The TEA Party is Wanted: Dead or Alive

Greetings from Houston, Texas where yesterday I had the pleasure to address the C Club on the topic of a “Conservative Policy Agenda” as it relates to economic, energy, and national security. I’m heading up to Dallas to speak at a dinner event this evening. Tomorrow I’m off to Jackson County (Spring Arbor) Michigan to speak at the annual Lincoln dinner there.

Anyway, we just came through the big primary season “Super Tuesday” and it’s interesting to hear all the post-primary election pundits. Most interesting are the conflicting assessments on the constitutional conservative grassroots movement, the Tea Party. First of all, this isn’t not a political party, it’s an ideological movement.

On one side we hear the Tea Party is done, dead, stick a fork in it, because its candidates aren’t successful. Not too long ago many were singing the praises of Nebraska Senate candidate Ben Sasse who won his primary in the Cornhusker State. Now, after yesterday, the sentiment is that the Tea Party isn’t an influencer and irrelevant.

The thing is, it’s not about individual candidates, but about influencing a policy agenda — and that’s what makes this conservative grassroots movement so very viable. How is it that anyone can disagree with the fundamental principles of America; limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual sovereignty, free market system, strong national security, and traditional values?

And with that comes a policy agenda that focuses on fiscal/economic reforms, monetary policy reforms, governmental structure and organization reforms, development of an energy security plan and program, and a focus on strengthening our foreign policy and national security that promotes peace through strength and military deterrence.

Well, that’s in direct opposition to a progressive socialist agenda that has exploded our debt and deficits, but more importantly has expanded a welfare nanny-state and dependency society all as a means of political bribery using the largesse of the public treasury. I find it quite interesting that during the Bush administration when the average price of gasoline hit $2.50 the liberal media went apoplectic — heard from them recently?

And so, it is in the same vein that we have liberal progressives such as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who says there’s a “civil war” in the Republican party and the Tea Party has overtaken the party — what?

So is the Tea Party losing and irrelevant or is it running the Republican Party? Can’t be both!

It’s obvious The Tea Party has become the “boogeyman” — the Alinsky target for the liberal Left, all because they fear a strong grassroots movement, and what happened in 2010.

That’s why this administration unleashed a government agency, the Internal Revenue Service, against everyday American citizens who seek to participate in the political process of their country — heck I thought that was a fundamental principle of America? But then again I forgot we’re in the midst of a “fundamental transformation.”

I can tell you one simple thing. Americans are hurting — and that’s not Democrat or Republican. And the American people are seeking principled leaders who will provide a better way ahead, a Reaganesque “Morning in America.” I like to think of it as the “Dawn of a New America.”

The restoration of this Constitutional Republic is happening, and it’s not about this candidate or that candidate. It’s about one thing, the one thing that should matter: the American people — not the poll-tested politically-manipulated collective being subjugated to a growing federal government.

Constitutional conservatism is rooted in America’s fabric. It is far from dead, quite to the contrary. It is quite alive, and quite impactful.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on

Obama’s phony “anger” at Chinese cyber attacks

It’s not anger, it’s fear.

The Obama administration is furious at China, supposedly for cyber attacks.

But China has hacked our government and businesses forever and no one ever complained. Why now?

Here is the secret no one in the MSM will mention, and it is obvious:

Russia (which the US has started a cold war with over Ukraine, even though the Kiev disturbances were made in USA and EU) just signed with China a huge deal for around $400 billion under a gas supply contract for the piping of gas to China for at least 30 years. This is designed by Russia as a stopgap measure in case Europe decides at some point to stop buying Russian gas, which is a real threat. The West sees this deal as a threat to their economy. But since signing energy contracts does not rise to the level of an act of war, a pretext had to be concocted.

The alleged cyber attacks came in handy.

But it’s worse than just a gas supply deal: China and Russia have long been planning to dedollarize (as reported in numerous sources in both the English language and foreign–including Russian–media). That means international sales would be transacted in currencies other than the dollar. A look at the shambles the Fed has created and especially a look at the QEs, i.e., the insane issuing of dollars in the trillions with no backing in noble metals, goods, services, or anything of value at all except the brand name US dollar, will help you understand why they see this as necessary. Issuing unbacked currency for any purpose other than replacement of worn out notes and coins, is like adding water to the soup when unexpected guests show up. It gets the host out of a tough spot but spoils the dinner. Guests tend to stay away next time.

Recent reports that I have seen do not state whether this gas deal that was just signed will be in a currency other than the dollar, but most likely the contract will be denominated in the yuan or the ruble.

This is the true source of the anger in Washington, but anger is hardly the right word. Call it fear.

Well, folks, the US government could have reined in the NGOs in Ukraine (including Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Don’t take my word for it. It’s proudly mentioned on Soros’ own web site!) and it didn’t have to spend $5 billion of our money (as Victoria Nuland foolishly blurted out in a meeting) on destabilizing Ukraine via USAID. Nor did it have to send the ancient lunatic John McCain (who never met a war he didn’t like) to meet with a known Nazi in what must have been a deliberate provocation of Russia, a country that lost millions of its people and millions of dollars worth of infrastructure to the Nazis. To the average Russian, there is nothing more hated than a Nazi, and with good reason. And now the US and the EU are schmoozing with Nazis in Kiev. (Please note that Russians never never never give up. Which is largely why Hitler and Bonaparte saw the bulk of their armies devoured by Russian vultures.)

No one made the US government accept the Wolfowitz doctrine of encirclement of Russia. Russia had traditional economic and diplomatic ties to every country surrounding it and there was no rational motive for trying to harm it economically as long as it was cooperating with the US, as it was. But we meddled in each one, even grooming a president for Georgia. It was deliberate provocation.

Some people believe implicitly that “war is good for the economy.” They never stop to think why they think that. This is because it has nothing to do with cognition. It is a cliché that became popular after WW II, when FDR implemented Keynesian stimulus. The war was his biggest stimulus experience, and it worked, but only because the US was industrialized, unlike today, and we had a captive market in countries whose infrastructure was destroyed and hence could not produce their own manufactured goods.

Those conditions no longer exist. And further, a group of economists at UCLA have shown that FDR’s Keynesian policies, far from stimulating, actually delayed the recovery from the depression by about 7-8 years. Yet the foolish politicians in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, believe the ‘stimulus’ myth implicitly.

But here is a pattern that has been followed by such Keynesians in the past in times of severe crisis: bailouts of business and banks, paid for by the tax payer failing that, issuance of unbacked dollars failing that, war.

What makes Keynesians so feckless is that their approach to all of these reflexive steps is wholly unscientific. When scientists test new drugs, for example, they generally propose a mechanism that would explain why the drug would most likely be efficacious. That is usually the start, before the rats get their doses of the samples. But Keynesians are not scientific. They are religious fanatics who do not question anything. No one could possibly explain a mechanism by which the standard forms of “stimulus” work because there is no logic or reason behind these elaborate Ponzi schemes. Clearly, throwing money away will not bring more money into the treasury; it will only more quickly empty it out.

It is clear that China and Russia are aware of this error, and probably the rest of the BRICS nations are as well. Yet arrogant Western powers demand that they behave as recklessly as we do. To these nations, that must be seen as provocation.

Now ask yourself: If you told your teen not to go out to the bear cave and taunt the mother bear by stealing her cubs, what would you expect to happen if he disobeyed you? And would your teen be blameless if he failed to heed your warning and got mauled or eaten?

We were at peace with the Russian bear. Now that peace is troubled. It didn’t have to be this way.

The bear has shown its claws, and they are scary. No one expected it, but then they never do expect the unexpected consequences. They think they are dealing with a circus bear and are used to it sitting up and begging.

Don’t get me wrong. We desperately need a war. But it ought to be between the political and corporatist class in the West on the one hand and We the People on the other, not between us and a scapegoat country under a narrative concocted by our keepers.

The US has lost war after war since the 50s, including the ones we ‘won.’ Will we be fooled again?

God grant us wisdom this time around.

Do Markets Promote Immoral Behavior? by Fred E. Foldvary

Pure markets enhance good behavior, because in such arrangements, voluntary acts are rewarded and involuntary acts are punished. A pure market, as we define it, consists only of voluntary human action. That’s because a truly free market includes governance structures that penalize coercive harm, and such pure markets do not impose any restrictions or costs on honest and peaceful human activity.

Critics of markets think otherwise. They point to slave markets or a market for stolen goods as examples of market immorality.

More recently, Professor Dr. Armin Falk (University of Bonn) and Professor Dr. Nora Szech (University of Bamberg) conducted experiments in which people were offered a choice between receiving 10 euros versus letting a laboratory mouse get killed. If a subject decided to save a mouse, the experimenters bought the animal, according to the study authors writing in the journal Science.

But in the experimental market with buyers and sellers, more people were willing to accept the killing of a mouse than when individuals were simply offered an isolated choice. Therefore, the researchers concluded, markets erode moral values. Guilt is shared with other traders who are also involved in transactions that kill mice. If a person refused a transaction to save a mouse, somebody else would step in, so the mouse would be killed anyway.

Do Falk and Szech’s analysis prove that markets erode morals?

Pure Markets or Coercion-Infected Bazaars

The term “market” can refer to any bazaar or system of transactions, and also to pure free markets in which action is voluntary. Thus the buying and selling of slaves falls outside a voluntary market, but it is a bazaar or trade “market” in the sense that it includes buying and selling. When discussing the morality or failures of “markets,” we need to distinguish between voluntary transactions and those that involve coercive harm. Hence I will use the term “bazaar” to refer to trade that may involve coercion, while using “market” to mean a nexus of trade free of coercion.

In his paper “Is Economics Independent of Ethics?” economist Jack High examined the term “market economy,” in contrast to “government activity.” The market, writes High, “is defined as a system of voluntary exchange.” A deep understanding of the concept of the pure market requires an analysis of the meaning of the term “voluntary.” It will not do to simply state that “voluntary” means “not coercive,” since “coercive” is equivalent to the term “not voluntary.”

“Voluntary” action implies an ethical rule by which some acts are morally permitted and other acts, the involuntary ones, are prohibited. To have a universal meaning of voluntary action, and thus of the market, this moral standard must itself be universally applicable to humanity. This universal ethic is the expression of natural moral law, based on human nature rather than any cultural practice or personal viewpoint.

The Universal Ethic

John Locke (1690) described the moral “law of nature” or natural moral law as being derived from two premises: biological independence and human equality. Independence is the biological fact that human beings think and feel as individuals. Equality is the proposition that there is nothing in human biology that entitles one set of human beings to be masters over another set which are slaves.

A unique universal ethic can be derived from these Lockean premises. The universal ethic has three basic rules:

1. Acts that have welcomed benefits are good.

2. Acts that coercively harm others, by initiating an invasion, are evil.

3. All other acts are neutral.

The term “harm” is distinguished from a mere offense. In an offense, the distress is due solely to the beliefs and values of the person affected. In contrast, coercive harm involves an invasion, an unwelcome penetration into the legitimate domain of the victim. So if a person is offended by what someone says, this is due to his beliefs and values; this act is not coercively harmful, and is designated as morally neutral by the universal ethic.

The universal ethic also provides a meaning for moral rights and liberty. A moral right to X means that the negation of X is morally evil. For example, a person has a moral right to possess a car because the negation of that possession, i.e., theft, is morally evil. Since the universal ethic is the expression of natural moral law, the moral rights based on that ethic can be called “natural rights.” Society has complete liberty when its laws are based solely on the universal ethic, with legal rights congruent with natural rights.

The pure market is inherently ethical because the same universal ethic that provides the meaning of “market” is also the natural-law ethic used to judge policy and human action. Involuntary action is both evil and outside the market. There are slave bazaars, but there cannot be a free market in buying and selling slaves, because slavery is involuntary and, thus, evil.

Although the pure market is ethical in excluding evil acts, it is a separate issue whether a free marketenhances or hinders ethical behavior by minimizing evil action. Since the governance of a pure market penalizes acts that coercively harm others, the ideal governance of a free society will have optimal penalties for wrongful acts.

By deterring coercive acts, rehabilitating criminals, and providing restitution for victims, the free society steers human action toward those acts that are good or neutral. Adam Smith, who popularized the concept of the invisible hand of the market, also wrote in his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that people have a natural fellow-feeling or sympathy for others. Social entrepreneurs can promote sympathy for communities and benevolent causes, which promotes morally good behavior.

Relative to today’s interventionist economies, the free market promotes good behavior by avoiding the imposition of costs and restrictions. In today’s world, even when good acts are not prohibited, they are impeded with costs such as taxes, licenses, and permit requirements. Even when an organization is tax exempt, it must today fill out forms and report on its activities. The free market promotes good behavior more than today’s interventionist economy by avoiding barriers that make goodness more costly.

Critics of markets claim that when people search for the cheapest goods, moral concern takes a back seat. But in a truly free market, the products offered are produced by moral means, by a process that does not involve coercive harm. Therefore searching for the lowest-cost goods is not evil. Only when goods are produced by immoral means, such as with slave labor, is the product morally tainted, but that, by definition, could not occur within a voluntary market.

Of Mice and Men

Unfortunately, some behavioral economists—those who conduct experiments on human behavior—leap to incorrect conclusions about markets because they use the term “market” for any system of transactions—even those involving non-voluntary aspects.

Recall that in the Falk and Szech experiments cited above, subjects were offered a choice between receiving money versus letting a laboratory mouse get killed. If a subject decided to save a mouse, the experimenters bought the animal and allowed it to live. In the experimental bazaar, however, more people were willing to accept the killing of a mouse than when individuals were simply offered an isolated choice. The researchers concluded that markets erode moral values as guilt is shared with other traders who are also involved in transactions that kill mice. If a person refused a transaction to save a mouse, somebody else would step in, so the mouse would be killed anyway.

The first trouble is that no conclusion about markets and morals can be derived without first analyzing the morality of the particular act, killing a mouse. There is no consensus among ethicists on the issue of mouse (animal) rights, but with respect to the issue of how markets affect moral behavior, we can analyze two possibilities: First, if killing a mouse is not evil, then accepting a choice that kills a mouse is not promoting evil behavior. Second, if the non-utilitarian killing of a mouse (i.e., killing for reasons other than for food, useful materials, or self-defense) is indeed evil, then it is prohibited by the laws of the market and is thus penalized, which minimizes such acts and avoids eroding moral values.

Another problem with the Falk and Szech approach is that the study turns on the condition that people violate their own “individual moral standards,” which to some individuals may, indeed, include mouse killing. I have tried above to show that, in order for an ethic to be universal, it must satisfy certain criteria. Individual moral standards are not morals per se, but rather personal values. Violation of these would be offenses. It may be interesting to some that markets—even pure ones—tend to make people overlook offenses, due to the distance the transactional nature of the arrangement creates between the actor and the original evil, or due to the perceived amorality of fellow actors in the bazaar. For example, “If I don’t buy or sell, someone else will” can creep into a market actor’s rationale. But this rationale has no bearing on a universal moral ethic, which would proscribe harmful actions ex ante—that is, before they infect the market.

In other words, concern about the tendency of market forces to reinforce perceived evils confuses the body and its symptoms with the pathology. The blood stream can carry a pathogen around to various part of one’s body, for example, hastening disease. That doesn’t mean that the bloodstream is somehow evil or undesirable by extension. It’s simply that the pathogen must be eliminated.

Evils of Intervention

Another (perhaps more familiar) approach is to blame markets for outcomes that are actually the result of state intervention rather than voluntary action. Even economists have made a cottage industry out of blaming the market for problems such as recessions and unemployment. These critics fail to distinguish between today’s mixed economies (bazaars replete with governmental interventions) and an arrangement that is much closer to a pure market. Any outcome, however, such as an economic crisis or depression, has to be analyzed sufficiently to determine whether the causes are the interventions or the markets.

Failure to appreciate the concept of a pure market is on display in the article “Markets Erode Morals, Let People Do Horrible Things: Study” by Mark Gongloff in the Huffington Post.  The author states, “The devastating collapses of the dot-com and housing bubbles in recent years have finally led us to start questioning the value of unfettered markets.”

If markets are unfettered, the Federal Reserve does not exist, there are no income and sales taxes; no asset forfeitures; no government subsidies; no federal regulatory agencies such as the SEC, FDA, FHA, and Fannie Mae; and no state and local interventions. The author presumes, with no analysis, that the housing bubble was caused by the market. There is good reason to conclude that massive monetary and fiscal subsidies to real estate—intervention—were primary causes of the crash of 2008, and that the cheap credit provided by money expansions skewed interest rates away from their natural rates, promoting previous bubbles. In these cases, the evils of those impure markets were the consequences of interventions whose intentions may arguably have been good.

The purpose of economic theory is to enable people to understand the implicit economic reality beneath superficial appearances. Critics of free markets observe the superficial appearances of the bazaar without delving into the ethical foundations of the free market and the economic causes of outcomes such as the boom-bust cycle. The ethical and economic reality is that markets are inherently ethical, and they promote ethical behavior.


Fred Foldvary teaches economics at San Jose State University.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Two Women, Two Paths

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are polar opposites, one bad, one good depending on your political persuasion … which will America choose to follow?




Sarah Palin slams media: Hillary’s brain shouldn’t be off-limits, mine wasn’t
Ben Carson riles up Whoopi with welfare truth; has conservatives cheering on ‘The View’
What happens when Pat Sajak calls libs ‘unpatriotic racists’

More Self-Reliance Needed in Africa

The recent kidnapping of the Nigerian school girls has been all over the news which is a good thing. We need to take the emotion out of this issue and have a heart-to-heart talk with the leadership of Africa.

I am very aware that Africa is not a country, but a continent made up of 54 countries. I am a big booster of the potential of all things Africa, but have been, and still am, a big critic of Africa.

Everyone touts the potential of Africa as a continent, not just in terms of its vast natural resources (gold, diamonds, oil, gas, bauxite, etc.); but also in terms of its human resources. Well more than half of Africa’s population is under 18 years of age. They have a “youth bulge” that can be a great asset or a great liability.

According to a report by the accounting firm of KPMG, Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to reach $2.6 trillion by the year 2020. Africa also has the fastest-expanding labor force in the world; there are more than 500 million people of working age (15 to 64) in Africa, and that number is expected to pass 1.1 billion by 2040 and larger than China and India.

For the most part, my criticism of Africa has to do with its leaders and government bureaucrats, not the people. Many of the leaders are corrupt and selfish, interested only in the enrichment of themselves, their families and their cronies.

On the other hand, the people of Africa only want three things: education, healthcare, and a job. This seems to be very reasonable and pretty much a universal desire; and one that should be easily achievable on the continent of Africa. But it’s not.

Africa reminds me of the kid who always wants to be treated like a “big boy,” but then constantly cries for his big brother to rescue him when he gets in trouble. Generally speaking, Africa wants U.S. investments yet can’t provide security for their own people. And if they fail to provide security at that level, there is no reason to believe African countries can provide security for foreign investments.

What I find amazing about the abduction of the girls in Nigeria was the immediate cry from Africans for U.S. involvement in finding the girls. Why was there no cry for the involvement of the African Union (AU)?

The AU is composed of 53 African states and was created on July 9, 2002 as a successor to the Organization of African Unity (OAU). According to the AU’s website, its objectives are: to accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent; to promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples; to achieve peace and security in Africa; and to promote democratic institutions, good governance and human rights.

It’s almost as though whenever there is a crisis on the continent, Africans reflexively call on the U.S. or the United Nations (UN) for help, not the AU. The AU has been around for 12 years, so no more excuses about it being a young organization. If African leaders want to be treated as an equal player on the world stage, then they must be willing to comport themselves in a manner consistent with that desire.

Africa continues to lack the understanding and sophistication for why they need to constantly engage with the American media. During the crisis of the kidnapped Nigerian girls, I have yet to see or hear of any engagement by the Nigerian Embassy or the AU with the American media.

Most of the so-called experts on Africa, as presented in U.S. media, have been White. The media is partly to blame for this because of their continued insular approach and not looking for non-White experts on Africa.

And there are plenty of Blacks who are experts on Africa.

Gregory B. Simpkins is staff director for the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; and one of the foremost experts on Africa in the U.S. He has both a journalism and public policy background. He also is Black.

But I put more blame on Africa for continuing to believe that any media outlet is going to do for them what they should be doing for themselves, i.e. telling their own story. If Africa continues to govern with a third world mentality in a 21st century world, they will continue to be ignored and marginalized.

Africa wants Americans to view their continent as a tourist destination and a developing haven for foreign direct investment, but yet they can’t or won’t protect young girls attending school.

Despite all this, I should be willing to take my family on a vacation to or invest my money on the continent? Really?

Africa gets most of its media coverage from their failure, not their successes. A simple Google of the word Africa brings up nothing but negative information. So, until African leaders truly understand the value of proactive media engagement in the U.S., they will continue to be viewed as third world and not worthy of serious business consideration.

Charlie Crist talks Climate Change, Racism and Democrat Debate Dodging

After allowing protesters to take him and his campaign staff off message during the grand opening of his Miami office, former Florida Governor Charlie Crist quickly bounced back into form and addressed reporters shortly after the Saturday morning protest concluded. Crist answered questions ranging from his new position on the U.S. embargo to Cuba, Racism, Climate Change, and his dodging of his Democrat primary opponent, Nan Rich. Read more about the protest in Miami here.

Climate change

Florida is considered “ground zero” for climate change, and Crist, who firmly believes that “the sky is falling,” so to speak, was asked what he would do about it, if he was elected governor.

Crist, who says that it is”ridiculous” to ignore science, and that “climate change is a real issue,” as well as stating that he would hold a climate change summit, and invite people like Robert Kennedy Jr. and other so called know-it-alls on the subject.

Back in 2007, when Crist the Republican governor of Florida, he held the “Serve to Preserve” 2007 climate change summit in Miami, and brought in the likes of the Terminator himself, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Crist says the he signed “Cap and Trade” executive orders when he was governor, and would sign them again, if he defeats Rick Scott this fall.
When asked if he supported “Cap and Trade,” Crist said that he was “willing to do whatever it takes to make sure we are addressing this important issue.” When the sun shines, we have flooding, and there’s a reason. And it’s because the seas are rising – Charlie Crist

Crist statement sounds a bit bizarre, but on Miami Beach, flooding is occurring because of rising seas caused by the Earth’s natural climate and temperature evolution, and not just from rainstorms.

Debating Nan Rich


Photo courtesy of The Shark Tank.

Democrat Nan Rich Many Floridians believe that the 2014 gubernatorial general election between Republican Governor Rick Scott and Democrat Charlie Crist is set in stone, but that belief is far from the truth.

Charlie Crist has a Democrat primary election to contend with first. Former state Senator and staunch Progressive Democrat, Nan Rich is hoping that she will be able to garner enough of the Democrat Party vote to defeat party newbie, Charlie Crist.

Rich, who believes that Crist’s rhetoric lacks substance, has been calling for the former Republican to debate her, but Crist has taken the position of ignoring her, and focusing on “the real opponent,” Rick Scott.

What’s important for this campaign is to be focused on the real opponent here- the real opponent here is Rick Scott. If I take my eye on that target, shame on me. I have a duty to the voters, I have a duty to our supporters, and I am going to stay laser focused on Rick Scott. – Charlie Crist

While Crist says he has a duty to voters (presumably Democrat voters), Rich is saying that Democrat primary voters deserve to hear from the field of primary gubernatorial candidates, and hopes that the party apparatus stays out of the contested primary race.

“Debates are part of the Democratic process. Charlie Crist is new to our party which is even more reason the people are entitled to hear about his new found positions and compare records to determine who best represents their values. Let’s get on with the debate!”- Nan Rich

Florida Governor Rick Scott has even stated that Crist had to first contend with Nan Rich in a Democrat primary race.

“The first debate Charlie Crist needs to do is with Nan Rich. He needs to quit ducking a debate with Nan Rich. He’s in a primary. I might not agree with her on many issues. But she is somebody who’s consistent, something that Charlie Crist has had a problem with his whole career.” – Gov. Rick Scott

Crist’s dodging of Nan Rich’ debate requests is considered to be hypocritical ,being that back in 2010, he debated now – Senator Marco Rubio in the Republican primary Senate race. Read more on Nan Rich’s “Where’s Charlie” debate efforts here.


Crist was then asked by a reporter to give “one example of racism in the Republican Party,” prompting Crist to dismiss the question by answering, “I have already talked about it, it speaks for itself.”

Watch the video.


EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Shark Tank. The author of this column states that flooding in Miami is caused by rising sea levels. Sea levels on the Pacific coast have been falling due to the cooling of the ocean waters. The rise in sea levels on the Atlantic coast has stopped and will decline as well for the same reason – the cooling of the ocean waters. The average rise of oceans has been measured at 1 inch per century. Not enough to cause flooding.

Exposed: Offendo-Fakes

Are you tired of people who pretend to be offended as a way of pushing their own agenda?  Here we expose those who fake being offended to push a progressive agenda.


Is All Love ‘Equal’?

The following is adapted from a one-page flier passed out by AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera at an April 14, 2014 protest at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, Canada [see this excellent video commentary by Canadian pundit Brian Lilley]. At the protest, led by Canadian pro-family/pro-life activist Bill Whatcott, both he and LaBarbera were arrested on the charge of “mischief” for not abandoning their peaceful sign protest against homosexuality and abortion. In explaining why the university felt the need to eject Whatcott and the three other protesters, U of R provost and vice-president Thomas Chase said, “The materials were graphic and the materials were disturbing,” he told the Regina Leader-Post. “The materials, we felt, could harm members of this campus community who we have a duty to protect and support.”


Is All Love ‘Equal’?

“Love is Love,” same-sex “marriage” advocates are fond of saying. At a recent protest in Weyburan, Saskatchewan, Canada, a pro-“gay” activist said, “It doesn’t matter who you love, it just matters that you love.” The implication is that homosexual sex and relationships are equivalent—morally, practically and health-wise—to natural sex and relationships (i.e., marriage) between a man and a woman. But is that true?

Capacity to Produce Life

Sex between men or between women alone can never produce children.  “Gay parenting” requires a previous heterosexual relationship by one or both of the same-sex partners, or adoption or artificial means to acquire a child.  That child will then intentionally be denied a father or a mother.  In contrast, heterosexuality and natural marriage produce children, families and future generations.

‘HIV Is a Gay Disease’

Homosexual sex between men is the biggest risk factors for HIV/AIDS. A stunning 94-95 percent of all HIV diagnoses in 2011 among boys and young men were linked to homosexual sex, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports.[1] A 2008 CDC study of “gay” men in 21 major cities found that nearly one in five were HIV positive while 44 percent of those did not know it. [2] Facts like these have led some homosexual activists to admit that, “HIV is a gay disease.”[3] Yet students rarely are educated on the heightened health risks associated with homosexual behaviors.

CDC slide demonstrates the strong correlation between

CDC slide demonstrates the strong correlation between “male-to-male sexual contact” and HIV among adolescent boys and young men. To view the full CDC slide presentation, go HERE; to read the related AFTAH article, go HERE. Yellow highlighting did not appear on original CDC slide.

Viral Hepatitis and High-Risk Homosexual Sex

“Among adults, an estimated 10% of new Hepatitis A cases and 20% of new Hepatitis B cases occur in gay or bisexual men,” the CDC reported in October 2013. The disproportionate risk is linked to high-risk sexual behaviors by “men who have sex with men” (MSM). The CDC reports: “Hepatitis A is usually spread when a person ingests fecal matter—even in microscopic amounts—from an infected person. Among men who have sexual contact with other men, Hepatitis A can be spread through direct anal-oral contact or contact with fingers or objects that have been in or near the anus of an infected person.”[4]

Sex Practices Common Among Homosexual Men Are ‘Highly Efficient Ways of Transmitting Disease,’ Says ‘Gay’ Writer

“Some practices common among gays–especially rimming [mouth-to-anus sex] and anal intercourse–are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.”–”Gay” writer Jack Hart, Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men [5]


A 2010 CDC study on “Intimate Partner Violence” among homosexuals and bisexuals found higher rates of “rape, physical violence, and/or stalking” among lesbians and bisexual women compared to heterosexual women–and higher rates of “sexual violence” among homosexual and bisexual men compared to heterosexual men. Go HERE to read CDC report summary.

Domestic Partner Violence Higher for Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals

“Rates of some form of sexual violence were higher among lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual women and men compared to heterosexual women and men,” the CDC reported in 2010.

“Forty-four percent of lesbian women, 61% of bisexual women, and 35% of heterosexual women experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime…

“Four in 10 gay men (40%), nearly half of bisexual men (47%), and 1 in 5 heterosexual men (21%) have experienced SV [sexual violence] other than rape in their lifetime. This translates into nearly 1.1 million gay men, 903,000 bisexual men, and 21.6 million heterosexual men.” [6]

Anal Cancer

“The incidence of anal cancer in gay men is approximately 80 times that of the general population.” [7]


“In 2012, 75% of the reported primary and secondary syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men (MSM)/” the CDC reported. [8]

Dr. Stephen Goldstone

Anus: ‘Highest Risk Place for STDs,” Says Homosexual Doctor 

“[An] anus is the highest risk place for STDs [sexually transmitted diseases].”–Dr. Stephen Goldstone, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men [9]


1. ”CDC: 94 to 95 Percent of HIV Cases among Boys and Young Men Linked to Homosexual Sex,” AFTAH website, September 11, 2013 [link HERE]; links to CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] presentation, “HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young Adults,” National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatisis, STD and & TB Prevention, Div. of HIV/AIDS Prevention:

2. CDC Press Release: “1 in 5 men who have sex with men in 21 U.S. cities have HIV; nearly half unaware,” National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention; “The CDC study tested 8,153 MSM in 21 cities participating in the 2008 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS).” [link HERE]

3. Sharon Bernstein, “HIV Ads Embrace, and Stun, Audience,” Los Angeles Times, September 30, 2006: “the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center had embarked on a controversial ad campaign with this stark declaration: ‘HIV is a gay disease,’ with the tag line ‘Own It. End It.’ on billboards and in magazines.” [story link HERE].

4. CDC, “Viral Hepatitis: Information for Gay and Bisexual Men,” October 2013;

5. Jack Hart, Gay Sex: A Manual for Men who Love Men (Revised & Updated, Second edition, October 1998). Published by [now defunct] Alyson Books (Los Angeles, New York), pages 194, 212-213. [AFTAH link HERE] Full quote by Hart, a homosexual, is below:

“Many sexual transmitted diseases (STDs) occur more often among gay men than in the general population. Several factors contribute to this difference: Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays–especially rimming [oral-anal perversion*] and anal intercourse–are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease….”

6. NISVS: “An Overview of 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation,” The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), 2010:

7. HIV Essentials 2013 (Sixth Edition), by Paul E. Sax , Calvin J. Cohen, Daniel R. Kuritzkes, (Jones & Bartlett Learning: Burlington, MA, 2013), p. 132. [Amazon book link HERE]

8. CDC, “Syphilis & MSM (Men Who Have Sex With Men) – CDC Fact Sheet; page last updated: January 7, 2014.

9. Dr. Stephen Goldstone, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men, (Dell: 1999), p 16; in the passage, Dr. Goldstone, a homosexual and “gay” advocate, is urging condom use. For more quotations by Goldstone, see this AFTAH article. [Amazon book link HERE]


Clinic to underage kids: ‘Sex is fun … we’re here to help’
UK: NHS to give sex change drugs to nine-year-olds: Clinic accused of ‘playing God’ with treatment that stops puberty | Mail Online
Bryan Singer’s Accuser Names Three More Alleged Sex Abusers | Variety
Beijing shuts down thousands of websites in online pornography purge – World – News – The Independent
Boy Scouts Drop Washington Troop Over Homosexual Scout Leader

World Environment Day and the Three Fundamental Truths about the Climate

There are three fundamental truths about the climate: 1.) The climate changes, 2.) The changes are cyclical, and 3.) There is nothing mankind can do about it except prepare for the changes.

Sarasota County, Florida has been selected by the United Nations Environment Programme’s Regional Office for North America (UNEP RONA) as the official North American host community for World Environment Day (WED) 2014.

According to the Sarasota County website:

More than just a single day of environmentally focused events, the WED celebration launches on Earth Day in April and bridges the globe—and the months—with programs and events that culminate on June 5. This year’s launch was held at Oscar Scherer State Park in Osprey, during its 25th annual Earth Day celebration on April 27. The events will culminate with a Community Forum and International Children’s Painting Competition Exhibit on June 5. Dozens of nature walks, classes, workshops and volunteer events are also planned between these two dates. Find more information about all these events on the WED Events page and listed in the WED Calendar.

This year’s WED theme focuses on the small island developing states, places particularly threatened by environmental changes. Sarasota County was chosen to host this year’s WED events because it is a coastal community facing similar challenges, and also because of its positive and proactive environmental track record, according to UNEP RONA.

Since its inception in 1972, WED has grown into a global platform for public outreach that is widely celebrated in more than 100 countries. It also serves as grassroots inspiration for individuals and groups to do something positive for the environment, galvanizing creative individual actions into a collective power that has the potential to generate an exponential positive impact around the world.


Dr. Michael P. Crosby

A forum will be held as part of WED. The forum will be moderated by Dr. Michael P. Crosby, President and CEO of Mote Marine Laboratory. Forum topics will include:

  • Identifying emerging environmental issues from the perspective of the Small Island Developing States — United Nations Environment Programme representative.
  • The Economic Value of Sarasota Bay — Sara Kane, Public Outreach Manager, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
  • Sea Level Rise — Barbara Lausche, Director, Marine Policy Institute at Mote
  • Eco-Tourism — Jennifer Shafer, Executive Director, Science and Environment Council of Southwest Florida
  • Green Building and the Green Economy — Tony Stefan, U.S. Green Building Council, Myakka River Branch

The forum will be from 10:30 a.m. to Noon, on Thursday, June 5, 2014 at the Mote Marine Laboratory’s New Pass Room, on the 3rd Floor of the Keating Marine Education Center, 1599 Ken Thompson Parkway, City Island, Sarasota.

Protests are planned.


Enviro Group Accuses Wyoming of Choosing ‘Coal Over Kids’ by Rejecting Climate Change Curriculum
Climate Change Scientific Reality: Surviving the Next Cold Climate
Climate McCarthyism: No Dissent Allowed! 79-Year old Skeptical Climate Scientist Victim of Witch-Hunt
The Supreme Court Helps the EPA Shut Off Electricity in America
Climate Change: Unsettled Science or Just Lies?
Hostile 8 minute Climate Debate with TV Anchor on CCTV
Global Warming, Climate Change its all about the Global Religion of Greed
Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point’ – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!

The Real State of the Economy — Not Obama’s Lies

My Father was a Certified Public Accountant and so is my older brother, now comfortably retired in Florida. I tell you this because I would be hard-pressed to balance my checkbook.

Even so, you do not have to be smart with numbers to know that the real state of the U.S. economy is pathetic these days. You can thank Barack Obama for that because, dear reader, he is utterly clueless regarding America’s economy; how it works, and what it needs to work.

Peter Ferrara, a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute specializing on entitlement and budget policy and a contributor to Forbes magazine, is one of the people to whom I go to understand the economy.

In a May 2 edition, in an article titled “What Obama’s Growth Recession Is Stealing From Your Wallet”, Ferrara wrote “Restoring that booming economic growth and prosperity (of past decades) is the core of solving all of our nation’s problems, not income or wealth redistribution, or addressing ‘inequality.’ But President Obama is not on the path of restoration. The latest report on real GDP growth estimates this year’s first quarter at a pitiful 0.01%. This is in the 6th year of Obama’s Presidency.”

The Heritage Foundation’s chief economist, Stephen Moore, writing on May 1st in the National Review, asked, “What happens to an economy when you do just about everything wrong?” Here’s his list:

  • Say you spend $830 billion on a stimulus stuffed with make-work government-jobs programs and programs to pay people to buy new cars,
  • you borrow $6 trillion,
  • you launch a government-run healthcare system that incentivizes businesses not to hire more workers,
  • you raise tax rates on the businesses that hire workers and on the investors that invest in the businesses that hire workers,
  • you print $3 trillion of paper money,
  • you shut down an entire industry (coal), and try to regulate and restrain the one industry that actually is booming (oil and gas).

“We made all of these imbecilic moves,” wrote Moore, “and the wonder of it all is that the U.S. economy is growing at all. It is a tribute to the indestructible Energizer Bunny that is the entrepreneurial U.S. economy that it keeps going and going even with all the obstacles.” I want to argue with his use of “we”, but enough Americans elected Obama twice to justify it.

The Associated Press, much like most of the mainstream press, paused from protecting Obama in a May 2nd article that began “Despite the unemployment rate plummeting, more than 92 million Americans remain out of the labor force.”

As Harvard Ph.D., Jerome R. Corsi, a World Net Daily senior staff reporter, noted the same day as the AP article, “The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announcement that unemployment has dropped from 6.7 percent in March to 6.3 in April was partly attributed to some 800,000 workers dropping out of the labor force last month, reducing the labor participation rate to 62.8 percent, a new low for the Obama administration.”

When people stop looking for work, they are not counted as “unemployed.” Dr. Corsi put the actual unemployment rate in April at 12.3 percent! The numbers you read about from the BLS are “virtually meaningless.” They should just drop the “L” from their acronym.

As the Wall Street Journal opined on May 3rd, “The Americans who left the workforce include older workers who retired before they wanted to, millions who have taken disability, and others who simply don’t find the job openings to be worth the cost of giving up public benefits.”

You don’t have to be an economist to know the truth that has finally sunk into the minds of millions of Americans, many of whom are unemployed or know someone who is. Obama has driven the economy into the toilet. He has foisted trillions of debt on future generations. In order to vote for “the first black President of America”, what those voters and the rest of us got was a man with no experience running so much as a sidewalk lemonade stand.

I think those voters will want a change in November when the midterm elections are held. Between now and then, I want the Republican Party to spend a little less time on the Benghazi scandal and a lot more time telling voters their plans to revive the economy because, in the end, that is the single most important issue facing all of us.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Climate Change: Unsettled Science or Just Lies?

Recently President Obama’s White House has released the latest National Climate Assessment (NCA). Warning: this is 841 pages from the people who brought us the Obamacare website. The “Highlights” section is 21 MB alone; lots of graphics. Let’s get right to what matters to Florida, right?

How about that concern that causes thousands of Floridians to move North every month, the rise of sea level (as Senator Nelson warned us about)? President Obama predicts a rise of seven feet by year 2100, about an inch per year. Here’s a graphical representation, compared to past sea level rise at San Francisco. The scale on the left is in millimeters. The historical trend, over the last 8,000 years, has been 7 inches per century.


The president – who has no training in science – calls all us skeptics “flat-earthers”and assures us “the science is all settled,” with his usual arrogance.

It doesn’t take a degree in the history of science to realize that science in the 20th Century has been very unsettled. It began with the foremost scientist of the time, Lord Kelvin, assuring the world that the next century of science would be merely “a matter of adding a few decimal places to the measurements.” A fellow named Einstein, followed by Cavendish and Bohr and Planck, killed that idea. Atoms are no longer the smallest elements of matter, and now we’re not even sure what is. Protons?  Quarks?  Multidimensional strings? Not settled, but President Obama doesn’t care.

Just a week ago the Wall Street Journal published an excerpt from a new book, The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, to be published by Simon and Schuster on May 13th. The author, Nina Teicholz, tells us that “personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias derailed nutrition policy over the past half-century.” That bad nutrition policy was urged upon us by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). A similar “skeptical” view of nutrition was published in Britain in 2007, The Great Cholesterol Con, by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. Dr. Kendrick pointed out there is no chemical or statistical link between saturated fat and cholesterol. Both Teicholz and Kendrick point out that anti-cholesterol drugs – Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor, Mevacor, et al – are major profit leaders for Big Pharma. There’s more – much more – about how our health has gotten worse, not better, as a result of our diet in the last 50 years, but I’ll let you read Ms. Teicholz’s book. The US has gotten fatter and sicker, while adhering to Federal dietary guidelines. The science of nutrition, from Pinocchio’s government, has been very unsettled .

Am I saying science is bad? No, but… Science is a human enterprise, and humans are fallible; when big profits enter the equation, science becomes less objective. Big profits, along with an intention to do good, can lead people to ignore objective scientific criteria. Big funding – the kind the Federal government bestows – can also swamp objective scientific criteria, as it did in the case of scientific nutrition. Is it doing so in the case of “climate science”? Yes, it’s even worse! The Feds “invest” $7 billion annually in what used to be a backwater of scientific meteorology. We spent years and billions of taxpayer dollars in numerical prediction of weather, and in deploying hundreds of Doppler radar systems across the country. Those improvements helped our economy and saved lives. But, in the process, we discovered we can’t predict the weather more than a week or so – no matter how much effort or money we put into it.

President Obama claims we must   shut down coal-fired electricity because of climate forecasts decades into the future? Gee, I wonder if there’s any money – taxes – involved? Is this is just the unsettled science that fallible humans can blunder into, or is something worse is going on?

Well, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking on the Senate floor, assured us that the Koch brothers are “oil multizillionaires”, that “they are the richest people in the world”, that they are “the main cause of global warming”, and that “they are blocking aid to Ukraine”. None of this is true, and Reid  seems to be approaching a mental breakdown. “Global warming” has become just one more political club to viciously attack anyone who threatens his rule of the Senate, and Obama’s intent to control all of the economy. It doesn’t even rise to the level of bad science.

On the side of science, Dr. John Christy, at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, points out that climate models not only have failed to predict the 17 year “pause” in global warming, they are incapable of predictions on a regional scale. Nevertheless, the NCA is full of regional predictions of drought, flooding, severe weather and heat. Even the IPCC admits, as of 2013, there is no evidence to support this claim.

And, in the Washington Post, normally a supporter:

For a long time, we have said in America, “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we do X, Y or Z?” Well, in the Obama era, that adage has morphed into, “If he couldn’t get a Web site right, how are we supposed to believe he knows how to control the climate?” Who really believes that a massive government tax and reordering of the economy in the name of stopping global warming or climate change or whatever will go as planned and the world’s thermostat will adjust to something the Democrats find more acceptable? Answer: Almost nobody. Voters don’t believe what the White House says on this issue in part because it has not been credible on so many other important issues. We’ve heard everything from “you can keep your health-care plan” to there is a “red line” in Syria. Why should anyone believe the White House now?

In June, Obama’s EPA will unveil new regulations to shut down the coal-fired electricity in this country. As a result:

Utilities have announced nearly 300 coal-fired generating units in 33 states will shut down as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon regulations for new power plants, and emission standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The plan is expected in June.

Environmental experts say the upcoming standards for reducing carbon emissions from coal-fired plants are the holy grail in President Obama’s plans for power-plant standards. [Pittsburgh Tribune]

As of May 8th, the US has had the coldest start to the year ever in our climate history, at 37 F, according to the US Historical Climate Network.


We needed those 300 generators to keep the lights on and the furnace running. I wonder what we’ll do next Winter? Don’t you? It’s kind of unsettling.

Did Putin read Tolstoy’s philosophy of history?

On April 20, 2014, the New York Times reported on its front page that photographs had surfaced linking pro-Russian separatists with Russia.  The report included photographs purporting to demonstrate this.

On April 24, the New York Times admitted that these photos were discredited. Despite this, Kerry stated in a speech later that day:

Some of the individual special operations personnel, who were active on Russia’s behalf in Chechnya, Georgia, and Crimea have been photographed in Slovyansk, Donetsk, and Luhansk.

A recent blog article claims that the US brought Europe to the brink of war intentionally. Whether it was intentional or not, there can be no doubt that it intended at least to further “contain” Russia in keeping with the Wolfowitz doctrine. Rather than intentional brinkmanship, I think this is one of many examples of the unexpected consequences of doing what the liberal left does as naturally as pulling on their socks in the morning, namely, reacting in accordance with their ideology and ignoring realpolitik.

I have said before that Russia’s cardinal sin in the eyes of Western demagogues (including Republican ones) is disobedience, and that this disobedience is best represented by its flat out refusal to accept same sex marriage and “gay” propaganda as being “on the right side of history.” Several readers have poo-pooed that theory, but this is because they do not understand how important social Marxism is to the Left. Fundamentally transforming America is not only about making us poor and hence dependent on welfare or about waging war on fiscal conservatives. It is also about continuing the century-old war on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values. That is why Obama once derided Americans for clinging to God and guns, and it’s why John Kerry recently mocked Christians for believing in something “written down 2000 years ago.” There are smart analysts out there who understand the Left in terms of its war on capitalism and the Constitution, but these same people haven’t a clue as to the enormous role social Marxism has played since the earliest times and at least since the founding of the Fabian society. I note in passing that most of my Russophobe friends completely ignore the phenomena of social Marxism on exhibit throughout the West, such as the obvious curtailment of Christian speech in the public square, the coddling of Muslims in the West and the Middle East, and the remarkably consistency of Western intervention in that region with the disappearance of indigenous Christian populations. To put it bluntly, Western policies are in fact genocidal to Christian populations and if the UN were consistent in its jurisprudence, it would have condemned NATO and the US a long time ago for the crime of genocide.

On the other hand, the Russians know something about history because they had a hand in initiating social Marxism in the West, and in addition, many have read Part II of Tolstoy’s War and Peace, which deals with the philosophy of history.

Tolstoy starts out by acknowledging that the old habit historians once had of interpreting human events as guided by the Divinity was no longer acceptable even then (the book was published in 1869). Tolstoy then proceeds to run through an exhaustive list of the various interpretations of history by the historians then considered “modern,” including the great man theory, the culture theory, the theory of abstractions, such as freedom, equality, enlightenment, progress, civilization and culture (how familiar these theories sound to us today!), the theory that the people invest their power in just leaders and withdraw it from unjust ones, etc. He also devotes a good bit of his treatise to the dichotomy of freedom vs necessity. He proceeds to criticize each of these theories one by one, proving that they do not tally with historical reality.

This last part of the novel, ending as it does with a nihilistic-sounding renunciation of all theories, leaves the reader with the sense that human events are essentially meaningless and historians will therefore never truly understand history; and as if that were not a dismal enough conclusion, Tolstoy also ultimately shows that freedom is an illusion. Obviously, G.W. Bush did not read Tolstoy.

But while the uninitiated reader may derive from this a depressing sense of fatalism, anyone who has studied Tolstoy’s life up to the time of that writing knows that he was in fact a deeply Christian intellectual. He therefore certainly believed that the old discredited approach including God as the author of history was in fact the only correct one, even as he pretended to dismiss it. His genius lay in this subtleness and minimalism.

He provides a glimpse of this in the following short passage in the last chapter:

Like Voltaire in his time, the unsolicited champions of the law of necessity [necessity refers here to the inevitability of events predestined by natural laws–Don] today use the law as a weapon against religion, though the law of necessity in history, like the law of Copernicus in astronomy, far from destroying, rather strengthens the foundations on which the institutions of church and state are founded.

Although he does not develop this argument as clearly as one might have wished, it is clear that his whole thesis rests on an acceptance of faith, without which history and all political ideologies are meaningless.

Could it be that Putin has read that part of War and Peace? Based on his actions, it is hard for me to imagine that he has not or that he has not taken the message seriously.

But whether or not he has, the fact that he behaves as though he has read and accepted Tolstoy’s assessment of history is precisely what has gotten him in such trouble with our Western “leadership.”

Charlie Crist attacked by his own adviser – This is brutal


Steve Schale

According to the Republican Party of Sarasota County (RPOS), “Five years ago, Charlie Crist abandoned Floridians, leaving behind the mess that he created in Tallahassee to run away to Washington.”

The Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) released a video of Crist being attacked by Steve Schale his own adviser. According to Schale’s website:

Steven Schale is a Florida-based political, communications and government relations strategist.

Steve has extensive experience in all levels of Florida politics and is one of the best regarded strategists in the Sunshine State.

The St. Petersburg Times has called him “one of the savviest and most effective political strategists Florida Democrats have seen in ages.” In 2008, he was named one of Florida’s “100 Movers and Shakers” by Florida International Magazine, one of the most influential Democrats in Florida by Politics Magazine in 2009 and 2013, and the most influential Democratic strategist in Florida by the Tampa Bay Times in 2012.

Watch the video:


Obama Administration threatened Nigeria with sanctions in 2013 for fighting Boko Haram

Boko Haram claimed that their rights had been violated by the Nigerian government, after the pattern of Islamic supremacists everywhere, who always claim that they are the wronged and aggrieved party. The Obama Administration, as clueless and Islam-sympathetic as ever, bought it.

“Obama Administration Threatened Nigeria with Sanctions in 2013 for Fighting Boko Haram,” by Fred Dardick, Canada Free Press, May 14, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Hillary Clinton wasn’t the only Obama administration official who went to bat for Boko Haram over the past few years.

Soon after John Kerry took over as Secretary of State, the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Terence P. McCulley, accused the Nigerian government of butchery during a confrontation with Boko Haram terrorists in Baga, a Nigerian town on the shores of Lake Chad, and in May 2013 threatened to withdrawU.S. military aid from the West African nation.

Boko Haram militants attacked a Nigerian military outpost in April 2013 outside Baga, killing one soldier. Following the three-day battle human rights activists, including the George Soros-funded and liberal aligned Human Rights Watch, which is not exactly known for its impartiality when it comes to reporting on Islamic issues, claimed the Nigerian military wantonly slaughtered 183 civilians and burned down over 2,000 homes and businesses.

The Nigerian government denied the claims saying the death toll and destruction had been vastly overstated by its enemies, and in fact 30 Boko Haram terrorists, 6 civilians and one soldier, had died in the fighting. Reports from the Baga clinic, which treated 193 people following the battle, but only 10 with serious injuries, seemed to back up the Nigerian government claim that no large-scale massacre had occurred.

The U.S. Nigerian Ambassador, blindly believing any Islamist sob story that crossed his path, responded in a May 2013 meeting with human rights activists by defending Boko Haram:

Mr. Terrence announced to the activists that the US congress had previously passed a law that bars the United States from rendering military assistance to any government that violates basic rights of citizens. He said the Obama led US government has therefore ceased to assist Nigeria militarily in obedience to the law.

The threat of military sanctions, and whether or not they were actually implemented, is an open question as there has been zero coverage of this issue in the mainstream media, may have had a chilling effect on Nigerian military operations against Boko Haram. Since Ambassador McCulley’s proclamation the Nigerian civilian death toll by Boko Haram Islamic militants has skyrocketed over the past year.

No wonder the Nigerian government was initially reluctant to accept U.S. assistance with finding the more than 200 Christian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram last month. Emboldening Nigeria’s Islamic terrorist enemies and having been already accused by the Obama administration of crimes against humanity for fighting militants who were responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths since 2010, they likely felt that Obama’s belated support was more a product of diplomatic CYA than actually caring about the fate of kidnapped Nigerian children.


Flashback 2012: Jihad Watch reports on Boko Haram threat to kidnap Christian women in Nigeria
Christian teen whose father and brother were murdered by Boko Haram denied U.S. visa
Raymond Ibrahim: Nigerian ‘Sex-Slaves’ Disrupt Obama Narrative on Islam
Trinidad Muslims travel to Venezuela for jihadist training
Hamas-linked CAIR offers free Qur’ans to counter AFDI ad about Islamic anti-Semitism

Climate Change Scientific Reality: Surviving the Next Cold Climate

The following is a series of seven short video clips of an event held in Sarasota, FL about climate change. The event was hosted by the Sarasota Patriots, an organization founded by Beth Colvin. The Sarasota Patriots brought two experts on climate policy: John Casey, President of the Orlando based Space and Science Research Corporation, and Craig Rucker, Co-founder of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). The presentation was about the science, policies and politics of climate change.

Tad MacKie recorded the entire presentation. You are encouraged to watch and carefully listen to what John Casey has discovered and proven, and what Craig Rucker and CFACT are doing about impacting public policy on climate change. The entire program is 1:35 long and is in seven 15-minute or less segments. This link will take you to the You Tube playlist for the entire series of videos. Each segment follows:

Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 1: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 2: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 3: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 4: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 5: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 6: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 7: John Casey and Craig Rucker




Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view | The Times
Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause, claims professor | Mail Online
Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US | Real Science
Report: Climate Change, Not Islam, is Catalyst for Terrorism, Arab Spring, Syrian War