VIDEO: Jew-haters disrupt New York City Council meeting — “Naked, blind antisemitism”

David Greenfield is right: this isn’t simply opposition to Israel, which all too often is born of Jew-hatred in any case. This is open anti-Semitism. The Council was discussing a commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The protesters were identifying with the Auschwitz murderers.

Pro-Palestinians Disrupt Council Meeting With Anti-Israel Chants

Pro-Palestinians Escorted Out Of Council Chambers After Disrupting Meeting

David Greenfield Stands Up Against Anti-Israel Protesters During City Council Meeting

“VIDEOS: Pro-Palestinians Disrupt City Council Meeting Over Speaker’s Planned Visit To Israel,” by Jacob Kornbluh, JP Updates, January 23, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activists disrupted the City Council’s stated meeting on Thursday while members were voting on a resolution commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

The protesters started yelling, “shame on you, Melissa”, “why are you supporting an apartheid” and “Palestinian lives matter.”

After five minutes of yelling and screaming, the some 40 protesters were ordered to leave and escorted out the balcony.

Council member Cory Johnson called it “incredibly disrespectful and offensive. Simply awful.” Councilman Mark Weprin added, “The State of Israel has never supported the killing of innocent people, and they want to love in peace.”

“I am still shaken, upset and angry,” Councilman David Greenfield. “While we were discussing a resolution regarding the murder of 1.1 million human beings – I will point out that 90 percent of them were Jewish, but the other 10 percent, they were political dissidents .. those were the people who were being killed together at Auschwitz-Birkenau. While we were discussing that, they had the chutzpah, the nerve, the temerity, to unfurl a Palestinian flag and yell at us.”

But I’m pleased, because we can stop pretending that this is about Israel. What we saw here was naked, blind antisemitism, good old fashioned antisemitism,” Greenfield roared. “That’s what you saw, and that’s what you watched, and that’s what you witnessed – people who were upset for one reason. Do you want to know why they’re upset, do you want to know why they’re angry, do you want to know why they unfurled that flag today? Because Hitler did not finish the job. He only wiped out half of my family.”

The trip to Israel is a message that “we will not be cowered by this fear and hatred,” he added.

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito went over to Greenfield and shook his hand as an expression of support.

Republican Council member Eric Ulrich also took the mic to state that “to be pro Israel you don’t have to be Jewish.”

“Israel is a vibrant democracy and I’m proud to go back to Israel again. I will not be intimidated by the hecklers. I will not sit here and allow people to attack the Jews.” Ulrich said.

Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito said in an emailed statement, “At a time when the Council was voting on a resolution commemorating the 70thanniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, this outburst was offensive, outrageous and counter to the values of the City Council.”


Pakistan: Muslim groups place bounties totaling over $1 million on Charlie Hebdo cartoonists

Spanish police arrest Muslim brothers plotting jihad; “many parallels” with Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre

New video claims Islamic State jihadis have beheaded one of their two Japanese hostages

Colorado Muslima jailed for plot to join Islamic State says she is “servant of Allah”: “Jihad must be waged to protect Muslim nations”

Canada-based Muslim charged with jihad plots to kill Americans and support jihad terror groups

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Councilman David Greenfield is by William Alatriste/NYC Council.

An American Caliphate: The Alternate Media are Catching Up to Me

Back on June 15th of last year, I wrote an article so controversial and scary that some of my usual blog publishers passed on it. I knew they would and I knew why. I had come out and said that Washington D.C. was the seat of the Muslim caliphate, and I had provided details to demonstrate that.

Back during the Vietnam War years, there was a slogan among conservatives that went “America right or wrong.”

At one time, most Americans, conservatives in particular, didn’t like to criticize their government in war time because they thought that would be blasphemous to those brave young Americans who had died on the battlefield. Thus instead of laying the blame squarely on the shoulders of those politicians and foreign policy strategists who had cynically squandered these American lives for their own ideological purposes or self-aggrandizement, they chose to cover up the ignominy of the loss and pretend it was a good cause. That ill-conceived practice enabled more and more vain deaths, and is doing so to the present day.

It is a mindset that dies hard.

But if I had had a son back then who had been drafted and killed, I can’t imagine having pretended that he died for a holy cause, and I didn’t understand those parents who took that attitude. Why send more young men to die when you can stand up for what you believe in and hopefully halt the senseless killing?

I am not, of course, referring to justified war to truly protect the homeland. In fact, I cringed a few nights ago while watching a talk show on German cable channel Deutsche Welle where one freelance reporter who had been embedded with ISIS claimed that all the West needs to do to halt the hostility in the Muslim world is to stop the bombing. I immediately thought of Boko Haram, which has never been bombed or shot at, and which recently killed 2000 Christians. There’s no bombing to halt, stupid!

The article I found at American Thinker, which suggests there is at least some realization that the U.S. is pursuing a caliphate, states:

…Islam is on the march. Meanwhile, the West remains mired in cowardice and complicity. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in Europe, which is on the fast track to join the Caliphate.

Not to be outdone by Europe’s madness, the United States is traveling down the same bloody path, importing large numbers of Muslims from Islamic countries thanks to the Islamophile sitting in the Oval Office and a nation full of dhimmis.

This bold statement, reflecting my commentary from last June, suggests that America has now turned a bit of a corner, and that selling baseless wars has become a significantly tougher job for the warmongers in Washington, D.C., and that is partly because none other than Barrack Hussein Obama has joined the ranks of those war mongers and it is therefore politically correct for conservatives to talk plainly about this. It also shows that it is now ok to suggest that Washington DC is the seat of the caliphate, as I did back in June. Now if Mitt Romney were president, I would not bet that the comments, if any, would be this bold. After all, media, whether alternative or mainstream, are beholden to political groups. To put it bluntly, there is no fourth estate. Perhaps there never was.

We still have a long way to go before the public wakes up and realizes, for example, that the Ukraine debacle was a sales job to promote isolation of Russia, if not war with Russia, to the world. But even there, progress is being made by the inch, particularly in Europe.

On the other hand, let us never let anyone tell us that the best policy to use against heartless terrorists is to turn the other cheek.

We will eventually have to engage ISIS.

So how are we doing so far?

Aside from largely ineffectual drone attacks in Syria and Iraq, we’re sending 400 troops to train “moderates” in Syria in hopes of taking out the only man standing between Syrian Christians and death!

Almost all of the reports on this major advance in the war against Christians and innocent minorities in Syria are written with a mesmerizing blandness suggesting that all is well and that the lives of innocent Syrians are an acceptable price to pay to rid the world of Bashar al-Assad and replace him with a considerably more radical Islamist government that will install brutal sharia law enshrining violence against women and introducing death penalties to non-Muslims, for example, who speak their mind about the “prophet.”

Not a single feminist group has protested, of course. Their sole raison d’être is to annoy as many people as possible.

I found on article that sums up how U.S. policies kill Christians abroad as though it were our designated policy to kill them. The one comment in the forum accompanying the article was a mindless complaint about Christians “imposing their values” on others, as if trying to prevent the deaths of innocent Christians were an imposition of values peculiar to Christians. How quaint of us to oppose murder.

Meanwhile, the protests against U.S. Christian-killing policies such as the military opposition to al-Assad are scant and scarcely reported. The most successful ones that get past the media firewall are organized by leftist groups that oppose war on principle and would not fight even if their families were attacked.

Then there have been church protests, but mostly by Orthodox churches (e.g. Antiochian Orthodox  in PA), as well as small, poorly organized worldwide protests during the crisis over Syria in 2013, involving a few hundred protesters each.

If the Satanic forces in Washington succeed in taking out Assad and plunging Syria into chaos, it is hard to imagine salvation for the U.S. What kind of God would forgive us? Not mine!

The Crowding-Out Tipping Point: Increasing economic growth means shrinking government by James A. Dorn

The size and scope of government in the United States today would have been beyond the imagination of the American founders. For more than a century after the Constitution’s ratification, Americans took limits on government power seriously.

At the start of the 20th century, total government spending was less than 10 percent of GDP, with the majority of spending taking place at the state and local levels. In 1900, federal spending was a mere 2.8 percent of GDP compared to 21.1 percent in 2014. Meanwhile, state and local spending stood at 5 percent of GDP in 1900, but reached 11.5 percent in 2014. Overall government spending now stands at nearly 33 percent of GDP.

That tectonic shift is largely due to the growth of entitlements and the regulatory state. Nearly half of federal spending goes toward Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; government imposes huge regulatory costs on the private sector; and the higher taxes needed to finance big government erode economic incentives to work, save, and invest.

How big is too big?

There is a growing body of evidence that bigger government means slower growth of real GDP. Once the level of total government spending as a percentage of GDP reaches a tipping point, estimated to be from 15 percent to 25 percent of GDP, additional expansion crowds out private productive investment and slows economic growth. An overreaching government diminishes economic freedom and limits private exchange opportunities, restricting the range of choices open to individuals.

In a pioneering study of the link between government growth and national wealth, which appeared in the fall 1998 issue of the Cato Journal, economists James Gwartney, Randall Holcombe, and Robert Lawson found that a 10 percentage point increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP decreases real GDP growth by 1 percentage point. Thus, if government spending went from 25 percent of GDP to 35 percent, real GDP growth would slow over the longer term by a full percentage point. They also found that a 10 percentage point increase in the government’s share of GDP lowered private investment by 1.6 percentage points.

Factors of growth

One of their study’s key findings was that secure property rights — which includes a legal system that protects persons and property, enforces contracts, and limits the power of government by a just rule of law — play an important role in promoting economic growth.

The late Bernhard Heitger, an economist at the Kiel Institute for World Economics, more fully developed the positive relationship between property rights and economic growth in his pathbreaking article in the winter 2004 Cato Journal. In that article, Heitger distinguished between proximate and ultimate determinants of economic growth. The former are well known: additions to physical and human capital and technological progress (also known as “total factor productivity”). But Heitger was interested in the question of what drives capital accumulation and innovation. His answer: the structure of property rights and the associated incentives.

Conventional growth theory took private property rights and incentives as givens. Heitger rigorously showed that private property rights and the rule of law are the ultimate sources of economic growth and the wealth of nations. Well-defined private property rights improve efficiency and increase per capita income. In turn, as a nation grows richer, people demand stronger protection of their property rights, advancing institutional change.

Using data from an international cross-section of countries from 1975–95, Heitger found that “a doubling of the property rights index more than doubles per capita income” and that “more secure property rights significantly raise the accumulation of physical and human capital.”

Bauer’s foresight

That outcome would not have surprised Peter Bauer, a pioneer of development economics. He was critical of the simplistic idea that physical capital accumulation is the key determinant of economic growth. As early as 1957, in his classic Economic Analysis and Policy in Underdeveloped Countries, Bauer noted:

It is misleading to think of investment as the only or the principal determinant of development. Other factors and influences, such as institutional and political forces, the qualities and attitudes of the population, and the supply of complementary resources, are often equally important or even more important.

In the same book, Bauer also anticipated modern endogenous growth theory, stating: “It is more meaningful to say that capital is created in the process of development, rather than that development is a function of capital.” What mattered to Bauer, and to other classical liberals, in the process of development was freedom — namely, the freedom to pursue one’s happiness without government interference except to protect life, liberty, and property. (See James A. Dorn, “Economic Development and Freedom: The Legacy of Peter Bauer.”)

In that sense, Bauer argued that “the principal objective and criterion of economic development” is “the extension of the range of choice, that is, an increase in the range of effective alternatives open to people.” Free markets — resting on effective private property rights — and free people are thus the ultimate determinants of economic growth. When government expands beyond its core functions, it undermines the primacy of property, diminishes the principle of freedom, and erodes the wealth of nations.

The United States falls

The loss of economic freedom in the United States is revealed in the annual Economic Freedom of the World Report, published by the Fraser Institute along with the Cato Institute and a number of global think tanks. In 2000, the United States was the second most economically free country in the world, based on data from 1998. Today it is ranked 12th, based on 2012 data.

To move up the freedom ladder, the United States needs to change the climate of ideas and recognize the importance of private property rights and the rule of law. A legal framework that safeguards persons and property means incentivizing individuals to take responsibility for their actions and allowing people to learn from their mistakes. It means cutting back the size and scope of government and not bailing out businesses.

The nature of government is coercion; the nature of the market is consent. The “great constitutional charter” that George Washington referred to in his first inaugural address (April 30, 1789) was intended to bind Congress to the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson reiterated Washington’s admonition by stating in his first inaugural address (March 4, 1801): “The sum of good government” is “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

Wise and frugal

The challenge for the 114th Congress is to return to “a wise and frugal government.” A first step would be to understand the detrimental effects of expanding government power on economic liberties — especially on private property rights. If history has taught us anything, it is that the size and scope of government matter, both for freedom and prosperity.


James A. Dorn is vice president for monetary studies, editor of the Cato Journal, senior fellow, and director of Cato’s annual monetary conference.

CLICHÉS OF PROGRESSIVISM #41 – “Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Proved That We Needed Anti-Trust Laws” by Lawrence W. Reed

Among the great misconceptions about a free economy is the widely-held belief that “laissez faire” embodies a natural tendency toward monopoly concentration. Under unfettered capitalism, so goes the familiar refrain, large firms would systematically devour smaller ones, corner markets, and stamp out competition until every inhabitant of the land fell victim to their power. Supposedly, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company of the late 1800s gave substance to this perspective.

Regarding Standard Oil’s chief executive, one noted historian writes, “He (Rockefeller) iron-handedly ruined competitors by cutting prices until his victim went bankrupt or sold out, whereupon higher prices would be likely to return.”

Two other historians, co-authors of a popular college text, opine that “Rockefeller was a ruthless operator who did not hesitate to crush his competitors by harsh and unfair methods.” That’s what the superficial orthodoxy holds.

In 1899, Standard refined 90 per cent of America’s oil—the peak of the company’s dominance of the refining business. Though that market share was steadily siphoned off by competitors after 1899, the company nonetheless has been branded ever since as “an industrial octopus.”

Does the story of Standard Oil really present a case against the free market? In my opinion, it most emphatically does not. Furthermore, setting the record straight on this issue must become an important weapon in every free market advocate’s intellectual arsenal.

Theoretically, there are two kinds of monopoly: coercive and efficiency. A coercive monopoly results from, in the words of Adam Smith, “a government grant of exclusive privilege.” Government, in effect, must take sides in the market in order to give birth to a coercive monopoly. It must make it difficult, costly, or impossible for anyone but the favored firm to do business.

The United States Postal Service is an example of this kind of monopoly. By law, no one can deliver first class mail except the USPS. Fines and imprisonment (coercion) await all those daring enough to compete.(Editor’s Note: In the years since this article was written, technology in the form of fax machines, overnight delivery services, the Internet and e-mail have allowed the private sector to get around the government monopoly in traditional, first-class mail delivery).

In some other cases, the government may not ban competition outright, but simply bestow privileges, immunities, or subsidies on one firm while imposing costly requirements on all others. Regardless of the method, a firm which enjoys a coercive monopoly is in a position to harm the consumer and get away with it.

An efficiency monopoly, on the other hand, earns a high share of a market because it does the best job. It receives no special favors from the law to account for its size. Others are free to compete and, if consumers so will it through their purchases, to grow as big as the “monopoly.”

An efficiency monopoly has no legal power to compel people to deal with it or to protect itself from the consequences of its unethical practices. It can only attain bigness through its excellence in satisfying customers and by the economy of its operations. An efficiency monopoly which turns its back on the very performance which produced its success would be, in effect, posting a sign, “COMPETITORS WANTED.” The market rewards excellence and exacts a toll on mediocrity. It is my contention that the historical record casts the Standard Oil Company in the role of efficiency monopoly—a firm to which consumers repeatedly awarded their votes of confidence.

The oil rush began with the discovery of oil by Colonel Edwin Drake at Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859. Northwestern Pennsylvania soon “was overrun with businessmen, speculators, misfits, horse dealers, drillers, bankers, and just plain hell-raisers. Dirt-poor farmers leased land at fantastic prices, and rigs began blackening the landscape. Existing towns jammed full overnight with ‘strangers,’ and new towns appeared almost as quickly.”

In the midst of chaos emerged young John D. Rockefeller. An exceptionally hard-working and thrifty man, Rockefeller transformed his early interest in oil into a partnership in the refinery stage of the business in 1865.

Five years later, Rockefeller formed the Standard Oil Company with 4 per cent of the refining market. Less than thirty years later, he reached that all-time high of 90 per cent. What accounts for such stunning success?

On December 30, 1899, Rockefeller was asked that very question before a governmental investigating body called the Industrial Commission. He replied:

I ascribe the success of the Standard to its consistent policy to make the volume of its business large through the merits and cheapness of its products. It has spared no expense in finding, securing, and utilizing the best and cheapest methods of manufacture. It has sought for the best superintendents and workmen and paid the best wages. It has not hesitated to sacrifice old machinery and old plants for new and better ones. It has placed its manufactories at the points where they could supply markets at the least expense. It has not only sought markets for its principal products, but for all possible by-products, sparing no expense in introducing them to the public. It has not hesitated to invest millions of dollars in methods of cheapening the gathering and distribution of oils by pipe lines, special cars, tank steamers, and tank wagons. It has erected tank stations at every important railroad station to cheapen the storage and delivery of its products. It has spared no expense in forcing its products into the markets of the world among people civilized and uncivilized. It has had faith in American oil, and has brought together millions of money for the purpose of making it what it is, and holding its markets against the competition of Russia and all the many countries which are producers of oil and competitors against American oil.

Rockefeller was a managerial genius—a master organizer of men as well as of materials. He had a gift for bringing devoted, brilliant, and hard-working young men into his organization. Among his most outstanding associates were H. H. Rogers, John D. Archbold, Stephen V. Harkness, Samuel Andrews, and Henry M. Flagler. Together they emphasized efficient economic operation, research, and sound financial practices. The economic excellence of their performance is described by economist D. T. Armentano:

Instead of buying oil from jobbers, they made the jobbers’ profit by sending their own purchasing men into the oil region. In addition, they made their own sulfuric acid, their own barrels, their own lumber, their own wagons, and their own glue. They kept minute and accurate records of every item from rivets to barrel bungs. They built elaborate storage facilities near their refineries. Rockefeller bargained as shrewdly for crude as anyone before or since. And Sam Andrews coaxed more kerosene from a barrel of crude than could the competition. In addition, the Rockefeller firm put out the cleanest-burning kerosene, and managed to dispose of most of the residues like lubricating oil, paraffin, and vaseline at a profit.

Even muckraker Ida Tarbell, one of Standard’s critics, admired the company’s streamlined processes of production:

Not far away from the canning works, on Newton Creek, is an oil refinery. This oil runs to the canning works, and, as the new-made cans come down by a chute from the works above, where they have just been finished, they are filled, twelve at a time, with the oil made a few miles away. The filling apparatus is admirable. As the new-made cans come down the chute they are distributed, twelve in a row, along one side of a turn-table. The turn-table is revolved, and the cans come directly under twelve measures, each holding five gallons of oil—a turn of a valve, and the cans are full. The table is turned a quarter, and while twelve more cans are filled and twelve fresh ones are distributed, four men with soldering cappers put the caps on the first set. Another quarter turn, and men stand ready to take the cans from the filler and while they do this, twelve more are having caps put on, twelve are filling, and twelve are coming to their place from the chute. The cans are placed at once in wooden boxes standing ready, and, after a twenty-four-hour wait for discovering leaks, are nailed up and carted to a nearby door. This door opens on the river, and there at anchor by the side of the factory is a vessel chartered for South America or China or where not—waiting to receive the cans which a little more than twenty-four hours before were tin sheets lying on flat-boxes. It is a marvelous example of economy, not only in materials, but in time and in footsteps.

Socialist historian Gabriel Kolko, who argues in The Triumph of Conservatism that the forces of competition in the free market of the late 1800s were too potent to allow Standard to cheat the public, stresses that “Standard treated the consumer with deference. Crude and refined oil prices for consumers declined during the period Standard exercised greatest control of the industry.”

Standard’s service to the consumer in the form of lower prices is well-documented. To quote from Professor Armentano again:

Between 1870 and 1885 the price of refined kerosene dropped from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon. In the same period, the Standard Oil Company reduced the [refining] costs per gallon from almost 3 cents in 1870 to 0.452 cents in 1885. Clearly, the firm was relatively efficient, and its efficiency was being translated to the consumer in the form of lower prices for a much improved product, and to the firm in the form of additional profits.

That story continued for the remainder of the century, with the price of kerosene to the consumer falling to 5.91 cents per gallon in 1897. Armentano concludes from the record that “at the very pinnacle of Standard’s industry ‘control,’ the costs and the prices for refined oil reached their lowest levels in the history of the petroleum industry.”

John D. Rockefeller’s success, then, was a consequence of his superior performance. He derived his impressive market share not from government favors but rather from aggressive courting of the consumer. Standard Oil is one of history’s classic efficiency monopolies.

But what about the many serious charges leveled against Standard? Predatory price cutting? Buying out competitors? Conspiracy? Railroad rebates? Charging any price it wanted? Greed? Each of these can be viewed as an assault not just on Standard Oil but on the free market in general. They can and must be answered.

Predatory price cutting is “the practice of deliberately underselling rivals in certain markets to drive them out of business, and then raising prices to exploit a market devoid of competition.”  Let’s see if it’s a charge that holds water or just one of those one-liners progressives like to toss out whether the evidence is there or not.

In fact, Professor John S. McGee, writing in the Journal of Law and Economics for October 1958, stripped this charge of any intellectual substance. Describing it as “logically deficient,” he concluded, “I can find little or no evidence to support it.”

In research for his extraordinary article, McGee scrutinized the testimony of Rockefeller’s competitors who claimed to have been victims of predatory price cutting. He found their claims to be shallow and misdirected. McGee pointed out that some of these very people later opened new refineries and successfully challenged Standard again.

Beyond the actual record, economic theory also argues against a winning policy of predatory price cutting in a free market for the following reasons:

  1. Price is only one aspect of competition. Firms compete in a variety of ways: service, location, packaging, marketing, even courtesy. For price alone to draw customers away from the competition, the predator would have to cut substantially—enough to outweigh all the other competitive pressures the others can throw at him. That means suffering losses on every unit sold. If the predator has a war-chest of “monopoly profits” to draw upon in such a battle, then the predatory price cutting theorist must explain how he was able to achieve such ability in the absence of this practice in the first place!
  2. The large firm stands to lose the most. By definition, the large firm is already selling the most units. As a predator, it must actually step up its production if it is to have any effect on competitors. As Professor McGee observed, “To lure customers away from somebody, he (the predator) must be prepared to serve them himself. The monopolizer thus finds himself in the position of selling more—and therefore losing more—than his competitors.”
  3. Consumers will increase their purchases at the “bargain prices.” This factor causes the predator to step up production even further. It also puts off the day when he can “cash in” on his hoped-for victory because consumers will be in a position to refrain from purchasing at higher prices, consuming their stockpiles instead.
  4. The length of the battle is always uncertain. The predator does not know how long he must suffer losses before his competitors quit. It may take weeks, months, or even years. Meanwhile, consumers are “cleaning up” at his expense.
  5. Any “beaten” firms may reopen. Competitors may scale down production or close only temporarily as they “wait out the storm.” When the predator raises prices, they enter the market again. Conceivably, a “beaten” firm might be bought up by someone for a “song,” and then, under fresh management and with relatively low capital costs, face the predator with an actual competitive cost advantage.
  6. High prices encourage newcomers. Even if the predator drives everyone else from the market, raising prices will attract competition from people heretofore not even in the industry. The higher the prices go, the more powerful that attraction.
  7. The predator would lose the favor of consumers. Predatory price cutting is simply not good public relations. Once known, it would swiftly erode the public’s faith and good will. It might even evoke consumer boycotts and a backlash of sympathy for the firm’s competitors.

In summary, let me quote Professor McGee once again:

Judging from the Record, Standard Oil did not use predatory price discrimination to drive out competing refiners, nor did its pricing practice have that effect. Whereas there may be a very few cases in which retail kerosene peddlers or dealers went out of business after or during price cutting, there is no real proof that Standard’s pricing policies were responsible. I am convinced that Standard did not systematically, if ever, use local price cutting in retailing, or anywhere else, to reduce competition. To do so would have been foolish; and, whatever else has been said about them, the old Standard organization was seldom criticized for making less money when it could readily have made more.

A second charge is that Standard bought out its competitors. The intent of this practice, the critics say, was to stifle competitors by absorbing them.

First, it must be said that Standard had no legal power to coerce a competitor into selling. For a purchase to occur, Rockefeller had to pay the market price for an oil refinery. And evidence abounds that he often hired the very people whose operations he purchased. “Victimized ex-rivals,” wrote McGee, “might be expected to make poor employees and dissident or unwilling shareholders.”

Kolko writes that “Standard attained its control of the refinery business primarily by mergers, not price wars, and most refinery owners were anxious to sell out to it. Some of these refinery owners later reopened new plants after selling to Standard.”

Buying out competitors can be a wise move if achieving economy of scale is the intent. Buying out competitors merely to eliminate them from the market can be a futile, expensive, and never-ending policy. It appears that Rockefeller’s mergers were designed with the first motive in mind.

Even so, other people found it profitable to go into the business of building refineries and selling to Standard. David P. Reighard managed to build and sell three successive refineries to Rockefeller, all on excellent terms.

A firm which adopts a policy of absorbing others solely to stifle competition embarks upon the impossible adventure of putting out the recurring and unpredictable prairie fires of competition.

A third accusation holds that Standard secured secret agreements with competitors to carve up markets and fix prices at higher-than-market levels.

I will not contend here that Rockefeller never attempted this policy. His experiment with the South Improvement Company in 1872 provides at least some evidence that he did. I do argue, however, that all such attempts were failures from the start and no harm to the consumer occurred.

Standard’s price performance, cited extensively above, supports my argument. Prices fell steadily on an improving product. Some conspiracy!

From the perspective of economic theory, collusion to raise and/or fix prices is a practice doomed to failure in a free market for these reasons:

  1. Internal pressures. Conspiring firms must resolve the dilemma of production. To exact a higher price than the market currently permits, production must be curtailed. Otherwise, in the face of a fall in demand, the firms will be stuck with a quantity of unsold goods. Who will cut their production and by how much? Will the conspirators accept an equal reduction for all when it is likely that each faces a unique constellation of cost and distribution advantages and disadvantages?

    Assuming a formula for restricting production is agreed upon, it then becomes highly profitable for any member of the cartel to quietly cheat on the agreement. By offering secret rebates or discounts or other “deals” to his competitors’ customers, any conspirator can undercut the cartel price, earn an increasing share of the market and make a lot of money. When the others get wind of this, they must quickly break the agreement or lose their market shares to the “cheater.” The very reason for the conspiracy in the first place—higher profits—proves to be its undoing!

  2. External pressures. This comes from competitors who are not parties to the secret agreement. They feel under no obligation to abide by the cartel price and actually use their somewhat lower price as a selling point to customers. The higher the cartel price, the more this external competition pays. The conspiracy must either convince all outsiders to join the cartel (making it increasingly likely that somebody will cheat) or else dissolve the cartel to meet the competition.

I would once again call the reader’s attention to Kolko’s The Triumph of Conservatism, which documents the tendency for collusive agreements to break apart, sometimes even before the ink is dry.

A fourth charge involves the matter of railroad rebates. John D. Rockefeller received substantial rebates from railroads who hauled his oil, a factor which critics claim gave him an unfair advantage over other refiners.

The fact is that most all refiners received rebates from railroads. This practice was simply evidence of stiff competition among the roads for the business of hauling refined oil products. Standard got the biggest rebates because Rockefeller was a shrewd bargainer and because he offered the railroads large volume on a regular basis.

This charge is even less credible when one considers that Rockefeller increasingly relied on his own pipelines, not railroads, to transport his oil.

Did Standard Oil have the power to charge any price it wanted? A fifth accusation says yes. According to the notion that Standard’s size gave it the power to charge any price, bigness per se immunizes the firm from competition and consumer sovereignty.

As an “efficiency monopoly,” Standard could not coercively prevent others from competing with it. And others did, so much so that the company’s share of the market declined dramatically after 1899. As the economy shifted from kerosene to electricity, from the horse to the automobile, and from oil production in the East to production in the Gulf States, Rockefeller found himself losing ground to younger, more aggressive men.

Neither did Standard have the power to compel people to buy its products. It had to rely on its own excellence to attract and keep customers.

In a truly free market, the following factors insure that no firm, regardless of size, can charge and get any price it wants:

  1. Free entry. Potential competition is encouraged by any firm’s abuse of the consumer. In describing entry into the oil business, Rockefeller once remarked that “all sorts of people . . . the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker began to refine oil.”
  2. Foreign competition. As long as government doesn’t hamper international trade, this is always a potent force.
  3. Competition of substitutes. People are often able to substitute a product different from yet similar to the monopolist’s.
  4. Competition of all goods for the consumer’s dollar. Every businessperson in competition with every other businessman to get consumers to spend their limited dollars on him.
  5. Elasticity of demand. At higher prices, people will simply buy less.

It makes sense to view competition in a free market not as a static phenomenon, but as a dynamic, never-ending, leap-frog process by which the leader today can be the follower tomorrow.

The sixth charge, that John D. Rockefeller was a “greedy” man, is the most meaningless of all the attacks on him but nonetheless echoes constantly in the history books.

If Rockefeller wanted to make a lot of money (and there is no doubting he did), he certainly discovered the free market solution to his problem: produce and sell something that consumers will buy and buy again. One of the great attributes of the free market is that it channels greed into constructive directions. One cannot accumulate wealth without offering something in exchange!

At this point the reader might rightly wonder about the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust in 1911. Didn’t the Supreme Court find Standard guilty of successfully employing anti-competitive practices?

Interestingly, a careful reading of the decision reveals that no attempt was made by the Court to examine Standard’s conduct or performance. The justices did not sift through the conflicting evidence concerning any of the government’s allegations against the company. No specific finding of guilt was made with regard to those charges. Although the record clearly indicates that “prices fell, costs fell, outputs expanded, product quality improved, and hundreds of firms at one time or another produced and sold refined petroleum products in competition with Standard Oil,” the Supreme Court ruled against the company. The justices argued simply that the competition between some of the divisions of Standard Oil was less than the competition that existed between them when they were separate companies before merging with Standard.

In 1915, Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard, observed: “The organization of the great business of taking petroleum out of the earth, piping the oil over great distances, distilling and refining it, and distributing it in tank steamers, tank wagons, and cans all over the earth, was an American invention.” Let the facts record that the great Standard Oil Company, more than any other firm, and John D. Rockefeller, more than any other man, were responsible for this amazing development.


  • If the Standard Oil Company was any kind of “monopoly,” it was not a “coercive” one because it did not derive its high (and temporary) market share from special government favors. There were lots of competitors to it, here and abroad. If it was a monopoly, then it was of the “efficiency” variety, meaning that it earned a high market share because consumers liked what it offered at attractive prices.
  • The prices of Standard products (chiefly kerosene in the company’s early history) steadily fell. The quality steadily improved. Total production grew from year to year. This is not supposed to be the behavior of an evil monopolist, who supposedly restricts output and raises prices.
  • Accusations against Standard—predatory price cutting, buying up competitors, conspiracy to restrict output and raise prices, securing railroad rebates, etc—sound plausible on the surface but fall apart upon close inspection.

For further information, see:

“John D. Rockefeller and the Oil Industry” by Burton Folsom

“How Capitalism Saved the Whales” by James S. Robbins

“John D. Rockefeller and His Enemies” by Burton Folsom

“A Review of Chernow’s biography of Rockefeller” by D. T. Armentano

“Herbert Dow and Predatory Pricing” by Burton Folsom


Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. Prior to becoming FEE’s president, he served for 20 years as president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.

EDITORS NOTE: The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government. See the index of the published chapters here. This article first appeared in The Freeman, the journal of the Foundation for Economic Education, FEE, in March 1980. Footnotes can be found in that version on The author is president of FEE and the editor of this series of “Clichés.” If you wish to republish this article, please write

The Need for Discernment

If and or when America is restored to her persona of greatness, the discernment of “We the People” must be upgraded.  The word discernment is defined in Noah Webster’s First Edition of the American Dictionary of the English Language as the act of discernment; also the power or faculty of the mind, by which it distinguishes one thing from another, as truth from falsehood, virtue from vice; acuteness of judgment; power of perceiving differences of things or ideas, and their relations and tendencies.

It used to be said that the errors of youth often proceed from want of discernment.  When one considers the five (maybe more) decades of the gradual peeling away the teaching of good morality, virtue, or just general goodness.  It is little wonder that perhaps over a third of all Americans now designate what is good as evil and what is evil as good. President Obama proudly said during his state of the union address that “legislation of same sex marriage in the United States represents America at it’s best.” At one time homosexuality was considered to be both an unnatural and wrong activity. But now, the supposed leader of the free world considers something noted to be more hazardous than cigarette smoking to be something good.

I agree with minister Franklin Graham, the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham who recently said, “This country was built by Christian principles, it was men and women who believed in God and believed in his son Jesus Christ who built this country.” Graham went on to say that, “We are the greatest nation in the history of the world.  It wasn’t built by Islam, and it wasn’t built by any other group. It was those who supported and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ.”  That worthy belief was at one time commonly accepted and believed. But do to bigoted progressives who were allowed to gain control of the government school educational system and most colleges and universities, America’s hallmark of morality has become severely tarnished.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in United States history was for schools such as Trinity College in North Carolina, started by Methodist and Quaker families in 1841 in Randolph County North Carolina to be morphed into dens on indoctrination. In 1924 Trinity College President William Few changed the colleges name to Duke University, to honor James B. Duke, a philanthropist who established a $40 million trust fund for the school.  That action paved the way for a major change in direction for the former Trinity College, which has gone far beyond switching from one name to another.  Duke University, like most other so-called institutions of higher learning has been turned into a progressive den of indoctrination that convinces students that America was horrible from it’s inception until now.

Participants in the Christian faith are not so welcomed on the same campus originally envisioned, founded, and shepherded by Christians.  Yet the same discriminatory campus big wigs are okay with allowing Muslims to conduct a glaringly loud call to prayer every Friday.  At one time, school teachers and most administrators were most concerned about making sure that American students were the best educated in the world. From the earliest days of our republic until the early 1960s that was the common practice.  Schools also reflected the good values that most parents taught at home to their children as did ministers convey from their pulpits.

As a result, not only were Americans the best educated in the world, but they were also blessed with discernment or the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, as well as the desire to seek and utilize wisdom.

Unfortunately the parasitical progressives have moved in like a virus and has taken over schools, the government, today’s dragon media and a great portion of the church are in a position to radically change our republic into a second tier progressive/Muslim dominated nation.  The President’s recent state of the union speech was chock full of half truths and a few lies. Of course his bold bending of the truth is bolstered by a perception that most Americans are to ignorant to distinguish between truth and fiction.  But who can blame Obama? After all he was elected twice and is frantically working to damage America beyond repair before he leaves office.

Because of a lack of discernment and wisdom throughout the masses, the President had the nerve to expound about how great the economy is doing.  Yet American Express recently announced it is shedding four thousand jobs, while eBay is slashing two thousand four hundred positions.  As you read this column, over two trillion dollars of potential investment into the United States economy remains far off shore.  Why? Because Obama refuses to even consider lowering our nation’s corporate tax rate, which is the highest on earth. Also draconian environmental laws hamper the free exercise of business activity.  Mr. Obama’s refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline is another impediment to a growth in opportunities that would spawn a dramatic increase of economic expansion for all segments of society.

Unfortunately, the President doesn’t care about the positive aspects of unbridled free market opportunities. He along with his fellow progressives rely upon the lack of discernment that has plagued many Americans, especially during the past several years. They are hoping that remains the case until it is too late to reverse their mission of political, moral and economic desolation.

However I am of the opinion that those who desire to see America on the ash heap of great nations who have gone by the wayside are grossly mistaken. Americans are waking up and growing weary of governmental over reach and abuse. They are also rediscovering the righteous path that first led America to greatness and will restore her status as that shining city on a hill.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Kaleo Church.

80 minutes of State of the Union distilled into 5

Ladies and gents, based on last night’s State of the Union address, I’d like to share two quotes that I believe define the essence of what President Barack Obama was trying to convey – and how it is the antithesis of who we are as a “free” people.

And I will take this moment to remind the president that a minimum wage job is not a career and no one should have a goal of raising a family on $15,000 a year. Perhaps if we actually had real economic and job growth, that wouldn’t be the case?

Also, Mr. President, “the shadow of crisis” has not passed – just ask the two Japanese men being held under threat of beheading by ISIS if $200 million ransom isn’t paid. And if the shadow of crisis has been lifted, then why do we have three U.S. Naval warships ready to evacuate the U.S. Embassy in Yemen? Oh by the way, that’s the second U.S. Embassy that will have been evacuated in less than a year.

Here’s the first pertinent quote from Sir Winston Churchill:

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

I use that quote because to me that defines Obama’s new ‘middle-class economics’ where he stated, “it is the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules (Unless you’re the New England Patriots). We just don’t want everyone to share in America’s success – we want everyone to contribute to our success.”

Hmm, let’s see, who gets to define what’s fair? And I agree, everyone should contribute to America’s success – but remember, the top one percent of income earners pays 38.1 percent of taxes, the top five percent pays 58.9 percent of taxes, the top 10 percent of income earners pays 70 percent of taxes.

So, if 90 percent of income earners only pay 30 percent of all taxes – what is fair about that? And I concur, we need everyone, all hands on deck, to contribute to the American success story. But it seems Obama’s vision is that a few contribute more – his definition of fair – in order to redistribute fairness via “free” benefits. Truly not a principle of a Constitutional Republic, or a free market economy.

And here’s the second quote, from Abraham Lincoln:

“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let him not who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”

What President Obama espoused last night is a disregard for the efforts of individuals to succeed over his desire to promote collective achievement.

His vision is not an America based on an equality of opportunity and the pursuit of happiness. Obama’s objective – truly that of progressive socialism – is one of equality of outcomes through a government guarantee of happiness. And that, ladies and gents, has never ended well in the history of the world.

It does end up as Churchill described, “an equal sharing of misery,” as the personal desire to excel is eroded, degraded, defeated and destroyed – something Obama truly is NOT doing with militant Islamism. Than again, listening to him last night, you’d believe we’ve achieved global tranquility.

And what exactly is “smart power?” Seems to be that means talking a lot about the weather being a severe threat, while denying the enemy is beheading and attacking.

Obama’s speech was nothing about viable policy – and tell the 92 million Americans who have been dropped from the workforce the economy is doing well. His speech was about defiant political posturing that he believes sets the conditions for his successor and forces the masses to vote for their own largesse from the public treasury.

It’s easy to stand up unchallenged, and promise everything to everyone – except those whom you mostly despise, hardworking Americans.

Obama’s speech was brilliantly themed – but promotes only failure. Middle class economics is just a spruced up way for progressive socialists to advance wealth redistribution – you cannot grow an economy without capital investment.

But even after being in office this long, Obama just doesn’t get it. If you have the time, watch the State of the Union address given by President Bill Clinton after the 1994 midterm loss he suffered with his famous quote, “The era of big government is over.”

Someone should have had Obama watch that speech, instead of presenting himself as a tone deaf and obtuse president who lectured us all about “better politics” — and told us that “My only agenda for the next two years is the same as the one I’ve had since the day I swore an oath on the steps of this Capitol – to do what I believe is best for America.”

No Mr. President, that’s not what the oath you took was about.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on

Calls for Federal Investigation into firing of FDLE Commissioner Bailey

Tallahassee, Florida (January 21, 2015) -Today, nonpartisan government watchdog group Integrity Florida called on federal authorities to investigate potential violations of the civil rights conspiracy statute by state government officials in Florida.

According to a recent Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald report, former Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Commissioner Gerald Bailey alleged that Gov. Rick Scott and his top advisers conspired to falsely name Colleen Reilly, then-acting clerk of court in Orange County, the target of a criminal inquiry.

Integrity Florida requested a federal investigation in a letter sent Wednesday to Michelle Klimt, Special Agent in Charge for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Jacksonville and Pamela March, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Florida.

“The allegations made by former Commissioner Bailey are troubling,” said Dan Krassner, executive director of the nonpartisan government watchdog group Integrity Florida.  “While the public should not rush to judgment, this is a serious matter that merits a federal investigation.”

“A political agenda should never interfere with the authority and responsibility of FDLE to protect and serve the public trust,” said Krassner.  “Floridians deserve answers about whether Gov. Scott and his top aides attempted to abuse the authority of FDLE.  Integrity Florida is encouraged by the bipartisan concerns raised by top state officials about the questionable removal of Commissioner Bailey.  In addition to the need for a federal investigation, alleged violations of state laws should also be reviewed by the appropriate oversight agencies and legislative committees.”


Integrity Florida is a nonpartisan research institute and government watchdog whose mission is to promote integrity in government and expose public corruption.  More information at


Attorney General Pam Bondi joins Cabinet scrutiny of Gov. Rick Scott’s actions in FDLE firing

Governor’s duplicity in FDLE chief’s ouster warrants investigation

If Abbas is a ‘moderate,’ what’s a ‘radical’?

A revealing irony came to light while writing this article. The West is debating whether it is appropriate to publish (or even show) the post-attack issue of the Charlie Hebdo magazine, which includes a caricature of Muhammad. At the same time, Muslim leaders from several countries have issued explicit warnings about the consequences of publishing such images. In fact, after Friday prayers on Jan. 16, 2015, Muslims across the Middle Eastern marched and protested against the new Charlie Hebdo cartoon, while several countries issued warnings that the drawing could “fuel hatred.” Meanwhile, this is all happening while Fatah observes its 50th anniversary by posting images and/or issuing statements that are orders-of-magnitude more violent than any Charlie Hebdo cartoon, but without any discernible response from the Western media, let alone the Islamic world.

The ‘moderate’ Mahmoud Abbas

In one form or another, Mahmoud Abbas has been the leader of Fatah, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and/or the PLO since 2003, when the U.S. refused to conduct any further peace negotiations with Yasser Arafat. Often described as a “moderate” alternative, Mr. Abbas has frequently renounced violence and terror, but has nonetheless remained complicit as other members of Fatah and/or the PA maintain an intense campaign of provocation and incitement to violence.

Recognition of Israel

On Nov. 29, 2014, Abbas declared that the Palestinians would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, while also accusing Israel of “establishing an apartheid government.” In addition, he threatened to terminate all security cooperation between the PA and Israel in the West Bank, unless the stalled peace negotiations were revived. This was not the first time Abbas has made such statements in public. On Dec. 13, 2013, Abbas attended an Arab League meeting in Cairo, where he presented his terms for accepting a U.S.-backed framework agreement with Israel. Among his conditions, Mr. Abbas insisted there would be “no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.”

While attending Fatah’s Sixth General Assembly conference on Aug. 4, 2009, Abbas declared that the Palestinians would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state and refused to hold any further peace talks with the Israelis until they 1) halted all settlement building in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and 2) recognized the undeniable right of Palestinian refugees to return to their pre-1948 homeland. Abbas also threatened “legitimate armed resistance” if Israel refused to meet these pre-conditions to any future peace talks. On April 27, 2009, Abbas also dismissed a demand by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, stating, “I do not accept it. It is not my job to give a description of the state.”

The Fatah-Hamas unity government

On March 15, 2013, Mr. Abbas was asked the following question on Russia TV Today: “It is said that the EU [European Union] plans to remove Hamas from the list of terror organizations. Do you view this as a step toward complete recognition of the legitimacy of the [Hamas] government?” Abbas replied: “As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas. So, why are they labeled as terrorists? In my opinion, [they] can remove Hamas … why not?” On Dec. 17, 2014, an EU court in Luxembourg removed Hamas from its list of terror organizations.

As of Jan. 13, 2015, Hamas remains on the U.S. Treasury list of “Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations,” aka the newly-renamed “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List.”

On Sep. 25, 2014, Fatah and Hamas reached an agreement in Cairo to allow the PA government to operate in the Gaza Strip, while also announcing that both parties had been holding “reconciliation talks” in efforts to end their differences. The agreement called for the PA government to “immediately” assume its responsibilities in the Gaza Strip. At the same meeting, Musa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official (and Specially Designated Global Terrorist), announced that the PA government would soon manage all the border crossings in the Gaza Strip. However, less than three months later, Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh publicly complained that the PA consensus government had failed “to keep its commitments, by not carrying out reconstruction, nor unifying institutions under the Palestinian Authority, nor organizing elections.”

The U.N. & International Criminal Court

On the same day the EU removed Hamas from its list of terrorist organizations (Dec. 17, 2014), Jordan submitted a resolution to the U.N. Security Council to “end the occupation [of the West Bank and East Jerusalem] by 2017.” As expected, this effort failed to garner enough support. On Dec. 31, 2014, Mr. Abbas met with the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, where he made his future intentions clear: “We want to complain. There’s aggression against us, against our land. The Security Council disappointed us.” On Jan. 2, 2015, the Palestinians delivered documents to U.N. headquarters to join the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and on Jan. 7, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon confirmed that the Palestinians will become a formal member of the ICC on April 11, 2015.

Events on the ICC front have already began to unfold. On Thursday, the ICC prosecutor announced that he would launch a preliminary probe that could “clear the way for a full-scale investigation into possible war crimes in Palestinian territories,” thus “plunging the court into the most politically charged conflict it has ever investigated.”

Recent statements and actions by current Fatah leadership

Also Thursday, Fatah posted a PhotoShopped image portraying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a Nazi SS officer. This posting was the latest in Fatah’s long-term program to use provocative imagery from the Holocaust era to defame and delegitimize Israel. On Jan. 4, 2015 (just five days after Abbas signed the Rome Statute of the ICC), Fatah posted a picture of Prime Minister Netanyahu and a noose with a caption that reads “Soon” in both Hebrew and Arabic.


During a Jan. 2, 2015, interview, Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki both condemned and threatened the U.S.: “The whole world should understand that the U.S. is an enemy, pushing Israeli extremists to carry on with their actions, depriving us of our rights, and supporting Israel in everything.” Mr. Zaki also made the following statement on Oct. 2, 2011: “If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall, what will become of Israel? It will come to an end. If we say that we want to wipe Israel out …C’mon, it’s too difficult. It’s not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don’t say these things to the world,” he warned. “Keep it to yourself.”

On Aug. 19, 2014, Yahya Rabah, a member of the Fatah Leadership Committee and a columnist for official Palestinian Authority (PA) daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, claimed that Israel invented the murders of three Israeli students (also see Part 1) as a “pretext” for “continued Israeli aggression against our people, its unity, its reconciliation and its national project,” i.e., as an excuse to launch Operations Brother’s Keeper and Protective Edge.

On July 12, 2014, Mr. Rabah posted another column in the PA daily, which said: “We have nothing with which to speak to these Israeli murderers, who go too far with their crimes. … We have nothing with which to open a dialogue but these rockets“.

In the shadow of Charlie Hebdo attack

Part 1 included the following observation: “At this point in time, it is also important to consider that 2015 is being celebrated as Fatah’s 50th anniversary. If the first postings on the Fatah and/or PA official websites provide any indication, we will see a steady stream of violent anti-Israel propaganda in 2015.”

Indeed, during the first two weeks of January 2015, Fatah, the PA and/or Mahmoud Abbas have been predictably true to form. Perhaps I should thank them all; by choosing to post their most important commemorative events in the last 50 years, they’ve made my job a lot easier. The following series of pictures (and captions) were posted on Fatah’s official Facebook page during the first two weeks of January 2015:

On Jan. 11, (the same day that Mahmoud Abbas attended the Charlie Hebdo rally in Paris), Fatah posted the left and middle two pictures (notice the Fatah symbol in the middle picture). The picture on the left was taken at the Paris rally, while the middle picture commemorates an event that occurred in Lebanon in 1982, perhaps during the “Beqaa Valley War,” aka “Operation Mole Cricket 19,” when members of Fatah dragged the body of a downed Israeli pilot through the streets of Sidon.

On the very next day, Fatah posted the right-hand picture (again, notice the Fatah symbol), with the following caption: “Here Dalal [Mughrabi] raised the Palestinian flag at the front of the bus used by the heroes of Shahid (Martyr) Kamal Adwan’s group. They drove with 90 hostages …from Haifa to Tel Aviv, but the Zionist forces refused to negotiate with them. They fought a fierce battle that lasted from afternoon to evening on March 11, 1978.”

What Fatah failed to mention is that the group of 13 Fedayeen (Warriors) had hijacked the bus and killed 38 Israeli civilians (including 13 children) and wounded 71 during the “fierce battle.” The attack became known as the “Coastal Road Massacre” in Israel, while Fatah calls it the “Operation of the Martyr Kamal Adwan.”


On Dec. 25, 2014, a Palestinian stabbed two Israeli soldiers in the Old City of Jerusalem, causing light injuries. On Jan. 5, 2015, an editorial in Al-Asima, a biweekly supplement to the PA daily (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida), stated: “These kinds of confrontations which frighten the enemy are excellent Palestinian examples of willpower and determination to win. … The [publicly released] video of the Palestinian storming and stabbing of Zionists serves as a school. … Now, every Palestinian raises his hand holding a knife together with this young Palestinian, and stabs the Zionists.:

On the same day, Al-Asima also commemorated Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal, two cousins from Jerusalem who attacked worshippers in a synagogue on Nov. 18, 2014, with guns, knives and axes. After killing four ‎people and injuring seven more, both men were ‎killed in a firefight with Israeli Security Forces that had arrived on the scene.‎

What’s next?

If Fatah and Mr. Abbas really are reliable “moderate” partners in the Peace Process, then who among us can hope to define who (or what) is “radical”?

Today, as Abbas finds himself caught between Hamas and a pragmatic Israeli government, he is no closer to defining the borders of a Palestinians state than when he became the PA’s first prime minister more than a decade ago. With no clear successor, Abbas has also been unwilling to fulfill his promise to hold new elections.

As stated in Part 1, it appears that Mr. Abbas is adopting a new tactic, i.e., a calibrated effort to diminish the role America plays in the Peace Process, while appealing to the sympathies of the U.N., EU and ICC to endorse his goals of “Statehood-Through-International-Recognition.”

This “trump card approach,” which Mr. Abbas has tried before, is certain to increase tensions between 1) Israel and the Palestinians, 2) between the Palestinians and the U.S. Congress, and will 3) destabilize the situation for the next few years, at least. All this, while Fatah continues its ongoing campaign of Thawrah Hatteh Al-Naser (Revolution Until Victory).

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on World Net Daily. Read Part 1, “Is Fatah really ‘moderate’?”

World in Chaos – Obama Clueless

After last night’s State of the Union address, it’s official, President Obama and his team of “brilliant” advisers live in a DIFFERENT UNIVERSE!

Are we crazy or does it seem that our President is the Captain of the Titanic polishing the brass as the screaming women and children are sliding past him into the freezing North Atlantic.

Though many soft-headed lefties judge the validity of the President’s remarks by the brightness of his choppers we here at The United West call see past the radiance of his smile, a smile that bespeaks the instability of Mr. Obama, his team and the mess they are creating world-wide.

On today’s show we look at the terrorist attack in Israel, the fall of Yemen and bold face lies of President Obama’s brain, Valerie Jarrett. Helping us navigate these tremendous waters are two experts from Israel, Michael Ganone and Arie Egozi.


“Palestinian” stabs 12 in Tel Aviv bus jihad attack

Valerie Jarrett explains why Obama won’t say “Islamic” terrorism: there are other kinds of terrorism, too

Obama’s SOTU: “We continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims”

The Pursuit of Profit Is Pro-Social by Matthew McCaffrey

A value-creating business is “social” whether it pursues an explicit social agenda or not.

You can’t throw a rock these days without hitting someone who’s talking about entrepreneurship and why we need to encourage more of it. In the public and private sectors — especially in higher education — innovation, enterprise, and entrepreneurship are buzzwords like never before.

A big beneficiary of this trend is the field of social enterprise. Unlike ordinary businesses, the conventional explanation goes, social enterprises use their commercial activities to promote a broader aim of human well-being rather than simple profit maximization. An example is Jamie Oliver using the restaurant business to provide culinary training to disadvantaged youth or sell food that encourages healthier living, even if doing so hurts the bottom line. Because of these kinds of expansive goals, social enterprises tend to be looked on favorably by business students, governments, and the media.

But while social enterprises certainly do create value, emphasizing “social” goals over profits can be misleading because it implies that traditional profit-seeking entrepreneurship fails to produce wide-ranging benefits for large numbers of people. Thinking of social enterprise as distinct from conventional business helps obscure the vital truth that profit seeking is not only compatible with increases in human welfare, it is probably the most powerful force for producing them ever devised.

In fact, that’s the beauty of free-market enterprise: it’s social whether it pursues an explicit social agenda or not. Critics of government intervention often point out that good intentions don’t equate to good policies. Likewise, the absence of good intentions doesn’t equate to bad policy, and lacking a specific social goal doesn’t make entrepreneurs antisocial. Think of Adam Smith’s observation about the butcher, brewer, and baker, which reveals that commerce is social because it’s mutually beneficial, not because entrepreneurs necessarily have a larger agenda.

When a company like Uber charges a price for its services, it’s being social in the sense that it’s creating value for consumers, not just for itself. And the market is simply an elaborate network of voluntary exchanges in which buyers and sellers constantly make each other better off — which is why they do business to start with.

Free enterprise is therefore social enterprise, but the reverse is true as well: enterprise is social if and to the extent that it’s free. We are truly social when we choose our relationships and refrain from choosing our neighbors’. In a free market, the term “social enterprise” is redundant because it’s in the marketplace that human beings express some of their most fundamental social instincts. Buying and selling teach us about peaceful interaction for mutual gain — and reveal to us just how profoundly our well-being depends on our commitment to benefiting others.

However, if we choose coercion over peaceful cooperation, we abandon hope of a working social order. Any social enterprise worthy of the name is therefore hostile to economic intervention, because every intervention is a step away from social cohesion and toward conflict.

Unsurprisingly, the corporate state is the primary cause of antisocial tendencies in real-world enterprises. Take, for example, intellectual-property law. What could be more antisocial than prohibiting people from sharing ideas and using them to improve the welfare of others? Yet many who promote enterprise take it for granted that “protecting” ideas is an essential part of entrepreneurship.

This attitude hints at a broader institutional problem: the sort of enterprise supported by public rhetoric is rarely the kind of healthy economic activity that would be produced in a free economy. Instead, public support for enterprise tends to mean support for a few privileged ventures at the expense of others. Sadly, it’s common for governments the world over to emphasize the need for more entrepreneurship while simultaneously promoting policies that distort, penalize, or even outlaw it. That’s why it’s more important than ever to be wary of the different meanings attached to words like “social” and “enterprise” and how these useful terms come to be associated with harmful economic ideas.

If economics tells us anything, it’s that we can’t effectively promote enterprise without first abandoning the networks of privilege and regulation that undermine entrepreneurship and divert human talent into destructive practices. A vital step toward that goal is seriously considering the rhetoric we use to describe the market. Language radically alters perceptions of commerce and can make the difference between thinking of enterprise as zero-sum profit seeking or as the key to the countless benefits of peaceful exchange.


Matthew McCaffrey is assistant professor of enterprise at the University of Manchester and editor of Libertarian Papers.


Obama Has Two More Years Left to Destroy the U.S. Economy

As 2015 began the Journal Editorial Report on Fox News was devoted to having its reporters, some of the best there are, speculate on what 2015 holds in terms of who might run for president and what the economy might be. The key word here is “speculate” because even experts know that it is unanticipated events that determine the future and the future is often all about unanticipated events.

How different would the world have been if John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated? One can reasonably assume there would not have been the long war in Vietnam because he wanted no part of the conflict there. Few would have predicted that an unknown Governor from Arkansas would emerge to become President as Bill Clinton did. Who would believe we are talking about his wife running for President? That is so bizarre it is mind-boggling.

Most certainly, few would have predicted that an unknown first term Senator from Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama, would push aside Hillary Clinton to become the first black American to be nominated for President and to win in 2008. Despite the takeover of the nation’s healthcare system with a series of boldfaced lies, he still won a second term.

Obama now has two more years in which to try to destroy the U.S. economy; particularly its manufacturing and energy sectors. The extent to which he is putting in place the means to do that still remains largely unreported or under-reported in terms of the threat it represents.

Obama Says Planet is WarmingThe vehicle for the nation’s destruction is the greatest hoax of the modern era, the claim that global warming must be avoided by reducing “greenhouse gas” emissions.

A President who lied to Americans about the Affordable Care Act, telling them they could keep their insurance plans, their doctors, and not have to pay more is surely not going to tell Americans that the planet is now into its 19th year of a cooling cycle with no warming in sight.

To raise the ante of the planetary threat hoax, he has added “climate change” when one would assume even the simple-minded would know humans have nothing to do with the Earth’s climate, nor the ability to initiate or stop any change.

In 2015, the White House is launching a vast propaganda campaign through the many elements of the federal government to reach into the nation’s schools with the climate lies and through other agencies to spread them.

In particular, Obama has been striving to utilize the Environmental Protection Agency to subvert existing environmental laws and, indeed, the Constitution unless Congress or the courts stop an attack that will greatly weaken the business, industrial and energy sectors. It will fundamentally put our lives at risk when there is not enough electricity to power homes and workplaces in various areas of the nation. At the very least, the cost of electricity will, in the President’s own words, “skyrocket.”

Why doesn’t anyone in Congress or the rest of the population wonder why White House policies are closing coal-fired plants that provided fifty percent of our electricity when Obama took office and now have been reduced to forty percent? Did you know that more than 1,200 new coal-fired plants are planned in other nations with two-thirds of them to be built in India and China? We live in a nation that has such huge reserves of coal we export it.

The EPA attack on these plants is so illegal and unethical that one of the nation’s leading liberal attorneys, Laurence H. Tribe, who began teaching about environmental law 45 years ago, went on record to declare the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional.

The plan is a regulatory proposal to reduce carbon emissions from the nation’s electric power plants. Tribe pointed out that a two-decade old Supreme Court precedent forbids the federal government from taking action to commandeer the powers of state governments by leaving them no choice but to implement it.

“The brute fact,” said Tribe “is that the Obama administration failed to get climate legislation through Congress. Yet the EPA is acting as though it has the legislative authority anyway to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid. It does not.”

As 2014 came to a close, the Obama administration either proposed or imposed more than 1,200 new regulations on the American people.

Alex Newman, writing in the New American, calculated they will add “even more to the already crushing $2 trillion per year cost burden of the federal regulatory machine.” Not surprisingly, “most of the new regulatory schemes involve energy and the environment—139 during a mere two-week period in December, to be precise.”

“In all,” Newman reported, “the Obama administration foisted more than 75,000 pages of regulations on the United States in 2014, costing over $200 billion, on the low end, if new proposed rules are taken into account.” Just one, the EPA’s “coal ash” regulation, “is expected to cost as much as $20 billion, estimates suggest.”

Then add to that the EPA’s “ozone rule” that is estimated to cost “as much as $270 billion per year and put millions of American jobs at risk under the guise of further regulating emissions of the natural gas.” Released the day before Thanksgiving, “Experts also pointed out that the EPA’s own 2007 studies showed no adverse health effects from exposure to even high levels of ozone.”

These are just two examples of the regulatory strangulation of the nation’s economy and energy infrastructure.

This is Obama’s agenda for the remaining two years of his second and thankfully last term in office. Whether you know anything about the science of the climate or have ever even read the Constitution, the sheer disaster of ObamaCare should have told you by now that everything Obama has put in motion has had the single objective of destroying the nation’s economy in every possible way.

The voters have put Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress and their primary responsibility will be to reverse and repeal the damage of Obama’s first six years. The courts will play a role, but this is a job for our elected representatives.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

BREAKING NEWS: 10 States File Article V Applications to Rein in the Out-of-Control Federal Government

PURCELLVILLE, Va., Jan. 20, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — The Convention of States Project announces that 10 states have filed their Article V Applications for an amending convention of the states calling for fiscal restraint, limiting the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government and term limits. The states that have filed Article V legislation in at least one house include: Arizona, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire,New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia and Wyoming.

These filings demonstrate the unity of purpose by the American people with the sole purpose of fighting back against the overreach of the federal government. In one week, resolutions were filed in all regions of the United States from New England/Northeast to the Northwest; from the South to the Southwest; from the East to the Midwest.

“Politicians and pundits try to tell us that the nation is divided on party lines, but the reality is that it’s a manufactured spectacle in order to divide the people,” Explained Mark Meckler, co-founder, The Convention of States Project. “As we saw in last week’s Gallup 2014 year-end review, 66% of Americans think that the federal government is the biggest problem in America. We are seeing Americans unite across the country galvanized by the solution that is Article V—the final check on federal power reserved to state legislators.”

The arrogance of the ruling elite in Washington, D.C. have not solved any of America’s challenges, or given the people new ideas. The Convention of States Project has a solution as big as the problem in Article V of the Constitution. A united nation acting through the state legislatures can solve America’s toughest challenges today: fixing healthcare, stopping the out-of-control spending, getting rid of the IRS and curbing over regulation.

About the Convention of States Project

The Convention of States Project is currently organized in all 50 states, including hundreds of thousands of volunteers, supporters and advocates committed to stopping the federal government’s abuse of power.  Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Governor Bobby Jindal, David Barton, Col. Allen West, Senator Tom Coburn (OK), Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, AMAC and U.S. Term Limits, among others have endorsed the Project. Article V applications have already been passed in Alaska, Florida and Georgia. We stand ready with 32 Prime Sponsors to pass this year and hope to meet the 34 state requirement by the end of 2015. For more information visit

Seattle Seahawks Quarterback Wilson’s Message for the TEA Party

I confess. With 5 minutes left in the championship game, Russell Wilson’s third interception and Seattle two touchdowns behind, I turned the channel assuming Green Bay won. Upon turning back to the game, I was shocked to see Seattle ahead by one point. Seattle ultimately won the game in overtime and is going to the Superbowl. During his post game interview, Wilson said despite 3 interceptions and the score, they simply kept fighting.

Watching the game, I watched Seattle blow numerous opportunities and make mistakes leading to turning the ball over to their opponent five times. Wilson admitted that he did not play his best game. Still, he kept encouraging his teammates to keep fighting and believing that they would win the game.

Please note that Wilson did not waste energy verbally beating up receivers for dropping balls, nor did the linemen stop blocking for their quarterback Wilson after he threw three interceptions. They stuck together, laser focused, on defeating their nemesis the Green Bay Packers rather than each other.

Brother and sister patriots, I hate it that we are so quick to kick a courageous patriot to the curb who fumbles the ball during an interview or is targeted by the dems and MSM for standing up for conservatism.

Shame on you folks who ran to the tall grass away from Senator Ted Cruz and former Governor Sarah Palin claiming they are simply too toxic. These two patriots are among a hand full displaying the character and guts to fight for us at their peril. Is this how you treat your friends? And then, you whine about Obama acting like our king with no one out there attempting to stop him. Well, you can not have it both ways. Whoever takes on Obama is going to be trashed by the dems and MSM.

Have you noticed the pattern? Anyone on our side who strongly pushes back against the left or does not let the racist stupid inmates run the asylum, we are told are toxic and must be kicked to the curb; less we suffer sure defeat. We have seen it happen with Cruz, Palin and others.

The latest is district attorney Daniel Donovan selected by the GOP to run for the congressional seat in New York vacated by Grimm. For crying out loud, what did Donovan do that was so horrible. He stood up for the law and did not unfairly indict in the Garner case.

It is time that we view the selection of Donovan as our candidate as an opportunity to push back against the dem’s lies; make them accountable for rhetoric leading to the assassination of two police officers and painting a target on the backs of all police. It is one thing being on the defensive for doing the wrong things. It is cowardice and morally wrong to allow ourselves to be put on the defensive for standing up for what is right.

During the post game interview after Seattle’s extraordinary come from behind victory, I loved Wilson tearfully giving thanks to God. It was also very cool that the TV camera gave the international audience a glimpse of the Seattle team holding hands while kneeling in a prayer of thanks.

Russell Wilson encouraged his teammates to ignore their failures, shortcomings and the odds appearing against them and keep fighting which led to them emerging victorious. This is what I have been relentlessly preaching to the tea party. Evil (Democrats and the MSM) has a way of appearing all powerful. If we keep fighting with God on our side, we win!

EDITORS NOTE: The features image is courtesy of

An International War of Words

With the recent terrorists attacks in Paris over a largely unknown satirical newspaper that poked fun at Islam and Mohammed, there has been a global debate over whether the world is at war with “radical” Islam. The debate has centered on whether one actually uses the word “act of terror” when describing what happened in Paris.

I find the very notion of this being debated too ridiculous to dignify. So let’s move on to the real issue of what happened in Paris.

Liberals, whether in Europe or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, have a worldview on immigration that makes absolutely no sense. And that was before today’s terrorism. These liberals believe that the world has a “constitutional right” to be in their countries, whether they came legally or not. Remember, in liberalism, “intent” always supersedes action.

The thinking goes like this: “They only came to our country to make a better life for themselves and their children. Therefore, their being in violation of the immigration laws of a given country should not apply because their intent was pure.”

This media obsession over who uses what words to describe what happened in Paris misses the point. A sovereign country has the sole discretion and the right to determine who enters and stays in their country. Countries need not apologize for the criteria they use to determine their immigration policies. If you don’t like their rules, then stay out of their country. It’s that simple.

But what was on display in Paris, and coming soon to America, are foreigners who want to dictate the conditions under which they will “allow” a country to let them in And once in legally, they want to force their host country to assimilate to their culture and values.

The two brothers that committed the murders in Paris were first generation Frenchmen with Algerian parents (Algeria was a former French colony). Though Frenchmen by birth, they never accepted their French citizenship as their own. That is the issue with a liberal approach to immigration policy.

Liberals feel it is “racist” to expect an invited guest in one’s country to conform to the values of the host country. Citizenship is more than just a legal status. Citizenship is just as much cultural as it is legal. Though the two brothers in Paris were Frenchmen by birth, they had nothing in common with France. They were more at home speaking Arabic, not French, their native language. They recognized Sharia law, not French law.

Let’s be very clear: immigration is always about cheap labor. We can dress the issue up in many ways, but the bottom line is cheap labor. Groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are putting our country’s national security at risk in hopes of making a profit by reducing the cost of labor.

I have been roundly criticized in the media over my support for racial profiling when it comes to our immigration policy. Why in the world would anyone allow people from Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. to immigrate or even visit our country? Homegrown terrorists aside, we know where terrorists are coming from, so by denying them entry into the U.S., we pressure their countries to clamp down on the radicalization taking place within their countries.

If foreigners want the privilege of immigrating to or visiting the U.S., they and their countries must comport themselves in a certain manner consistent with our values. This is no different than the State Department recently putting sanctions on North Korea because of the Sony hack or Obama trying to force homosexuality down the throats of African countries as a condition for receiving our foreign aid.

Sanctions are part of our foreign policy tools that are used to change behavior. So, if other countries want their citizens to have access to America, then they must contain and control the radicalization going on in their countries.

Coming to America is a privilege, not a right, and our immigration policy must begin to reflect that.

We must shut our borders to low and unskilled laborers, the uneducated, the non-English speaking. Our immigration policy should be cast in terms of a business model approach. We should only allow those into who can bring something of value to our country. Cheap labor is not a value when you have millions of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed.

America is the only major power that will subjugate the interests of its own people under the false illusion of “free trade.” There is no such thing as “free trade.” There is fair trade, but not free trade.

As opposed to focusing on the war on terror, it seems to me that too much time is being spent on the war of words.

RELATED VIDEO: Governor Bobby Jindal on the threat

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Black Press USA.

Florida: Sarasota County Democratic Party Hosting a Very Queer Event

The Sarasota County Democratic Party is hosting their annual King-Kennedy Dinner on March 1st. Featured are former U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, who is the keynote speaker, and Nadine Smith, Executive Director of Equality Florida, who is the guest speaker. These are two very queer choices for a King-Kennedy Dinner indeed.

I use the term queer not as a pejorative but rather to show how Dr. Martin Luther King, a Baptist minister, and John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic president, would react to associating their names with these two speakers.

First let’s look at how JFK viewed government and the private sector.

Speaking at the Economic Club of New York, in December 1962, JFK stated, “It is increasingly clear that no matter which party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.” JFK also said, “The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital… the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.”

JFK sounded then very much like today’s Republicans, whose focus is on job creation and the “mobility and flow of risk capital.” JFK understood that the only thing that truly creates a job is a profit. Take away a businesses profits and you kill jobs.

While in Congress, Barney Frank did much to help bring on the financial crisis of 2008. Frank was involved in passing legislation that raised taxes and increased government regulation (Dodd-Frank) in key sectors of the economy. Unlike JFK, Frank believes in higher taxes and government intervention in the financial and housing market.

Barney Frank is for restrictive tax rates. Frank in a recent CNBC interview called for increasing the federal gasoline tax, calling it “long overdue”:

Peter J. Wallison and Edward J. Pinto in their 2012 column “Free fall: How government policies brought down the housing market” wrote:

The affordable housing goals imposed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992 were the major contributors to both the deterioration in underwriting standards between 1992 and 2008 and the growth of an unprecedented ten-year housing bubble that suppressed delinquencies and stimulated the growth of a private securitization market for subprime loans. But other government policies are also to blame for the deterioration in the US housing market, including the thirty-year fixed-rate mortgage, the mortgage interest tax deduction, the right to refinance without penalty, and the Community Reinvestment Act. Until Fannie and Freddie’s market dominance and the government’s role in the housing finance system are substantially reduced or eliminated, the United States will continue to have an inferior and unstable housing market.

Barney Frank supported and voted for these policies, which inextricably led to the housing crisis in Florida.

Now let’s take a look at how MLK and JFK looked at marriage and homosexual behavior.

Barney Frank is a homosexual who in 1989 was involved in a scandal. The Washington Post reported that Rep. Frank admitted to a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank’s apartment. Nadine Smith is working to redefine marriage in Florida and is associated with the Human Rights Campaign. Jerry Bean, the founder of the Human Rights Campaign, along with his homosexual partner, were both indicted for raping an underage boy. Bean, 66, is a major donor to the Democratic party, friend of President Obama and a gay-rights activist.

CNN’s John Blake in the article “What did MLK think about gay people” wrote:

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony magazine when he received an unusual letter.

“I am a boy,” an anonymous writer told King. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required “careful attention.”

“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

[ … ]

Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father’s graveside in 2005 while calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. She was joined by Bishop Eddie Long, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Church in Georgia, where she served as an elder at the time. Long, who recently settled out of court with four young men who filed lawsuits claiming he coerced them into sexual relationships, publicly condemned homosexuality.

John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic elected as president. The Catholic Church to this day supports marriage as between one man and one woman.

Perhaps the Sarasota County Democratic Party needs to reconsider these two as speakers at the King-Kennedy dinner? Perhaps they should listen to Billy Chrystal who said during an interview with the Television Critics association, “Stop shoving gay sex scenes in my face.” I would add to that – stop shoving bigger government in my face.

These, the words of MLK, ring true today more than ever:

Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And Vanity comes along and asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question “Is it right?” And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.