalist Kai-Fu Lee’s investments and China’s effort to dominate the AI field.
There is no shortage of specific examples of Chinese espionage committed against the United States and U.S. companies. Such espionage has become so routine and commonplace that the U.S intelligence services have come to refer to this as “Chinese Take-Out”!
Frequently Chinese citizens who acquire lawful immigrant status and United States citizenship use that status to facilitate espionage against America and American companies.
Hongjin Tan, a 35 year old Chinese national and U.S. legal permanent resident, was arrested on Dec. 20 and charged with theft of trade secrets. Tan is alleged to have stolen the trade secrets from his employer, a U.S. petroleum company.
The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Trent Shores for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and Special Agent in Charge Kathryn Peterson of the FBI Oklahoma City Field Office.
“Hongjin Tan allegedly stole trade secrets related to a product worth more than $1 billion from his U.S.-based petroleum company employer, to use for the benefit of a Chinese company where he was offered employment,” said Assistant Attorney General Demers. “The theft of intellectual property harms American companies and American workers. As our recent cases show, all too often these thefts involve the Chinese government or Chinese companies. The Department recently launched an initiative to protect our economy from such illegal practices emanating from China, and we continue to make this a top priority.”
On January 28, 2019 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a press release, Chinese telecommunications conglomerate Huawei and Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng charged with financial fraud.
On that same day, January 28th, the Justice Department issued a press release about the same investigation, Chinese Telecommunications Device Manufacturer and its U.S. Affiliate Indicted for Theft of Trade Secrets, Wire Fraud, and Obstruction Of Justice /Huawei Corporate Entities Conspired to Steal Trade Secret Technology and Offered Bonus to Workers who Stole Confidential Information from Companies Around the World.
Besides imposing tariffs against Chinese imports, President Trump has also imposed restrictions on Chinese students who are studying in the United States. This was the focus of my article, “Trump Administration Restricts Chinese Students – Finally, America confronts a massive espionage operation.”
This is a welcome change by the administration to protect America and Americans. I have written several articles about Chinese espionage and belligerence and how, for decades, our universities have been training foreign students who seek to exploit our educational system to further the goals and agendas of America’s adversaries, including hundreds of thousands of Chinese STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students who, as they acquire first-rate education in the United States, have been able to work for American companies under the auspices of Optional Practical Training that enables foreign students to apply their training and education in real world jobs for American companies in the United States. This program has facilitated Chinese espionage against American companies including ones that have military contracts.
These long-overdue efforts of the Trump administration should be cheered and supported by all Americans and even American allies around the world who should take similar actions.
Three of my relatively recent articles highlight China’s massive espionage campaign against the United States:
When American companies, in a quest for cheap labor and reduced regulation, have set up factories in China, China has seized the opportunity to engage in industrial espionage against those companies proving that sometimes short-term savings cost more, often much more, in the end.
In some instances, American companies have voluntarily cooperated with China’s totalitarian regime. For example, Google has been enlisted by the Chinese government to help crack down on civil liberties in China against its own citizens even as Google actively and aggressively opposes any efforts by the U.S. government to protect America and Americans from the threat of international terrorists.
My recent article “Google vs Border Security” referenced an article published by The Intercept, titled, “Google Plans To Launch Censored Search Engine In China, Leaked Documents Reveal.”
Eager to do lucrative business in China, Google was willing to “go along to get along” while its dealing with the U.S. government went in precisely the opposite direction.
A September 21, 2018, Newsweek article, “Google Brainstormed Ways To Combat Trump’s Travel Ban By Leveraging Search Results For Pro-Immigration Causes,” included the following excerpt: “Google, along with Apple, Facebook and other technology companies, filed a joint amicus brief challenging the travel ban, stating that it “inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation and growth.“
Now let’s turn to the Threat Assessment. Consider this excerpt that is found on pages 24 and 25:
China
The Chinese Communist Party’s Concentration of Power
China is deepening its authoritarian turn under President Xi Jinping, and the resulting hardening of Chinese politics and governance probably will make it more difficult for the leadership to recognize and correct policy errors, including in relations with the United States and our allies and partners.
President Xi removed one of the few remaining checks on his authority when he eliminated presidential term limits in March 2018, and the Chinese Communist Party has reasserted control over the economy and society, tightened legal and media controls, marginalized independent voices, and intensified repression of Chinese Muslims, Christians, and other religious minorities.
The Chinese Government also is harnessing technology, including facial recognition, biometrics, and vehicle GPS tracking, to bolster its apparatus of domestic monitoring and control.
Beijing’s increasing restrictions on scholars’ and researchers’ freedom of movement and communication with US counterparts may increase the prospects for misunderstanding and misinterpretation of US policies.
Universities in the United States have been willing to accept Chinese demands for changes in curricula in exchange for funding from China. On January 17, 2018 Politico published a report, How China Infiltrated U.S. Classrooms that begins with this passage:
Last year, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte made an announcement to great fanfare: The university would soon open a branch of the Confucius Institute, the Chinese government-funded educational institutions that teach Chinese language, culture and history. The Confucius Institute would “help students be better equipped to succeed in an increasingly globalized world,” says Nancy Gutierrez, UNC Charlotte’s dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and “broaden the University’s outreach and support for language instruction and cultural opportunities in the Charlotte community,” according to a press release.
But the Confucius Institutes’ goals are a little less wholesome and edifying than they sound—and this is by the Chinese government’s own account. A 2011 speech by a standing member of the Politburo in Beijing laid out the case: “The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for expanding our culture abroad,” Li Changchun said. “It has made an important contribution toward improving our soft power. The ‘Confucius’ brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.”
Li, it now seems, was right to exult. More than a decade after they were created, Confucius Institutes have sprouted up at more than 500 college campuses worldwide, with more than 100 of them in the United States—including at The George Washington University, the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa. Overseen by a branch of the Chinese Ministry of Education known colloquially as Hanban, the institutes are part of a broader propaganda initiative that the Chinese government is pumping an estimated $10 billion into annually, and they have only been bolstered by growing interest in China among American college students.
Yet along with their growth have come consistent questions about whether the institutes belong on campuses that profess to promote free inquiry. Confucius Institutes teach a very particular, Beijing-approved version of Chinese culture and history: one that ignores concerns over human rights, for example, and teaches that Taiwan and Tibet indisputably belong to Mainland China. Take it from the aforementioned Li, who also said in 2009 that Confucius Institutes are an “important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.” Critics also charge that the centers have led to a climate of self-censorship on campuses that play host to them.
Remarkably, even as Antifa thugs and university administrations seek to block American conservatives from providing their perspectives on college campuses across the United States, Communist China’s outrageous propaganda is embraced and welcomed on American college campuses.
Lenin has been quoted as saying, “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Today there is a fire sale on rope in America and it must end. The sooner the better!
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rter-e1549404642645.jpg360640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2019-02-05 17:10:512019-02-05 17:10:53Chinese Aggression Against the U.S.A.
“Booker announced bright and early this morning that he’s running for president. We all know he was running months ago when he started grandstanding during the Kavanaugh hearings. Spartacus showed his true beliefs back then: He’s another gun-grabbing, Trump-despising liberal who’s out for power at all costs.” —Grant Stinchfield
EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with video and images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/COREY-BOOKER-NRA.jpg338600NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-02-05 16:58:162019-02-05 16:58:16VIDEO: The Disarmament Primary Is Gearing Up for Its Own Spartacus Moment
Sifting through the internet’s conjecture and extracting the economic truth.
f you have spent much time on Facebook the last few days, you may have seen this meme being passed around from a user named Thomas Corbett:
It has already been shared over 109,000 times, and it is just one of a number of similar viral claims regarding minimum wage and housing from people engaged in the #FightFor15 (or I suppose #FightFor33 if you’re the New York Times).
Others include this one from @pookleblinkie on Twitter with over 60,200 retweets:
They each make the case that housing is unaffordable for people working minimum wage jobs, largely in service of the overall case to raise the federally mandated wage floor.
So what’s wrong with these memes?
As it turns out… quite a bit.
Fake Numbers
One major red flag that should be immediately apparent is that the numbers for all three viral images are completely different. The first claims that the average rent is $1,418, the second claims $1,234, and the third is presented more circuitously but implicitly claims $1,018.
The NLIHC graphic comes close, but the latest numbers show that as of 2017, the real median rent in the United States was $1,012 per month. This makes Thomas Corbett’s rental price claim 40 percent higher than reality and it makes the one from “pookleblinkie” about 22 percent higher, so we can dismiss both of those as factually off-base from the start.
NLIHC’s website states that their source for housing prices is HUD’s “Fair Market Rents” database, so for the sake of argument, I’m happy to overlook any minor discrepancies there. To their credit, they also show a state-by-state comparison, which is important because the average cost of living varies significantly depending on what part of the country you’re in.
That said, even state-by-state data is probably insufficient as the significant cost of living differences are found between urban, suburban, and rural areas. Not merely based on what state you happen to live in.
Still, the idea that low-income earners have absolutely no way to afford housing is a popular belief, and even if the median rent for the United States is $1,012 a month, that would still be well out of range for someone earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour. In fact, even if 100 percent of the minimum wage earner’s income went into housing—which is clearly impossible—they still would not be able to afford a home at all.
But here’s where we see another serious flaw in the argument.
We’re not comparing apples to apples.
Bottoms Versus Middles
It makes no sense to compare median rental prices to the lowest possible wages. It would only make sense to compare the bottom of the wage distribution to the bottom of the rent distribution. Making a more accurate comparison reveals a completely different picture. For instance, when we compare median rental prices to the median household income in the United States for 2017, we find that the annual cost of renting would be $12,144 on a salary of $60,336/year.
That means that the median rental price is only 20 percent of the median household income.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe there’s any way to break down rental home price data by quintile, but anyone familiar with the concept of a “median” knows that it is the number that falls in the middle of the data distribution.
This means that just as there are an immense number of rental homes that cost significantly higher than $1,012/mo. throughout America, there are an equal number of rental homes that cost less than $1,012/mo. There are also a number of housing options that make a lot more sense than trying to rent a place by yourself as someone working a single minimum wage job.
What’s so Tragic about Roommates?
As someone who has spent his entire adult life post-bachelor’s degree living in expensive major cities (New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Atlanta), I had roommates in every apartment I lived in long after my wages exceeded minimum wage. This is perfectly normal, and sharing costs is hardly something to see as a hardship or a social justice issue. As an added bonus, some of my former roommates are still close friends.
Another way to reduce living expenses is to rent a single room in an existing house—something I have also done at various points in my life. That can bring rental expenses down to the low hundreds of dollars per month even in city centers.
And speaking of city centers, the closer you live to the hub of urban activity, the more expensive rental prices are going to be, so expanding your apartment search to homes that are farther away and commuting in can also save hundreds of dollars a month on rent.
Like many adults, I’ve used each of these approaches to pay less than the median rental price in multiple cities, and I don’t think anyone should regard any of these experiences as humiliating or cruel. To the contrary, they are all frugal ways to make the most of your income.
This is also to say nothing of policy changes that would make new home construction more affordable and less time-consuming by streamlining the permitting processes, reducing zoning restrictions, reducing the number of aspects of the process that require city approval, and just generally lowering the barriers to building. Those kinds of policies would pave the way (pun intended) for an increase in the supply of new homes, which would reduce the cost of existing properties.
Tragically, the inaccurate cost claims are not the only major errors embedded in these images. They’re also more subtly deceptive regarding the demographics of minimum wage earners themselves.
Teens and Twenties
Each of these memes suggests or implies that minimum wage workers are primarily adults with families who have only one income-earner. They also imply that a significant number of people are stuck in minimum wage jobs for their entire lives. And from the way our society frequently talks about minimum wage earners, you’d think that they were a massive group of people.
None of these implications are accurate.
In fact, just 2.6 percent of all wage and salary workers in the United States are working at minimum wage occupations. The overwhelming majority of our workforce earns more than minimum wage. What’s more, 50.4 percent of people working minimum wage jobs are under 25 years old, and 24 percent are still teenagers (16-19). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less.
Furthermore, people who work minimum wage jobs are far more likely to be unmarried/never-married, to lack a high school diploma (hardly a surprise when a large portion are still in high school), and most—64 percent—are working part-time. If when you picture minimum wage workers, you think of the high school or college-aged kid working at a grocery store or a quick-service food restaurant, your picture is pretty accurate.
That’s not to say that there aren’t older people with children trying to support themselves on minimum wage jobs. There are, but they are comparatively rare. Only about 15 percent of all minimum wage workers are the primary provider for a family with one or more children. That’s just 0.39 percent of the total workforce, which is around 600,000 people in the entire United States.
And of course, that group certainly qualifies for numerous forms of public assistance, including EBT and housing subsidies—which has not been factored into any of these memes either.
I know this has been a lot of statistics and math, but my goal is to arm the valiant readers who have made it to the end of this article with some better information and some logic so that when you’re browsing Facebook and come across misleading memes, you’re better able to spot the errors.
Sean Malone is the Director of Media at FEE. His films have been featured in the mainstream media and throughout the free-market educational community.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/woman-on-computer-laughing-min-e1549403195772.jpg427640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-02-05 16:46:492019-02-05 20:14:47Minimum Wage Memes: What They Miss and How They Mislead
Capitalism is not “a system of competition” any more than any other system.
Capitalism has often been described as “a system of competition” by its adversaries, or a system “based on competition.” Naturally, this assertion is usually coupled with a spirited oration on how this “tooth ‘n’ nail” competition psychologically corrupts us—pitting man against man in a “race to the bottom.”
Many of capitalism’s most vocal advocates have themselves imbibed this premise uncritically. They leap to a fervent defense of competition, extolling its virtues—real or perceived. In my view, this is a mistake. To accept without evaluation the presupposition that capitalism is a system of competition—in contrast to other hypothetical systems of cooperation (namely socialism and communism)—is to frame the very debate itself in leftist terms and play the game on an unfairly tilted gameboard.
Competition Is Fierce for Government-Controlled Resources
This is not to say that those who defend competition do not raise some worthy points. For example: If not competition, then what is the alternative? Is there to be one central provider of each good and service available who gets to decide on our behalf how it is best to be produced and then allocated?
Adding to that, if competition is wrong in the market, then why not in the political sphere? Surely democracy is out of the question if competition is a corrupting factor—because what do political candidates do if not compete for office? Think of the competition this generates between political parties, not to mention the ensuing competition between firms and individuals for preferential treatment from politicians and legislators and competition between lobbyists, think-tanks, and voters to receive benefits out of the public purse.
If the free and voluntary section of society is a system of competition, how much more so is government? Surely democracy is a “system of competition.” Politicians are competing for the very machinations of control in our society. For the right to pass and enforce laws that apply to everyone (whether they agree with them or not) and to force them to pay for their enforcement. They are not simply competing for market share where the winner of the competition is the one that satisfies the most demand.
We can sidestep the more mundane economic arguments in favor of competition for the moment, such as the case that it increases efficiency and cheapens goods while driving innovation, as we are all familiar with them already.
Capitalism Is About Voluntary Exchange
This is not to say that competition is necessarily an evil, either. The problem lies in defining capitalism as “a system of competition”—in comparison to other systems that are supposedly “cooperative”—is a rhetorical ploy. Those who profess it may honestly believe it to be so, but it’s not true. Capitalism is not “a system of competition” any more than any other system. Capitalism (at least in its free-market, laissez-faire ideal) is a system of the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the absence of physical coercion, theft, compulsion or fraud, predicated upon the fundamental right to own and accumulate property.
Or, for brevity: Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange predicated upon the right to own property.
One might even venture, therefore, that it is capitalism that is the system most characterized by cooperation.
Granted, upon seeing this definition, many would still debate us over the morality of accumulating property. Or perhaps whether the “negative” right to ownership when it comes to the rich should take precedence over the “positive” right to healthcare or education at their expense when it comes to the poor. We can even debate whether the relationship between capitalists and their employees is really free of coercion given the power disparity between the two groups. Indeed, these are debates I delight in exploring further. However, none of this is a justification for defining capitalism as a system that is more competition-based than others.
Because Scarcity Exists, Competition Will Always Exist Under Any System
After all, it is not the presence of private property or the free exchange of goods that creates the presence of competition in a capitalist system. Scarcity causes that. In any situation of scarcity of resources, there is bound to be some form of competition over those resources (as well as over how those resources are allocated).
If we have a system that allows voluntary exchange, some competition is bound to arise out of that, but that would happen under any system. Even if you had a completely communistic society that was centrally planned and involved no exchange of money whatsoever, people’s time would still be limited. If you were a filmmaker in this society, you would probably want as many people to see your films as possible, as would every other filmmaker. This would put you at least somewhat in competition with them. Does this mean that communism, too, is a system of competition?
Certainly, you would be competing for the only customer—the sponsorship of the state. Corruption and cronyism would surely be the result. Who gets their film made and who doesn’t? Who allocates the highly desirable job of being a filmmaker over the undesirable job of being a street-sweeper or refuse collector, and how can their favor be courted? The competition will commence, but instead of being decided by the free and voluntary exchange of filmgoers, investors, and filmmakers, it will be decided by someone else, I would argue, in a rather more authoritarian fashion. (For a particularly vivid and chilling illustration of how communism substitutes market competition over customers —which is at least tied to the provision of desirable services—for the completely unmeritocratic competition over gaining favor from the corrupt power structure of the state, I refer the reader to Ayn Rand’s first novel, We The Living.)
Competition is just a feature of living in a world of scarcity, and it would exist in any system. Socialism cannot do away with competition—nor can any other system.
Opportunity Cost Means Competition Is Everywhere
The implications of these facts reach into any circumstances of scarcity beyond the economy. For example, suppose two friends each invite me over to dinner for an evening. I might have to make a choice between their invitations, which will result in one of them losing out on my company. Does this then mean that friendship is a system of competition?
We can’t see all of our friends all of the time, or even all of them at the same time. Even if we do, we are bound to have to split our attention among them. In addition to that, we can only maintain so many close friendships at once, and we definitely can’t be friends with everyone. All of this means that, inevitably, we have to make choices.
We each make decisions on who to make and maintain friendships with based upon our value judgments, conscious or unconscious. Perhaps based on how happy we feel around them, how long we have known one another, how much we have in common, how much we trust someone or how loyal they have shown themselves to be, how much they educate, enrich, or enlighten us, or perhaps based upon what roles they allow us to fulfill in their lives. There can be countless other reasons. The fact is we decide.
People who feel that they will benefit from our company, for whatever reason, will make attempts to spend time with us. We will invariably begin to make choices about who to spend time with based upon our values, schedule, and what other activities we are willing to sacrifice to see them. These are basic facts of life, but they hardly make friendship a system of competition.
Similarly, in the market, our time and resources are limited. We make value-based judgments about choices of products and services to consume based upon what utility we think they will bring to us, sacrificing some options for others. Maybe we will choose a coffee shop based on which has the best-tasting coffee, or maybe based on which provides the nicest atmosphere, or maybe based on which is closest, or where the customer service is best, or which is the cheapest, or which we have gone to the longest and therefore find familiar, or perhaps even based on which we think has the best ethos—for example, because they are a social enterprise that only sells fair trade produce and deliberately seeks to employ and train disadvantaged people. The fact is we decide.
Each service provider believes they will benefit from our custom and will make attempts to attract us, placing an upward pressure on the quality of services and a downward pressure on price, which we may correctly identify as a form of competition. Since human beings are not infallible, sometimes someone might buy a coffee that they don’t end up liking, but over the long-term, the competition is likely to be won by the satisfaction of customers.
The Benefits of Free Choice
The miraculous wonder we miss when we focus our attention upon the competition, which derives from choice, is the ability to choose, itself. For example, suppose two commercial events are being held on the same evening. Each prospective patron will want to choose whichever event appeals to them the most, and for whatever reasons they choose based upon what they value in an event. Now, to simply mention that these events are “in competition” would be to completely miss the crucial point that event-goers (who are in the majority compared to event organizers) have a choice of two events which they may prefer to go to one of rather than one alone.
In fact, there is actually farmore cooperationinvolved in providing people with goods and services than there is competition. To accomplish anything in the marketplace, one must cooperate with buyers, sellers, managers, employees, suppliers, customers, advertisers, promoters, marketers, collective buyers, and so on.
Leonard E. Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, illustrated this in his most famous essay, “I, Pencil,” first published in 1958. In it, he notes that not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make a pencil. He goes onto explain that the cedarwood is sourced from Oregon and the logs milled in California. The graphite is mined in Ceylon, mixed with clay from Mississippi, and then treated with a hot mixture that includes candelilla wax from Mexico to increase its strength and smoothness. The six coats of lacquer come separately from the growers of castor beans and the refiners of castor oil. In fact, when you include those who manufacture and transport the equipment involved in these processes, you cannot help but marvel at the fact that millions of people have a hand in its creation. They are working in concert, in cooperation, and as a result, you can get a pencil for pennies.
Market Competition Brings Choice Out of Scarcity
Because people make choices with scarce resources and limited time, competition will be an inherent part of any economic system so long as there is scarcity. The primary feature of free-market capitalism is not competition, but choice. Rather than moderate the amount of competition in an economy, state intervention will replace competition to serve customers and convince them to voluntarily spend their money on a wide array of ever-expanding goods and services. We can contrast this with other systems in which competition rages over who can gain the favor of those who control the levers of government. That is where the real “tooth and nail” begins.
Antony Sammeroff co-hosts the Scottish Liberty Podcast and has featured prominently on other libertarian-themed shows, including The Tom Woods Show, Lions of Liberty, the School Sucks Podcast, and many more.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. Image credit: MaxPixel.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/screen-shot-2019-01-29-at-114842-am-e1549400981558.png342640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-02-05 16:24:462019-02-05 16:24:48Freedom of Choice—Not Competition—Is What Sets Capitalism Apart
Joshua Trump, a 6th grade Delaware student bullied by his fellow students for sharing a last name with President Donald Trump, has been invited by the White House to attend the State of the Union address.
“Unfortunately, Joshua has been bullied in school due to his last name,” read a statement from the office of White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. “He is thankful to the First Lady and the Trump family for their support.”
First lady Melania Trump’s “Be Best” initiative focuses on the physical and mental health of children, including reducing bullying.
The 11-year-old made news in December when he reportedly started going by Joshua Berto, his father’s surname, in an attempt to stave off bullying from classmates.
“They curse at him, they call him an idiot, they call him stupid,” his mother, Megan Trump, told ABC.
At one point, Joshua’s father, Bobby Berto, homeschooled his son for a year because of the bullying.
The Pennsylvania-based group Teach Anti-Bullying awarded Joshua the “Medal of Courage” in December and encouraged him to keep his name.
Joshua Trump will join other notable guests of the president and first lady, including holocaust survivor Judah Samet, freed prisoners Alice Johnson and Matthew Charles, and child cancer survivor Grace Eline.
COLUMN BY
Scott Morefield
Scott Morefield is a freelance reporter at The Daily Caller and a weekly columnist at Townhall. Additionally, Scott’s editorial columns have been featured on National Review, The Federalist, TheBlaze, Breitbart, WND, The Hill, and many other sites. Follow Scott on Twitter.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-clapping-e1549372375305.jpg391640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2019-02-05 08:13:062019-02-17 05:17:52Trump Invites Boy To SOTU — He Was Bullied For Sharing His Last Name
In the wake of the 2016 election which justifiably trashed the hopes of Hillary Clinton and radical feminists, the progressive Democrat juggernaut is firing up an even bigger hate machine for 2020. In desperation, they went all the way back to 1985 to get the parts for this machine.
Biblical Christianity is grossly perverted in the narrative, and is deceptively associated with the same kind of barbaric tactics used to control women in Islamic countries. Men are portrayed as using women for surrogate sexual slavery in a misogynistic repressive patriarchy, with painful and violent penalties for non-compliance.
“The Handmaid’s Tale” is disguised as a story about women being victimized by brutal men practicing a Puritanical hierarchical model of Old Testament-inspired social and religious fanaticism, supposedly based on the biblical story of Rachel and her handmaid Bilhah. In reality, the entire production is a satanically-crafted dialectic of nightmarish visceral propaganda aimed at undermining men and discrediting religion. A dialectic is the portrayal of two opposing forces or ideas. Dialectics is concerned with or acting through conflict. Thus a dialectician is one skilled at pitting two groups against each other in order in order to act through them to bring about “change” or “progress.” This is how Marxist class warfare operates, and it is clearly and abundantly evident in this deeply troubling TV series.
Set in the near-term future, this fictional narrative depicts a feminist dystopian America in which a Christian fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship rules America after a nuclear civil war which kills the President and most of Congress. The new regime, a militant groupnamed “The Sons of Jacob,” reorganizes America into a fascist form of police-state government known as the Republic of Gilead, and institutes a caste system for women with color-coded dress, based upon whether they are fertile to bear children. In the series, the birthrate has collapsed due to infertility caused by pollution and disease. The fertile women are subjugated as “handmaids” for child-bearing servitude by government officials, and forced to wear blood-red capes and white bonnets. Infertile women are enslaved to perform menial tasks and hazardous work. The “handmaids” are also forced to commit ritualized group murder of certain individuals which the government considers undesirable. Lesbians, homosexuals, and transgender individuals are brutally executed. Dead bodies are left to rot, hanging in public as a stark warning to anyone daring to oppose The Sons of Jacob and the Republic of Gilead.
The highly graphic scenes (WARNING: not for viewing by children) portray women being beaten, burned, raped, or hanged and drowned for insubordination or disobedience. A single message permeates the series: men are superior and women are to be subservient, or face violent consequences. The film-making style is diabolically designed to evoke dialectic emotions of hate between men and women. The target audience is women, with the subliminal intent of compelling them to revile men and religion.
The timing of this TV series, and remarks made by author Margaret Atwood confirm that the “Handmaid’s Tale” is intended to get women to rise up to reverse the results of the 2016 election in 2020. The author, Margaret Atwood, speaks of the TV series as a form ofpushing back against Donald Trump and conservatives. She claims that America under Donald Trump is trending toward the fictional Republic of Gilead portrayed in the story, so this is a rallying call for women to rise up in 2020. The fake news network CNN says that the “Handmaid’s Tale” is Trump’s America. The TV series even cleverly attempts to convince conservative women that by prioritizing religious faith and homemaking over feminist equality, they are denying themselves any stake in their own future.
A careful analysis of “The Handmaid’s Tale” requires us to reflect very purposefully on the malevolent agenda behind this narrative. The program content and subliminal message is of course, total propaganda, but nonetheless expertly crafted. Women are not truly abused by Biblical Christianity nor generally subjugated by men in our society. But our mortal adversaries, the Cultural Marxists, are experts at crafting effective propaganda to achieve their agenda. That’s how we got feminism in the first place, and with it contraception and abortion on demand. Likewise, homosexual marriage and transgenderism have been imposed on America using the same tactics of misinformation driven home by the media and Hollywood.
The ultimate Progressive goal is to lay the foundation for a so-called “utopian” future when the Marxists (not the Christians) will be the authoritarians in positions of power, and everyone else will be subjugated and deprived of liberty. One means to this end is the propaganda trick of Dialectics, as employed in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” if we remain sufficiently comatose to fall for the clever deception.
TAKE-AWAY LESSON:
If we underestimate our adversaries, we are destined to be dominated and enslaved by them. In a most ironic twist, the dystopian message of “The Handmaid’s Tale” applies to all Americans today, but not in the sense depicted by author Margaret Atwood. This fictional narrative is a grim warning to anyone wanting to preserve liberty and our way of life, not from fictional threats by Christians, but from the real and relentless Cultural Marxists whose tactic has always been “the end justifies the means.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/handmadens-tale.jpg474724James Michael Francis Komaniecki, P.E.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJames Michael Francis Komaniecki, P.E.2019-02-05 07:31:342019-02-05 07:54:09Manhood and Biblical Christianity are Poisoned by “The Handmaid’s Tale”
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that allows partial birth abortion, infanticide. Governor Cuomo was so proud of the legislation that he “directed One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit in pink to celebrate signing the Reproductive Health Act.”
“The Catholic Church is discussing as to whether New York Governor Cuomo should be excommunicated from the church for signing the state’s new abortion bill,” he explained to his nearly two million followers. “This law allows for the murder of unborn children up until the day of their birth.”
“I call on my friend Cardinal Dolan to take a moral stand,” continued Graham. “Whether it moves the governor’s calloused heart or not, it will have a great impact on not only the church in New York, but on the church worldwide.”
“It’s about standing for right over wrong, good over evil,” he added.
Graham then quoted Albany Bishop Edward Scharfenberger, “I don’t see it as something to celebrate … the kind of procedures that now are possible in New York state, we wouldn’t even do to a dog or a cat. … It’s torture.”
First, Cardinal Dolan states that “excommunication should not be used as a weapon.” However, most people are calling for excommunication because Governor Cuomo has committed a highly visible immoral offense and celebrates it.
Second, Cardinal Dolan states “the cannon does not support excommunication for pro-abortion politicians.” However, some cannon lawyers disagree. C. 1364 provides the same penalty for heresy—“the obstinate denial or doubt after baptism of some truth which is to be believed with divine and Catholic faith.”
Third, Cardinal Dolan states “clergy should address the situation with the parishioner privately.” However, Cardinal Dolan has done that but Governor Cuomo continues to push back publicly.
Fourth, Cardinal Dolan states “excommunication would not be effective as many politicians would welcome it as a sign of their refusal to be ‘bullied by the Church,’ thinking it would therefore give them a political advantage.” However, enforcing church doctrine regarding the sanctity of life and celebration of immorality should be the priority over concern about how politicians may use excommunication to their advantage.
Article 5: The Fifth Commandment You shall not kill. 54
I. Respect for Human Life
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. 72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. 73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. 74
Governor Cuomo’s public enthusiasm for this legislation is extreme, in the Catholic Church’s face, and far from the average pro-abortion politician. Cuomo went well beyond approving the legislation by celebrating its depravity. Now other states are considering similar heinous legislation as progressives see how far left they can push their agenda against Judeo-Christian values.
The National Catholic Register published an article by Monsignor Charles Pope titled: “Catholic Abortion Supporters Like Cuomo Must Face Penalties.” The article states in part: “There comes a time when something is so egregious and boldly sinful that it must be met with strong ecclesial and canonical penalties and remedies. It is time to end the charade, even the lie, that Andrew Cuomo and others like him are Catholics in good standing. They are not, and this must be made plain to them and to others.”
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to encourage Cardinal Timothy Dolan to excommunicate New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for his egregious and boldly immoral support for partial birth abortion, infanticide..
To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/excommunicate-cuomo.jpg382640Florida Family Associationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFlorida Family Association2019-02-05 06:53:022019-02-05 14:06:56Encourage Cardinal Dolan to excommunicate Governor Cuomo for signing legislation that allows infanticide.
Note:There’s so much happening in the Church and the nation on abortion that we thought it right to run two columns today. Michael Pakaluk argues that the brazenness of the New York State law may actually make overturning Roe v. Wade more likely as people come to see how extreme abortion supporters have become. Anthony Francois, who has worked on related issues on the state and national level, explains that Cardinal Dolan’s refusal to excommunicate Andrew Cuomo may make sense – IF it’s part of a larger strategy (so far not in sight) that will actually build up Catholic resistance. There’s much food for thought here on the key human rights issue of our time. – Robert Royal
Roe’s Imminent Demise
By Michael Pakaluk
When I teach about abortion, I start with a poll. “How many of you believe that abortion is legal only for the first three months of pregnancy?” All the students raise their hands – naturally enough, because this is what the media has repeatedly told them.
I then go to my computer, connected to an overhead projector, and search on “late-term abortion near me.” The search comes up with clinics in one’s own neighborhood offering abortions up to 24 or even 36 weeks.
For example, in Washington, DC, Capital Women’s Services explains under its pull-down tab for Late Term Abortions that it “offers late-term abortion care up to 36 weeks under certain circumstances, such as for fetal or maternal indications.”
That’s a devilishly obscure phrase, “Maternal indications.” The clinic explains, “The U.S. Supreme Court, in its classic Roe v. Wade Decision, ruled that abortions are legal at any gestation to preserve the life or the health of the woman.” (Note the finesse of language: “at any gestation,” not “at any gestational age,” as the latter raises the awkward question, whose age?)
Well, they at least get Roe v. Wade. And “health” as defined in Roe’s companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, brought in psychological and socioeconomic considerations as included under “health.”
The website goes on: “Maternal health problems can be very distressing in themselves, and doubly upsetting because they can sometimes mean that a pregnancy cannot be continued. These are tragic situations, and we will always respect the right of a woman to make her own medical decisions regarding her own life, her own body, and her own family.”
Sure, humanity dictates that women will not usually abort their babies at eight months because of a runny nose. And there are undeniably tragic cases, not to be minimized. But suppose the mother wants an abortion at 32-weeks “gestation” because her boyfriend has just abandoned her, and getting up three times a night to go to the bathroom now seems completely unbearable?
“We will always respect your decision,” the clinic says flatly. They will insist on a consultation, of course, and charge extra money, but the abortion will be available.
After that, I show my class pictures of unborn children at 32 or 36 weeks. Then I go to a website which gives the description, from an abortion textbook, of a D&X abortion (“dilation and extraction”), or a “partial birth” abortion. Invariably the response from my students is the same: shock and utter disbelief. “How can they allow that?” “ How can this be legal?”
Cheers for New York’s abortion bill
The correct answer is not so much that it is legal as that it is not illegal. It once was illegal, but the Supreme Court held that no authority of law could deem it illegal.
My students naturally elide “allowed” to “legal.” The old legal philosophers said that there were three acts of law: to forbid, to require, or to permit. Anything under law had to be deemed one of these three. We are “one nation, under law,” after all. So, in the face of the grisly reality of late-term abortion – my students implicitly infer – some authority must have decided that these acts belonged in the “permitted” category, not the “forbidden” category. But, strictly, no: what Roe did was declare null the laws which made such things forbidden. It did not replace these laws with a new law, which said what was permitted and on what grounds. Strictly, it created zones of lawlessness.
This is why I am actually heartened by the recent law in New York and the prospect of similar laws in Vermont and Virginia. I believe such laws make it more likely that Roe will be overturned, and they will hasten the passage of laws that will outlaw abortion.
There was something safely popular about Roe’s merely striking down a hindrance. Roe had always shared the appeal of the nonsensical mantra, “it is forbidden to forbid.” No one likes saying no per se; saying nos imply to no, then, looks like an easy win. And one could also always feign a surprise at the consequences, a lack of responsibility for what followed. (“I do not read the Court’s holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices. . . . Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand,” as Chief Justice Burger put it with astounding simplicity in his concurring opinion to Roe.)
But saying yes, in contrast, is unsafe. It reveals plainly what you love, and what you fail to love. Now you have actually declared abortion to be in the category of the permitted under law – and therefore you have been shown additionally to have a twisted concept of lawfulness. What you call law we call power employed to protect your interests. We know that type.
Abortion rights rhetoric has shifted back-and-forth over the years, between an apologetic approach, claiming weakness, and a brazen approach, boasting strength, though these are not found in equal proportion: it is as if after a hundred of the apologetic pieces (“no one likes abortion, it is a regrettable necessity”), someone has to come along with a brazen piece to clear the air (“every woman who gets an abortion knows it is killing, but sometimes one must kill to get by”).
These attitudes exist uncomfortably together. But legislation like New York’s resolves the tension in favor of the brazen, from which many will recoil in horror: Do we really think this? Do we hold this?
Likewise, by creating jurisdictions where Roe is now affirmed in state law, it will look as though, politically, Roe can be overturned by the Supreme Court. It can be overturned without being overturned, fully. (And who cares about flyover states clinging to their guns, religion, and heartbeat bills?)
The abortion debate has, fatiguingly, raged long enough that its resolution into separate settlements will seem long overdue – a peace of Westphalia, indeed, but still something like a peace.
Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is acting dean of the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His latest book, on the Gospel of Mark, The Memoirs of St Peter, is coming out from Regnery Gateway in March 2019.
So Cardinal Dolan, What’s the Plan?
By Anthony Francois
Enough of whether New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan should excommunicate Governor Andrew Cuomo, and what the media or Cuomo’s political supporters or Planned Parenthood or anyone else of ill will would make of such a move. I have no particular quarrel with those calling for it, other than to observe that it is, in fact, the province of the bishop to decide. It just isn’t really the most important point.
Excommunication, the Cardinal says, would be politically counterproductive. That is not an ecclesiastical judgment but a secular one. In that order of things, Cardinal Dolan is by definition – and Church teaching – no more an authority than any member of his flock.
So, how can we assess the wisdom of Dolan’s call on the politics of the matter?
We would need to know what “productive” would mean in order to assess whether excommunicating the Governor aids or hinders it. We would need to know what strategy is being implemented to know whether any particular act was within or without the plan. But nothing remotely like a Catholic political strategy to change the trajectory of New York state’s final descent into child killing madness is on offer.
One strategy might be: build up the moral formation of New York’s Roman Catholics to the point that Andrew Cuomo and his ilk will someday have to give a damn about what they think on this matter.
What is Cardinal Dolan’s strategy for catechizing (or perhaps evangelizing is the right word) New York City’s Catholics to the point where they, as voters, won’t stand for this sort of thing anymore? Is there one?
Dolan’s diocese has almost 3 million Catholics, a third of all residents. New York City is said to be one of America’s most Catholic cities, and New York is one of the nation’s most Catholic states by population. Roman Catholicism is the Empire State’s largest religious grouping.
But if you look at those claims by how many New York Catholics will vote to re-elect Cuomo, or any legislator who voted for this monstrosity, the number that currently matters to any Catholic pro-life political strategy is very, very much smaller.
Governor Cuomo just won re-election with 59 percent of the statewide vote. Dolan’s archdiocese provided Cuomo with over a third of his total votes, and voted for him at roughly the same rate as the rest of the state. Looking at Dolan’s counties that Cuomo won, the effect is more dramatic: just under a third of Cuomo’s total statewide vote came from these counties, which he carried by 66 percent. Zooming in on New York City alone, Cuomo won the heart of Dolan’s archdiocese by 86 percent in Manhattan and 90 percent in the Bronx.
These facts demonstrate two things. First: making a rapid and significant difference in New York’s political landscape on abortion is probably an unrealistic short-term goal for the Cardinal. So why should anyone care about excommunicating Cuomo, which is marginal to such a goal? You might as well ask what effect canceling a Netflix subscription has on colonizing Mars.
This is an actual screenshot from an online story about New York’s recent abortion law with the unplanned, serendipitous juxtaposition of an ad.
Second: Cardinal Dolan urgently needs to do something more effective to evangelize his whole flock on whether they should ever vote for zealous legal enablers of child killing. As it stands now, in any one-on-one contest between Cuomo and Dolan, almost all of the Cardinal’s people are rooting for the Governor. He needs to change that.
Reasonable minds will differ on what would be productive to that effort. But who in the chancery cares what the Church’s enemies think about a bishop’s effort to help Catholics understand that you shouldn’t vote for those who make a top priority of liquidating the unborn?
Catechetical, liturgical, and disciplinary reform are not easy. But these are the only “resources” that the Archbishop of New York has to form his flock to the point that they will rally as Catholic voters to stand athwart barbarism. None of Cardinal Dolan’s other responsibilities contribute anything significant to that effort. They may have ancillary value to some of the Church’s enterprises, but they aren’t making Big Apple Catholics more pro-life.
Whatever other good they do, none of the Archdiocese of New York’s public contracts or philanthropic collections to provide social services provide substantial moral formation or courage to broad swaths of voting Catholics on this issue. None of Cardinal Dolan’s otherwise appropriate and arguably useful relationships with politicians, as such, teaches the faithful how to deal with those pols at the ballot box on this issue.
Grand Marshalling the St. Patrick’s Day Parade isn’t, without more, giving Catholic New Yorkers the zeal of the Patron of Ireland, or anything more conducive than a pub crawl to virtue or spiritual wellbeing. The Al Smith Dinner may raise a pile for the Church, but it doesn’t form consciences, no matter how many viewers C-SPAN reaches with it.
If the Cardinal wants to face down Andrew Cuomo over abortion with a crowd at his back, he is going to need to do something “productive” to get his people back.
None of which is to say that Cardinal Dolan doesn’t care about the most important of his responsibilities, or put an honest or capable effort into them. But it is to say that if he thinks that political considerations dictate that “those who oppose the Church” are a more important audience at this time than “those who adhere to the Church,” he doesn’t understand what are and are not his political opportunities.
The only way he is going to improve his political opportunities is by prioritizing the formation of his flock over trying to manage optics or manipulate what the enemies of the Church will say about him.
So fine, if excommunicating Cuomo will undermine some plan to make the faithful of New York a more effective bulwark in defense of the unborn, then by all means, forget it.
But please, if not, enough about how not disciplining him is good politics.
Tony Francois is a Senior Attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, where he specializes in constitutional and environmental law. He and his family reside in Sacramento, California. The views expressed are solely his own.
I was speaking with a friend and he used the phrase “you only have one life to live.” It’s a commonly used statement when one is considering say taking a vacation to an exotic spot, buying something that is very expensive or doing something that one would not usually do. It is an excuse to be extravagant or imprudent. The idea that one has only one life allows one to do things now without a virtuous, ethical or moral basis. It allows one to become self serving. To live for the here and now, the future consequences be damned.
There’s only one problem with living as if you only have one life. It can allow you to do the unthinkable. It can lead to moral relativism.
Moral Relativism vs. Moral Objectivism
Luke Pollard, who studied philosophy and theology at Oxford and Rebecca Massey-Chase, who studied English and Philosophy at Bristol, co-authored an article titled “An Argument on the Moral Argument” published in Volume 57 of Philosophy Now in 2006. Pollard wrote:
There are two views in ethics: morality is either ‘objective’ or ‘relative’. Objectivism in morality is the theory that there are at least some moral statements that are right or wrong, whether we believe them to be or not. These truths are not dependant upon us or upon any changeable thing. For instance, “Torturing babies just for fun is wrong” is objectively true whether we believe it to be or not. Even if everyone was brainwashed into thinking that it is morally acceptable, torturing babies just for fun would still be wrong.
Moral relativism, on the other hand, is the complete rejection of moral objectivism. At its core is the assertion that all moral statements are grounded purely in the whim and subjective taste of each individual or culture.
This ethics issue of moral relativism has come to the forefront recently with New York State legalizing the killing of babies at the moment of birth (infanticide). Infanticide is now the ultimate goal of the morally relative, albeit legal, act of abortion.
Infanticide, Mass Murder and Genocide
Infanticide has now become public policy. They are many examples of moral relativism in human history, from mass murders to genocide on an industrial scale. Is history repeating itself?
From the mass killings at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in 2017 to the Holocaust between 1941 and 1945, the one common factor is moral relativism. Moral statements, like though shall not murder, are “grounded purely in the whim and subjective taste of each individual or culture.”
Pollard argued,
One culture may think that torturing babies just for fun is okay and another that it is wrong: under relativism, both views are equally valid. We cannot tell a baby-torturer that what they do is wrong, and they should stop – their torturing is just as morally acceptable as our non-torturing. There is no logical reason why they should change. And, by relativism, if a society did change their behaviour, they could not have progressed morally, because there is no unchangeable measure by which to test their values. They have simply altered their moral outlook, and nothing else. There is no value-added, because there is no value.
When life has no value then what can the individual or collective do in the name of adding value?
Pollard concluded, “Relativism is clearly ridiculous.”
Moral Objectivism and God
Moral objectivism requires a belief in one all powerful monotheistic God. The three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe in a monotheistic God.
However Rebecca Massey-Chase argued,
In stating torturing babies just for fun is wrong “whether we believe it to be or not”, Luke [Pollard] is simply stating a view that he knows those reading this will probably (hopefully) agree with. But there is no reason why that specific precept is any more ‘objectively true’ than any other example he could have extracted from the ethics of his own personal moral criteria. Furthermore, he clearly believes that he can access God’s dictates on morality; yet what evidence is there to support his claims that he, or indeed anyone, can know such objective truth? Does one find it in divine revelation or religious texts; and if so, which ones? Is the Bible the absolute authority?
[ … ]
Luke maintains that objective moral values do exist, and thus necessarily God exists. He maintains that he is providing us with a proof of this hypothesis. However, I suggest that he is demonstrating only firmly held belief. His arguments rest on his perceptions of the world. I approach this argument from a different position; my perceptions are different and I see no reason to accept his main premises. I reject his claim to knowledge on a matter that rests only on belief and interpretation.
Massey-Chase is questioning if God exists. Philosophers have been arguing this for centuries. The final conclusion is the following logical argument:
Objective moral values exist.
Objective moral values necessitate the existence of a God.
Therefore, a God exists.
These statements are only true of one believe that there is a God and His Son is Jesus Crist. As John 3:16 reads.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Without God and His Son there is no life after death. There is nothing but one life to live, which can lead to moral relativism. Moral relativism can, and has, lead to atrocities like the law allowing the killing of babies in New York state.
The question is what morally relative atrocity comes next?
EDITORS NOTE: The featured images is from Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ethics-2991600_640.jpg452640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-02-04 19:40:552019-02-05 18:15:55The Great Lie: ‘You Only Have One Life To Live’
“Never Trump” conservative and The Weekly Standard co-founder Bill Kristol donated to Democrat Ralph Northam’s campaign during the 2017 Virginia gubernatorial election, but hasn’t indicated if he regrets that decision in light of Northam’s recent scandals.
Northam, who defeated Republican Ed Gillespie to take the governor’s seat, is now the subject of intense scrutiny over comments he made about late-term abortions and a racist photo that appeared in his medical school yearbook.
Last February in an interview with The New Yorker, Kristol explained that he and his wife donated to Northam’s campaign after being “infuriated” by President Donald Trump’s response to white nationalists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia. In a tweet in November 2017, Kristol was publicly questioning whether he should vote for the Democrat in order to stick it to the “Trumpy” campaign run by Gillespie.
The Daily Caller confirmed through Virginia State Election records that Kristol donated $200 to Northam’s campaign in August 2017.
Kristol told The New Yorker that he was “pleased” when Northam won, adding, “I really could make a case that the country would be better off with the Democrats running the House, because, if the Republicans aren’t willing to check Trump, someone has to.”
Kristol has waxed poetic about Northam’s comments on a late-term abortion bill in the Virginia General Assembly and Northam’s racist yearbook photo, but has seemingly abdicated any responsibility for supporting the Democrat. Kristol has not yet indicated if he regrets supporting Northam’s campaign and did not return a request for comment.
“The party line vote on tabling HB 2491 in the subcommittee of the Virginia General Assembly is yet another reminder — an important one — of why many of us Republican #NeverTrumpers haven’t become Democrats but rather are doing our best to save the GOP,” Kristol said referencing the late-term abortion bill, not mentioning his Northam donation.
Kristol retweeted a comment from Hayden Black mocking Northam’s excuse for the blackface/KKK photo in his medical school yearbook, but largely avoided directly criticizing the governor. For example, when former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said that Virginians “deserve better representation,” Kristol spun the remark against Trump, writing, “So do the people of the United States.”
In another set of tweets about the yearbook photo, Kristol joked about yearbooks gaining ground in American politics — likely a reference to failed Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore — and blasted the Republican Party’s ability to conduct and use opposition research.
Bill Kristol (Twitter Screenshot)
Kristol has repeatedly toed the line on supporting Democrats in his attempt to turn the Republican Party away from Trump. Prior to the 2018 midterms, Kristol floated the idea that if Democrats swept the elections then Republicans would finally have an incentive to turn against the president.
“Can’t do anything about the fact that he’s president. So maybe you have to work with him. That’s been the general Republican attitude,” Kristol said during an MSNBC interview. “I think the day after election day, things change more than people realize in terms of Republican psychology and dynamics.”
“They’ll need a little help from people like me,” Kristol added with a laugh.
“Bill Kristol must have missed the class on party building where you are taught not to actively help your opponent while trying to rebuild your own party,” a GOP strategist told The Daily Caller.
Thanks to reader Diana for spottingthis newsat Judicial Watch which uses the shockingly awful Ohio food stamp fraud bust I reported, herein late January, to say that the feds are taking way too long and the penalties aren’t stiff enough to deter this massive fraud.
They cite the case of the Ohio father and son who ripped off US taxpayers for nearly $3 million and also polluted a local waterway with “bodily fluids” from an illegal halal slaughter business—a story that everyone should continue to send out on social media (use the JWpost this time!).
Food Stamp Fraud on the Rise as Government Allows “Retailer Trafficking”
Weeks after a federal audit blasted the government for failing to curb rampant fraud in its multi-billion-dollar food stamp program, two Ohio men have been indicted for operating a $2.7 million scheme that spanned six years. One of the men, 59-year-old Amin Salem, is a convicted felon with a history of food stamp fraud yet the feds took six years to bust him and he remained a qualified food stamp retailer. The other man, Mohamed Salem, is his 32-year-old son and federal prosecutors say they operated a highly lucrative food stamp trafficking ring in the Cleveland area with the help of a buddy named Zahran al-Qadan.
[….]
Though this operation sticks out among others, Food stamp fraud has been pervasive for years and the alarming numbers have been well documented by the government. The USDA’s most recent figures show about $1.1 billion in food stamp fraud a year.Nearly 12% of retailers authorized by the government to accept food stamps engage in illegal practices, according to the agency. Judicial Watch has reported extensively on the rampant fraud in the program that costs American taxpayers a bewildering $64 billion annually to provide more than 20 million households with free food. Less than a year ago, nearly 200 people were arrested in Florida for operating a sophisticated ring in which 22,000 fraudulent food stamp transactions totaling $3.7 million were documented by a task force of local and federal authorities. In 2016 the feds busted the largest food stamp fraud operation in history, a $13 million enterprise run by flea market retailers in the largely black and Hispanic areas of south Florida’s Miami-Dade County known as Opa-Locka and Hialeah.
[….]
A USDA division called Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) is responsible for rooting out the type of fraud and corruption that continue plaguing the food stamp program.
“As of November 2018, FNS had not implemented this authority,” according to congressional investigators. “By failing to take timely action to strengthen penalties, FNS has not taken full advantage of an important tool for deterring trafficking.”
Go toJW here for the whole story and to follow links for more information.
Do you have a suspicious convenience store or small gas nation near you that accepts food stamps? Keep an eye on their activities. Some signs of a possible on-going fraud include large numbers of people going in and out every day with few purchases (if any!) when they come out. Also look for poorly, or nearly bare shelves as a sign that selling groceries is not a priority.
See this earlier post that includes information about the GAO study.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/usda-logo.jpg360640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-02-04 16:36:212019-02-04 16:39:39Judicial Watch: USDA Dragging its Feet in War on Food Stamp Fraud
New York’s Catholic Democratic Governor had the World Trade Center in lights to celebrate its abortion-on-demand-until-the-day-of-birth law. This law was framed as empowering women through guaranteeing “Reproductive Health.” Women in New York must be really powerful since New York’s abortion rate is twice the national average. This and eight other similar state laws were largely ignored as merely codifying Roe v Wade. But the state of Virginia’s Democratic pediatrician governor’s ghoulish advocacy for abortion until delivery of the infant was jaw-dropping as he explained that killing the infant after birth was allowed.
How can we tolerate this moral regression? Infanticide was the norm throughout ancient Athens and Sparta where the elders inspected the newborns to ensure that only the strong survived, and the weak were left to die. Early Roman law decreed that deformed children would be put to death. Fortunately, by the 4th century, European law, religion, and medicine rejected the intentional killing of an infant.
Americans have been sucked in before by pretty words that mask the brutal reality of “evolved” policies. There was a time when America’s best and brightest were teaching Dr. Josef Mengele a thing or two about eugenics, the “science” of improving the human gene pool for the preservation of society.
Poster issued by the Eugenics Society, 69 Eccleston Square, London, England.
At the First International Eugenics Congress in 1912, a Carnegie Institute-supported paper, Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population (“Breeder’s Report”), analyzed the problem of the “unfit” and the need to find solution to “cut[ting] off the supply of defectives.”
Even black intellectuals jumped on board. The Harvard-educated professor and civil rights activist W.E.B. DuBois believed only fit blacks should procreate to “eradicate the race’s heritage of moral iniquity.” The NAACP promoted eugenics theory by hosting “Better Baby” contests.
The Model Eugenical Sterilization Law (1914) was the blueprint for the sterilization of the “socially inadequate” including the feeble minded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf, deformed, dependent, orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless, and paupers. By the 1920s, thirty-three states had compulsory sterilization laws.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated for mandatory IQ testing for the lower classes and the issuance of government-approved parenthood permits as a prerequisite to having children. Sanger criticized philanthropy as tending to perpetuate “human waste.” She also proposed that “the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.”
Compulsory sterilization of the “feebleminded” was etched in stone by the revered liberal Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Buck v. Bell (which has never been overruled) concluded that “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”
With Congress steamrolling exclusively government-controlled medical care with Medicare-for-All, we must reflect on our past as well as the present policies of our civilized neighbors. What happens when the government runs out of money to pay for everything our politicians promised?
The Model Sterilization law’s selling point was that sterilization of those maintained wholly or in part by public expense was cost-effective: segregation for life cost $25,000 and sterilization a mere $150.
In Belgium, a nine and an eleven-year-old were euthanized for conditions that we in the United States vigorously treat: cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy. Canada is considering allowing such barbarism–aka medical assistance in dying—to be perpetrated upon its children.
Iceland has virtually eliminated Down’s syndrome through abortion. Coincidentally the Ministry of Health lists Down’s syndrome as the most expensive disease for the state-funded health care program.
The British National Health Service’s Institute for Health and Care Excellence supports the use of “quality-adjusted life years” (QALY) to measure the quality and quantity of life added due to a particular medical treatment. If the cost per QALY gained exceeds a predetermined amount, the government denies payment for that treatment. ObamaCare architect Ezekiel Emanuel’s “Complete Lives System” prioritizes adolescents and persons with “instrumental value,” i.e., individuals with “future usefulness.” With current nursing home costs averaging $7,500 per month, hospice care could be the default medically necessary treatment for the disabled.
It was not too long ago that the top Democrat official, Nancy Pelosi said “[Republicans] pray in church on Sunday and they prey on people the rest of the week. And while we’re doing the Lord’s work, ministering to the needs of God’s creation, they are ignoring those needs which is to dishonor the God who made them.” I don’t know whose “lord” she is talking about—perhaps the overlords who aim to take over mankind in sci-fi stories or the “Lord of the Flies.”
The day erecting a barrier to stop drug and human trafficking is considered immoral and killing viable live babies is celebrated is the day some Americans tossed morality into the abyss.
RELATED VIDEO: Do College Students Believe In God?
EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured images are courtesy of The Church Militant.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/eugenics-poster.jpg382640Dr. Marilyn Singletonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Marilyn Singleton2019-02-04 13:36:042019-02-04 13:42:16Eugenics, Euthanasia, Infanticide, and the Lord’s Work
It does sometimes feel as though many Americans actually think the success of the American economy is due to the behemoth in Washington, D.C., rather than in spite of it.
When Friday’s job’s numbers came out, they gobsmacked the media and economic experts, who were expecting 170,000 at the top end and were greeted with 304,000. But those figures were considerably less surprising to those of us who view the government as a hindrance to private enterprise and economic well-being — not an indispensable necessity.
Now an additional data point comes courtesy of Americans’ spending on last night’s Super Bowl — unarguably one of the most boring in history.
“American adults say they will spend an average $81.30 for a total of $14.8 billion as they watch the New England Patriots and the Los Angeles Rams meet up in the Super Bowl,” according to the annual survey by the National Retail Federation and Prosper Insights & Analytics conducted before Sunday’s game.
Meanwhile, the partial government shutdown cost the economy $11 billion, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO says that is due to lost output from federal workers, delayed government spending and reduced demand resulting from those first two. But the CBO goes on to say it is really nowhere near that high.
“Although most of the damage to the economy will be reversed as federal workers return to their jobs, the CBO estimated $3 billion in economic activity is permanently lost after a quarter of the government was closed for nearly 35 days,” CNBC reported, desperately trying to make it seem as though there was economic significance to the shutdown. Media use the big number in the headlines and leads, but it is irrelevant. Only the net number is what counts: $3 billion.
Even the CBO report’s narrative made clear that, despite hyperbolic media attention, the government shutdown was a big snoozer when it came to economic impact.
“Among those who experienced the largest and most direct negative effects are federal workers who faced delayed compensation and private-sector entities that lost business,” the report said. “Some of those private-sector entities will never recoup that lost income.”
So to get this straight. Four hours of football and an entertainment halftime show created nearly five timesas much economic activity as was lost due to the month-long partial government shutdown.
It’s almost as if hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats not showing up in big drab government buildings to push papers, regulate small businesses and grind things slowly for a month didn’t hurt the economy. In fact, based on the job numbers Friday, the bureaucrats’ absence may actually have boosted things.
One downside to note: About 17 million people are expected to call in sick today, the day after the Super Bowl, with the pigskin pox. I’m going to suggest a lot of that is hangover related. That, along with all of the conversations about the game during work hours, could hurt economic output by $4 billion.
The 17 million calling in sick sounds pretty solid. But the $4 billion in economic impact seems a bit squishy considering they are trying to quantify the economic impact of five minutes here and there on the game — when there is no AB comparison given that people engage in water cooler talk year-round.
EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/football-player-260556_1280-e1549303604274.jpg437639Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2019-02-04 13:06:592019-02-04 13:12:17Economic Impact Of Super Bowl Dwarfs That Of Government Shutdown
