U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul use the “M” word! MORATORIUM! Trump follows with ban!

Be still my beating heart!  There it is, out there—the M-word!  Several of them in fact!  Moratorium on Muslim Migration!

moratorium-logo-update-blk

I started to write this post yesterday, then spent the day running out to the doctor (nothing is fast with doctors these days, have you noticed that) and as I’m trying to read news on my phone, the Cruz and Paul news was eclipsed by The Donald news when he jumped on the bandwagon.

However, all of the news reports I was reading and hearing claimed Donald Trump was alone in his call for a ban on Muslim migration to America.  He was actually the third Presidential candidate to make that call. Trump called it a “ban,” but that sounds like moratorium to me.

This is what I started to write about yesterday from Julia Hahn at Breitbart.   She has Senator Cruz uttering the word and I heard Senator Paul say it on Fox News yesterday morning!

trump paul cruz ap ap reuters

Presidential candidates Sens. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) are demanding a halt to immigration from Muslim nations with jihadist movements.

Their fellow contender, Sen. Marco Rubio, did not call for curbs to Muslim immigration in his live response to the President address on Fox News – a response promoted by Rubio’s campaign.

Cruz tweeted that if elected president, “I will shut down the broken immigration system that is letting jihadists into our country.” Cruz elaborated in a statement:

The President should place an immediate moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence, such as Syria. I’ve introduced legislation to make this happen; it is not a desired step, but a necessary step for the security of the United States.

Similarly, Rand Paul tweeted, “While ‪@POTUS paid lip service to this fight, he plans to keep failed rules in place & allow tens of thousands of refugees to enter the US.”

“Immigration visas & refugees from countries with active terror networks must be halted while we determine how to better secure our borders,” Paul in a separate tweet. “His administration is focused on gun laws that won’t stop terrorists while pushing policies that will let more of them in the country,” Paul wrote.

Continue reading here.

Go here to see the ten Senators who might be counted on to support these calls.

Action Alert!  It is not too late, go here and follow instructions to call Congress today!  Stopping the funding for refugee resettlement is the surest way to get the job done immediately!  Details can be worked out once the money is cut off!  If they can cut off the visas too, more power to them!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Dick Cheney don’t get it! Bring in the Muslims!

Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul: ISIS has tried to infiltrate refugee stream to U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz is by AP/John Locher/Reuters/Carlos Barria/Photo montage by Salon.

Florida Sheriff: ‘Be Ready And Be Armed For Active Shooter Incidents’ [Video]

iveySome very wise suggestions from a Law Enforcement Leader who get’s it.  while not stepping into politics steps away from those who march lockstep in the effort to disarm and render defenseless law abiding citizens.

It’s telling to note this man’s honesty and understanding when he refers to himself as an armed citizen.

The Florida Family Association reports in an email titled “CAIR plays roll in President Obama’s lecturing Americans over Islamophobia”:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release hours before President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address titled “CAIR Asks President Obama to Condemn Islamophobia During Address to Nation on Terror. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is calling on President Obama to include a condemnation of rising Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation …

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release immediately following President Obama December 6, 2015 address titled “CAIR Welcomes President Obama’s Rejection of Islamophobia in Oval Office Address. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), today welcomed President Obama’s rejection of Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation … President Obama repudiated the view that there should be a war on Islam, acknowledged that the vast majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and that extremists are a “tiny fraction” of Muslims worldwide …

Islamization and radicalization are two distinct Islamist movements which threaten America. Islamization is the process of infiltrating and changing American public policy to conform to Sharia. Radicalization is the manifestation of the violence advocated by the Quran and perpetuated by Imams. Unfortunately, while radicalization garners the headlines the president and many elected officials, including Republicans, and a multitude of media moguls, including talking heads at Fox News, give Islamization a dangerous pass out of political correctness.

Politically correct public officials and media moguls call Islam a peaceful religion and say that most Muslims are moderate. However, the facts reported in the following surveys contradict such political correct supposition:

  • Eighty one (81%) percent of respondents to Al Jazeera survey say they support ISIS. In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. The poll, which asked in Arabic,“Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.
  • Center for Security Policy “Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad” was released on June 23, 2015.Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of this country. According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.   The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is the president of the Center for Security Policy.
  • Study finds that Sharia minded Imams recommended studying violence-positive texts in 84.5% of United States mosques. The study was conducted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq. who are highly regarded experts on Sharia. David Yerushalmi, Esq. who runs the American Freedom Law Center with Robert J. Muise, Esq. is called The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement … by the New York Times. Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. Survey abstract: A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

During President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address he irresponsibly scolded American’s who dare be afraid (ie Islamophobic) of Muslims who want to eliminate them simply because they are infidels. Obama’s scolding of rational American’s concern over Radicalization and Islamization reinforce political correctness which is dangerous to the public safety of all Americans. A neighbor of the two Islamists in San Bernardino witnessed them receiving suspicious packages which turned out to be used in their Jihad on innocent American citizens. The neighbor did not report the suspicious behavior out of fear of being labeled an Islamophobe. President Obama’s irresponsible address gave greater weight to erring not to be an Islamophobe over the public safety of Americans.

Little Spike Yaps Again

If an automobile is purposefully used to run over pedestrians, do you condemn the wayward motorist or do you rail against auto manufacturers for the existence of cars? I tried to find a subject to ask about that could make as little sense as a recent comment spewed forth by progressive movie director Spike Lee. Little Spike was recently yapping on an episode of CNN Tonight. He was promoting

his new movie which I will refrain from identifying. Why? Because Spike Lee stated in the interview with host Don Lemon “You have to take on the National Rifle Association” thus that is a major component of his film. The little liberal continued yapping “Well, we have to, I think that we’re at the tyranny on (sic)  the NRA and the gun manufacturers, because there’s a profit… in what they do. And that means that…they’re putting profits over a human life.”

After which, the smitten CNN host, Don Lemon showing no objectivity praised the film saying “I’d tell everybody: to go see this movie now.” It is hilarious how Little Spike Lee actually believes that gun manufacturers, the National Rifle Association and probably the second amendment recognition of our right of self-protection as the main reasons black Americans are bumping other blacks off at record rates in urban neighborhoods throughout America.

To me that makes as much sense as blaming automobile manufacturers and wealthy motorcar collectors for the actions of those who choose to use their vehicles in criminal activities such as running over pedestrians. But unfortunately, that is representative of the mindset of typical progressives like little Spike Lee. Rather than seeking to identify the authentic causes regarding the vast numbers of black Americans blasting away at other blacks throughout our republic, they foolishly on entities that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual problems they claim to be so concerned about.

One of the numerous mistakes in judgement among the many progressives like Spike Lee are guilty of is not seeking authentic solutions to problems. In addition, when it comes to laying blame, the progressives try not to blame actual evildoers for their actions. (Muslim terrorists come to mind)

American gun manufacturers are not any more guilty of black Americans murdering other black Americans than Ford Motors would be guilty of murder if a nut job driver were to plow through a group of people strolling on a sidewalk.

One of the hallmarks of a society where individual rights and liberty are trumpeted and enforced is that liberty is known to be comprised of both freedom and responsibility. In other words, you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you do not harm other individuals and, or their property. Another major reason we witness the vast numbers of blacks murdering other blacks is because for the last two generations, young people have not been properly taught in regards to right and wrong.

Also, for several liberal/progressive reasons, the family structure has been decimated throughout most of the American black community.

When I was a little boy growing up in Cleveland, my Dad (God rest his soul) stressed the need to learn the difference between good and evil and to always try and do what is right. Dad encouraged me to do good, not just for personal gain, but also for the betterment of society as a whole. The upbringing I was blessed with blows massive holes through the concepts of the liberal/progressive philosophy of today. I was raised in a home where Dad had several rather nice looking firearms. But instead of simply

squirreling them away in some dark closet where they would be totally inaccessible if they were quickly needed, Dad had a different approach which was common where I grew up.

First of all, he taught me that under no uncertain or certain terms were the weapons to be sought out to be played with, because they were not toys, but rather necessary tools. Eventually, Dad taught me how to properly shoot the firearms. He also instructed me on how to maintain them through proper cleaning.

Soon after I reached a slightly older age, none other than dear old Dad himself taught me the correct rudiments of shooting the firearms. A great follow-up was the rather in-depth instructions on the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution that Dad gave me. The most emphasis on the second amendment. He was the absolute first person to inform me that the second amendment insures the rest will remain intact.

Horrendous incidents like the San Bernardino, California terrorist attack are not logical reasons to disarm law abiding legal sovereign citizens. Hillary Clinton’s inflammatory remarks regarding closing loopholes at gun shows is not solution oriented, but rather Alinsky oriented toward shutting down our right to own and bare arms against street thugs, terrorists and government tyranny. While I am at it, don’t forget that gun free zones attract terrorists, and other assorted cowards who desire the prey upon the disarmed or weaker, like Muslims do all over the world.

Through the grace and wisdom of God almighty, may America shake herself free from the progressive mantra that only multiplies problems and return to the Providential guidance and wisdom that made the United States of America the greatest nation ever known. God bless you, God bless America and may America bless God.

Black Friday breaks record with 185,000 gun background checks

, from USA Today, reports:

More Americans had their backgrounds checked purchasing guns on Black Friday than any day in the on record, according to data released by the FBI this week.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System processed 185,345 requests on Nov. 27, one of the largest retail sales days in the country.

“This was an approximate 5% increase over the 175,754 received on Black Friday 2014,” wrote Stephen Fischer, the FBI’s chief of multimedia productions. “The previous high for receipts were the 177,170 received on 12/21/2012.”

Read more.

Is it Safe to Fly?

Saturday morning, October 31st, 2015 Flight 9268 a Metrojet Airbus A321 with 224 largely Russian tourists, and crew aboard was on a course for St. Petersburg from Sharm el-Sheikh on Egypt’s Sinai Red Sea. The aircraft reached an altitude of 31,000 feet at 430 knots, when something catastrophic occurred at 23 minutes into the flight. Communications with the pilot abruptly ended, the plane struggled to gain altitude and just as suddenly plummeted earthward with the tail section broken off and the rest of fuselage sent crashing into the desert and mountains. A flash was seen via satellite. All 224 passengers and crew aboard were killed. The crash occurred less than 300 miles from the resort area at the tip of the Sinai Peninsula at the mouth of the Red Sea. The passenger remains and aircraft debris were scattered over a wide area. All of this was recorded in real time on satellite flight status internet reports and satellite imagery. Forensic teams from Egyptian, Russian and Airbus air safety organizations were dispatched to retrieve the flight data recorders. Egyptian military and Red Crescent teams were engaged in recovery of the remains, personal effects and luggage of those killed in the crash. Grief was overwhelming at funerals held in St. Petersburg, Russia following the arrival of the remains of the victims.

Alleged ISIS soda can bomb with detonator and switch. Source: Dabig Magazine.

The immediate questions were what caused the aviation catastrophe and who may have been behind it. The forensic evidence after review of black box recordings pointed to a bomb planted in the rear baggage hold by a possible ISIS operative. A picture of a popular Schweppes soda can consumed in Egypt with a detonator and timer appeared in the ISIS monthly magazine, DabigCNN reported comments from former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expert, Anthony May indicating the improvised explosive device was capable of bringing down Metrojet Flight 9268:

The photograph showed a soft drink can and two components that appear to be a detonator and a switch, explosives expert Anthony May said.

There is a hole in the bottom of the can, which reveals a white substance inside that could be explosives, he said. The detonator would be placed through the hole.

The three components appeared to constitute a “suicide-type bomb” because the bomber would have to flip the single-throw rocker switch to detonate the bomb, May said.

May acknowledged the apparent simplicity and lethality of the bomb.

“It doesn’t take much to bring down a plane in flight if it’s placed in the most critical area of the aircraft, breaking the fuselage,” said May, a retired explosives enforcement officer with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Because the can is made of metal, “any typical security protocol should detect this via the metal detectors or via the x-rays” in an airport, May said.

“However, it’s not unlikely or impossible to separate these components, and an individual could carry separate components through security and then assemble the device on the other side,” May said.

May also cited another, “most likely” scenario for moving such a bomb through an airport: “An insider threat getting this item, circumventing security, getting it to the aircraft — if it was used on the aircraft,” May said.

The downing of the Russian airliner was done in retaliation for Russia’s airstrikes in Syria, ISIS claimed in the magazine.

Radicalization of French Muslim Airport Workers and Lack of Screening

The likelihood that poor security screenings of airport ground and tarmac personnel harboring ISIS sympathies was revealed following terrorist attacks in Paris. On November 13th ISIS trained Belgian and French born operatives in Paris equipped with Kalashnikov assault rifles and grenades killed 130 innocent civilians, injuring more than 352, 99 seriously. They perpetrated suicide bombings at a French soccer stadium, random shootings of patrons at outdoor cafes, and hostages held at a concert hall. France and the world were devastated by this ISIS attack. French President Hollande called it “an act of war” by the self-declared Islamic State. The alleged mastermind of the ISIS massacres was subsequently killed along with a female cousin and a third unidentified suspect in a massive shootout by French police who assaulted a safe house on November 18th in the predominately Muslim suburb of St. Denis, north of Paris. French President Hollande and President Obama at a White House Press Conference on November 23rd declared their solidarity endeavoring to destroy ISIS. However, French and Belgian counterterrorism authorities have raised the issue of whether Muslim airport ground and tarmac personnel are radicalized. CNN reported on November 27, 2015 that French intelligence were concerned about radicalization of airport workers as early at 2004, noting:

French intelligence services were concerned as early as 2004 about the radicalization of many airport workers at Paris’ Charles de Gaulle Airport, according to a confidential document from the French Interior Ministry.

This document, seen by CNN, targets three shipping companies operating at the airport, which is in Roissy, about 20 kilometers (13 miles) northeast of central Paris.

In 2004, the Paris Airport Authority — the authority in charge of all Paris airports — provided two prayer rooms for Muslims. But they were not being used by Islamic radicals, the document says.

Instead, the document says, there were “illegal prayer sites at the airport used by several Muslim airport workers” who at the time “belonged to mosques preaching radical Islam” in their neighborhoods on the Paris outskirts, including Argenteuil, Sevran and Bobigny.

The radical airport workers, the document says, were “easily swayed young people who are mostly Muslim,” coming from “the same neighborhood, the same cities.”

The document says that sometimes several members of the same family, who appeared to be radicalized, worked at the airport together. These families, the document said, seemed to be “the leaders of this movement.”

According to the document, some of these people “openly showed anti-American views and showed their support and enthusiasm regarding the 9/11 attacks.”

Some people working for airport cargo companies had “access to airside” — the other side of the security cordon from the street — and were “known by intelligence services as radicalized individuals and who are in a known security file ” and who traveled to “sensitive areas of the world in order to learn more about Islam.”

The French intelligence document indicated that airport workers thus radicalized had received training by Al Qaeda:

The document lists the names of several airport workers who appeared to have been radicalized after trips to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and Mali.

Some of the airport workers also appeared to be close friends with “people traveling to paramilitary training camps,” according to the document.

It mentions trips to the University of Dimaj in the city of Sa’dah, Yemen, in 1997 and 1998, where there was a paramilitary training camp financed by Osama bin Laden.

The document says the threat could be more significant because “some individuals are temporary workers” and some of them “are still unknown to the intelligence services.”

The document says these three companies worked with “10 temporary employment agencies and it is particularly difficult to monitor every single temporary airport worker.”

Dr. Jill Bellamy, Bio-warfare expert. UN Counter Terrorism Task Force.

Fresh concerns over possible CBW threats to airport security.

Dr. S. Jill Bellamy is a recognized international expert on biological warfare and a member of the United Nations Counter Terrorism Task Force. She has previously developed and run NATO sponsored policy programs on biological terrorism and has published extensively in related fields. Bellamy suggested that French Premier Valls’ expressions of concerns over possible use of CBW (chemical and biological weapons) by ISIS in terror attacks in the West were reflective of recent uses of chemical weapons by the Islamic State in Syria. She pointed out that ISIS and other Islamic terror groups like al Nusrah and Hezbollah, wouldn’t refrain from using CBW, as they simply consider them another weapon in their inventory. The October 2001 anthrax exposures at the US Senate Office Building, and US Postal Service processing facilities resulted in the deaths of five of more than 22 diagnosed cases and treatment of 27,000 USPS  employees and cleanup cost of $300 million. The Bush Administration launched an aggressive Bio-defense program increasing funding from $305 million to more than $5 billion annually over the period from 2001 to 2005. A NATO Parliamentary study of CBW detection revealed there was no fool proof method of detection. The NATO study further noted that biological agents lent themselves to terrorist use:

Biological agents attract terrorists because of their virulence, toxicity, transmissibility and lethality. They are relatively cheap to produce, sometimes readily available, and are also relatively easy to store and to transport. Moreover, besides naturally existing pathogens, terrorists could try to use engineered organisms. Experts believe that up to 1,000 toxins could be made of natural or genetic sources, although not all of them would be suitable for use as biological weapons. Pathogens are difficult to detect: they are colorless and odorless and have incubation periods, ranging from 48 hours for respiratory anthrax, to 21 days for Q-fever.

Dr. Bellamy was particularly concerned about major European and U.S. airports whose physical  configurations and proximity to transportation nodes lend themselves to possible terrorist use. Thus, given the French intelligence assessment of radicalized Muslim airport workers, trained by ISIS, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah in releases of both chemical and biological agents are an abiding concern.

What US Investigations Reveal about Airport Workers Security Screening and Contracting Practices

For the international airline industry it may have profound implications for assuring security for passengers and operations both at home and in destinations adjacent to jihadist conflict zones.  If airport or airline servicing contractors were involved, then a major security gap would be opened by this latest aviation terrorism episode and evidence of airport worker radicalization from French Intelligence.

The downing of the Metrojet with its innocent Russian victims has more than just Russian, Egyptian and Israeli concerns. From investigations by the Wall Street Journal, CNN and others,  security clearances for refugee baggage handlers, catering, and cleaning personnel with access to the tarmac and aircraft here in the US is lax. That was the subject of a Fox Newsinterview with ex-CIA Director, R. James Woolsey. Woolsey referred to the investigation conducted by Lisa Benson and her team at the National Security Task Force of America who completed a yearlong investigation into airport outsourcing contracting practices and employment of low wage refugees at more than 13 US airports. Those refugees were brought into the US under the federal Refugee Act of 1980 with annual allotments controlled by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and administered by the $2 billion Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration in our State Department. Woolsey cited the death of an American Somali ISIS Jihadi, Abdirahmaan Muhumed, in Syria in September 2014. It revealed his employment as a cleaner for Delta Global Services, Inc. which gave him security access to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Muhumed had access to the entire tarmac area where 90,000 passengers transited each day. He had been employed for a decade as first a fueler and later aircraft cleaner from 2001 to 2011 by Delta Global Services, Inc. and other airport maintenance contractors. In 2011, he was either fired or left on his own accord to fight and die for the Islamic State in Syria leaving behind 9 children born by four different women. Yet, he could pass FBI background investigation checks and with his Secure ID Area (SIDA) tag was simply waved through by security guards on to the airport tarmac without any daily screening.

This is not the only instance. A TSA Inspector General investigation found 73 screeners and technicians who were listed on US terrorist watch lists. Moreover, the TSA was found to employee refugees as translator/screeners at major airports. AnNBC Channel 5 TV News investigation at Atlanta’s airport found that hundreds of SIDA badges missing. Ambassador Woolsey’s disclosures on the Fox News report went viral with reports on CNN, MSNBC, News.Max and the Blaze.

Watch this You Tube video of the FoxNews interview with Ambassador Woolsey:

On the November 8th, 2015 Lisa Benson Show, Woolsey suggested that the U.S. transportation system was vulnerable to breaches of airline and airport security leaving little to thwart aircraft cleaners, baggage handlers or caterers from secreting possible explosives on-board flights. He referred to the 1988 Pan Am 103 Lockerbie, Scotland bombing that used a portable radio with Semtex, a general purpose plastic explosive containing RDX and PETN, in the luggage of a passenger as one example. Then there were the Shoe and Underwear Bombers who passed airline screening only to be caught on board flights when the bombs malfunctioned. There was the devilish work of the Saudi engineer for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula who filled printer cartridges with PTEN explosives which were intercepted on a UPS cargo flight in Chicago before being delivered to a local Jewish Federation office. Woolsey told Benson’s listeners that we are at war with global jihadist groups like ISIS, AQ, Hezbollah and others. Yet we don’t screen airport maintenance and TSA personnel at our peril. Richard Cutting, a member of the Benson Advisory Board who called into the program agreed with Ambassador Woolsey that in the wake of the Metrojet Flight 9268  bombing, a major Congressional investigation should be mounted into these revelations. Woolsey drew attention to what he considered as the weak responses of TSA officials who appeared at the House Government Operations and Oversight Committee hearings on November 3rd to questions about lax screening of employed personnel at ground operations at many US airports. Woolsey concluded, “If a plane goes down, or if more than one U.S. plane goes down, there goes our airline/travel industry.”

ISS Facility Services, Inc. receiving 2009 State of Utah Refugee Employer of the Year.

How International Airport Custodial and Maintenance Firms are Awarded Contracts Employing Low Wage Workers

The Lisa Benson Radio Show was spurred to conduct an investigation into problems at 13 airports in the US through a chance encounter with a Southwest Airlines pilot who attended a Republican conference in March 2014 in Sun City, Arizona. He was waiting patiently until Benson, a keynote speaker at the conference, had completed her talk. He had news about an encounter with two Somali Muslim refugees who were cleaning an aircraft at Sky Harbor airport when he noticed Arabic writing in one of the lavatories. That exchange with Benson spawned an eight month investigation into the award of a $10 million annual janitorial and maintenance contract by the Phoenix City council to a Danish company, ISS Worldwide Services A/S and its US subsidiary, ISS Facility Services, Inc. The contrast is with security conscious Israel where the airport workers are professionals in all aspects of airport service and security. The lower wage earners, the less educated, are the airport workers who present the threat to our safety in the air. That was underlined in the US with a one day work stoppage November 18-19, 2015 just before the Thanksgiving holiday by 2,000 low wage employees seeking a $15 per hour rate at seven major airport hubs in an action sponsored by the Service Employees International Union. CNN Money reported:

The workers, mostly cabin and airport cleaners, were picketing at John F. Kennedy and LaGuardia airports in New York City, as well as airports in Newark, N.J., Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and Fort Lauderdale, Fl., according to the SEIU.

ISS Worldwide employs over a half million through their outsourced network of airport and commercial facilities maintenance contracts. ISS specializes in a broad range of facility management services especially for airport authorities, municipalities and major manufacturing companies. Preliminary research revealed ISS as a major international group specializing in airport and municipal facilities maintenance outsourcing. Subsequent research by the Benson National Security Task Force team of volunteers uncovered that ISS won contracts in 13 cities often with high bids. In the case of Sky Harbor in Phoenix at least $1 million over the next lowest bidder, in Orlando more than $2.4 million and in Detroit the award at excessive cost levels above competitors resulted in a law suit against the airport authority. Those contracts were awarded not on cost, but rather on other subjective criteria. Benson then turned over the completion of investigations into the awards made to ISS to her National Security Task Force team.

During the past several years the US subsidiary of ISS has won a number of US airport facility management contracts. Among those was the one for Sky Harbor in Phoenix that prompted the comment from the Southwest Airlines flight captain, who spotted some Somalis during ground cleaning of his aircraft. ISS has tie-ins with US and foreign refugee resettlement groups hence the employment of low-wage Somalis and others. ISS may draw from this refugee pool throughout its global network, as those positions are at the bottom rung of both pay and training requirements. Further, ISS, like Delta Global Services in the Twin Cities Airport example, may have referral arrangements with major refugee resettlement voluntary agencies and major private job placement agencies in the US.

Conclusion

The late ISIS fighter Muhumed had no criminal record in the United States that would have prevented him from getting a job at the airport. This revelation following his death should raise the concerns of both the TSA and Homeland Security regarding screening of airport and aircraft maintenance personnel. Moreover, as Ambassador Woolsey noted without active community policing programs of the type implemented by former New York City Mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg, recruitment by ISIS of airport employees with the help of radical imams could not have been detected. His comment was buttressed by the release of the 2004 French intelligence report that surfaced after the November 13th, Paris ISIS attacks. Amazingly, one of the first actions of current New York Mayor Di Blasio was to request that NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton cease such intelligence programs. Thus, the downing of the Metrojet in Egypt by alleged ISIS perpetrators reverberates here in the US.

FBI Director James Comey warned that ISIS jihadis lurk among us in all 50 states. Comey has said that the FBI currently has 900 on-going investigations into ISIS persons of interest in the US. During the Thanksgiving 2015 peak travel period when 47 million Americans were on the move, the FBI launched high priority surveillance of 48 high-risk ISIS suspects. How many of those cases involve airport maintenance and TSA screening personnel, illustrates the merits of a major Congressional investigative hearing into out-sourcing contract awards, hiring and security screening practices at major US airports. All we need is just one incident to occur in the US equivalent to the downing of Metrojet Flight 9268 with a major loss of life to virtually shut down the air transportation network. It took a chance encounter at a Sun City, Arizona conference to trigger a citizens’ investigation by Lisa Benson and her National Security Task Force of America to show how vulnerable we really are to terrorist actions against the 35 million air travelers who fly our nation’s skies unguarded.

RELATED ARTICLE: Arabic graffiti found on passenger jets at French airports

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. See Jerry Gordon’s collection of interviews, The West Speaks.

Americans Want More Protections For Emails and Online Communications

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Digital 4th coalition unveiled new poll results showing broad and diverse support for stronger email privacy protections – both nationally and in early primary states. According to a survey by Vox Populi Polling, 86% of voters nationwide support an update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the 29-year-old law setting standards for government access to emails and online communications. In Iowa, 81% of Democratic voters and 74% of Republican voters are behind ECPA reform. The numbers were similar in New Hampshire, with 84% of Democrat voters and 75% of Republicans in support.

Moreover, 77% of voters across the country believe the government should be required to get a warrant from a judge before obtaining access to emails, photos and documents stored online.

“ECPA reform is overwhelmingly bipartisan and overwhelmingly supported by Americans across the country. There is tremendous momentum with more than 300 members of Congress co-sponsoring legislation requiring a warrant for emails and online communications. The legislation would simply extend Constitutional protections online,” said Gabe Rottman, Legislative Counsel and Policy Advisor at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a member of the Digital 4th coalition.

“What’s particularly illuminating is that more than three out of every four voters believe that the government needs to get a warrant before accessing emails and other online communications. Federal agencies like the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) have been advocating to circumvent the warrant requirement. It’s clear that Americans see this as nothing more than a power grab. We hope Congress stands up to federal agencies and preserves our constitutional rights online,” said Katie McAuliffe, Federal Affairs Manager at Americans Tax Reform (ATR) and member of the Digital 4th coalition.

“Support for strengthening online privacy spans across all ages, races and political affiliations. This level of support is typically unheard of in politics today. It is clear from our results that Americans want online privacy laws to be updated,” said Michael Meyers of Vox Populi Polling.

Other notable numbers from the poll include:

  • 84% of voters feel that privacy is important (63% extremely or very important) when it comes to the government accessing their online information. Only 16% of voters feel that it is not very important or not important at all.
  • 77% of voters reported that a warrant should be required to access these online communications. 78% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans supported the requirement of a warrant.
  • ECPA reform does have an effect on presidential candidate choice for a majority of American voters. 53%of all likely general election voters stated that they would be more inclined to vote for a candidate who supported strengthening online privacy through ECPA reform.

To read a memo on the full polling results, click here.

McGraw Hill Math: Intended to Confuse Parents and Students?

This is a post about a fourth-grade assignment for a Louisiana student, and given that Louisiana is under Common Core for 2015-16, it is logical to conclude that the assignment below is McGraw Hill’s effort at a Common Core math assignment for fourth grade. (I write “effort” since the worksheet appears to try to offer traditional math and satisfy Common Core at the same time.)

The assignment is about carrying in subtraction. However, the explanation of how carrying works when one cannot borrow from the next column and must “borrow in order to borrow” is a lesson in frustration.

Note that at the top of the worksheet page (posted below), McGraw Hill offers help via ConnectED, a login service offered by by McGraw Hill for its math products.

Interestingly, in July 2015, McGraw Hill decided to sell its summative (“high stakes”) testing division to Data Recognition Corp (DRC) and concentrate on classroom materials– like the math worksheet and online help featured in this post:

McGraw-Hill officials say leaving the summative and shelf testing markets will allow them to focus on products and services that more directly serve teachers and students in the classroom.

David Levin, McGraw-Hill Education’s president and CEO, said in an interview that the company’s major emphasis will be on “instructional materials, and the tools and software to make the most” of resources for students and teachers.

If we go back in time, to 2004, McGraw Hill intended to become “the leader in assessment reporting” as it acquired Common Core “architect” David Coleman’s assessment company, Grow Network, and kept Coleman on as CEO until 2007.

The best-laid assessment plans. Pity.

Let us now turn our attention to an example of the McGraw Hill math product: that fourth-grade worksheet in subtraction by carrying.

In characteristic Common Core math fashion, the explanation on the worksheet is confusing; it lacks detailed directions/illustration and therefore appears to require many parents to log in online for “homework help” (click on image to enlarge):

common core math carrying

(The above reads like some effort to cross Common Core and traditional math. Here are the Common Core math standards for grade 4, “Number and Operations in Base Ten,” for those who wish to view and compare to McGraw Hill’s worksheet.)

But let us now leave McGraw Hill, for the explanation of the same concept, for example, on dummies.comunder “How to Borrow when Subtracting” is much clearer:

In some cases, the column directly to the left may not have anything to lend. Suppose, for instance, you want to subtract 1,002 – 398. Beginning in the ones column, you find that you need to subtract 2 – 8. Because 2 is smaller than 8, you need to borrow from the next column to the left. But the digit in the tens column is a 0, so you can’t borrow from there because the cupboard is bare, so to speak: 

215818.image5

When borrowing from the next column isn’t an option, you need to borrow from the nearest non-zero column to the left.

In this example, the column you need to borrow from is the thousands column. First, cross out the 1 and replace it with a 0. Then place a 1 in front of the 0 in the hundreds column:

image6.png

Now, cross out the 10 and replace it with a 9. Place a 1 in front of the 0 in the tens column:

image7.png

Finally, cross out the 10 in the tens column and replace it with a 9. Then place a 1 in front of the 2:

image8.png

At last, you can begin subtracting in the ones column: 12 – 8 = 4:

image9.png

Then subtract in the tens column: 9 – 9 = 0:

image10.png

Then subtract in the hundreds column: 9 – 3 = 6:

image11.png

Because nothing is left in the thousands column, you don’t need to subtract anything else. Therefore, 1,002 – 398 = 604.

In the spirit of promoting practical solutions necessary for efficiently navigating life, perhaps Louisiana school districts should ditch the expense of McGraw Hill and its Common Core confusion and invest in straightforward explanations.

Common Core Sense.

Why our Schools are Failing — Part II

This is part two in a series of articles on the complex issues surrounding the national debate over the controversial Common Core.

To read Part I click here.

Our faulty, Common Core Standards

HOW THE STANDARDS WERE WRITTEN

Diane Ravich, education historian, wrote an excellent article in the Washington Post on her top reason for rejecting the Common Core standards.

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

“…the process of setting standards must be transparent, must involve all interested parties, must not be dominated by a single interest, and must include a process for appeal and revision.

The Common Core standards were not developed in a transparent manner. The standard-setting and writing of the standards included a significant number of people from the testing industry, but did not include a significant number of experienced teachers, subject-matter experts, and other educators from the outset, nor did it engage other informed and concerned interests, such as early childhood educators and educators of children with disabilities. There was no consensus process.

The standards were written in 2009 and adopted in 2010 by 45 states and the District of Columbia as a condition of eligibility to compete for $4.3 billion in Race to the Top funding.

The process was dominated from start to finish by the Gates Foundation, which funded the standard-setting process. There was no process for appeal or revision, and there is still no process for appeal or revision.

WHO VALIDATED THE STANDARDS?

At the end of the process, standards experts such as Dr. Sandra Stotsky the creator of the Massachusetts Miracle ELA Standards, and Stanford Professor, James Milgram, the creator of the highly successful California math standards, were brought in to “validate” the standards and found them so wanting, that they refused to validate them.

Rather than addressing their concerns, the experts found their names redacted from the list. Letters and calls to the leader of the project, David Coleman, were unanswered, and their warnings ignored.

WHAT DO CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND MEDICAL EXPERTS SAY?

Common Core destroys the love of learning.

We hear now a continuing refrain that testing and teaching to the test result in reduced enthusiasm for school. Many parents are heard describing aberrant behavior. They claim their children used to love school, but now experience depression and even physical symptoms such as headaches, throwing up, and angry outbursts. This article explains how the standards themselves produce this result: http://www.educationviews.org/child-clinical-psychologist-common-core-harmful-to-children-dr-megan-koschnick-compiled-by-donna-garner-9-19-13/

This video of testimony by Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Megan Koschnick explains:

  • They will lead to inappropriate standardized testing. Current state standards for young children have led to the heavy use of standardized tests in kindergarten and the lower grades,despite their unreliability for assessing children under age eight. The proposed core standards will intensify inappropriate testing in place of broader observational assessments that better serve young children’s needs.
  • Didactic instruction and testing will crowd out other important areas of learning. Young children’s learning must go beyond literacy and math. They need to learn about families and communities, to take on challenges, and to develop social, emotional, problem-solving, self-regulation, and perspective-taking skills. Overuse of didactic instruction and testing cuts off children’s initiative, curiosity, and imagination, limiting their later engagement in school and the workplace, not to mention responsible citizenship. And it interferes with the growth of healthy bodies and essential sensory and motor skills—all best developed through playful and active hands-on learning.
  • There is little evidence that such standards for young children lead to later success. While an
    introduction to books in early childhood is vital, research on the links between the intensive teaching of discrete reading skills in kindergarten and later success is inconclusive at best. Many of the countries with top-performing high-school students do not begin formal schooling until age six or seven. We must test these ideas more thoroughly before establishing nationwide policies and practices.

We therefore call on the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to suspend their current drafting of standards for children in kindergarten through grade three.”

CAN WE CHANGE THE STANDARDS?

Advocates claim they are “voluntary.”

Using the philosophy of the White House, “we should never let a crisis go to waste!” The collapse of the economy in 2008-2009 caused just such an opportunity to coerce states to adopt national education standards. The Race to the Top competition money came, but with strings attached. It required that states sign on to the Common Core Standards before Common Core Standards were available for review. They had to buy a “pig in a poke” which was described as “internationally benchmarked” and “rigorous” though neither of these claims proved true.

Worse yet, those standards were copyrighted by two unaccountable lobbying groups, and could not be changed. Yes, the contract said the states could add up to 15% more standards, but those additional standards would not be tested.

AND WHAT IF THEY CAUSE DAMAGE?

Who is responsible?

“NGA (National Governor’s Association) Center/CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers) shall be acknowledged as the sole owners and developers of the Common Core State Standards, and no claims to the contrary shall be made.”

Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer:

THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND NGA CENTER/CCSSO MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE.

Limitation on Liability:

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL NGA CENTER OR CCSSO, INDIVIDUALLY OR JOINTLY, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY LEGAL THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER FOR CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH RISK AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, LICENSEE WAIVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK LEGAL REDRESS AGAINST, AND RELEASES FROM ALL LIABILITY AND COVENANTS NOT TO SUE, NGA CENTER AND CCSSO.

There was so much concern when problems with the standards arose, you often heard educators and proponents say, “the roll-out was flawed,” or the “implementation was bad.” Grassroots activists demanded reform, and some states pretended to give it to them, including Florida, where the name was changed to the “Florida Standards” when less than 1% was added to the standards and would still not be part of the testing. Books labeled Common Core were still being used, and High Stakes Tests still were designed to Common Core Standards.

When Oklahoma finally passed legislation to end Common Core Standards in their state, the Obama Administration sued them and denied federal funds: . http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/08/28/obama-administration-punishes-oklahoma-for-repealing-common-core-standards/

So much for being “voluntary,” or “state-led.”

Oklahoma won this battle and funding was restored.

ARE COMMON CORE STANDARDS EVEN LEGAL?

So if Common Core standards were not voluntary or state-led, what legal authority does the Federal Government have in any aspect of education? After all, the United States Constitution reserves this authority to the “States and to the People.”

Additionally, there are three specific laws that prevent federal involvement:

“the General Education Provisions Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), ban the Department from directing, supervising, or controlling elementary and secondary school curriculum, programs of instruction, and instructional materials.”

SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO REGAIN LOCAL CONTROL?

Oklahoma legislators stood strong against threats and coercion of the Federal bullies. They defeated their illegal intrusion. Activist, Jenny White, who was one of the leaders of the movement, wrote this letter about the methods and experience.

She demonstrated that moms and dads, grandmas and grandpas, and concerned citizens can win.

Nullification is a means by which unconstitutional laws can be removed. The logic is that the Constitution is the foundation of our laws. When governments write laws that conflict with the Constitution, they are null and void, but it is the responsibility of courts to determine this.

The Cato Institute agrees that states can nullify illegal Federal Laws, but only if the courts agree that, indeed, the federal law is unconstitutional, as it did in the case of Oklahoma.

Now that we have a precedent, let’s get going and find local leaders, school boards and legislators who will stand with our children and our future and reject the Unconstitutional, illegal, unworkable, and unaffordable Common Core.

A Letter to the Next President

To: The 45th President of the United States
From: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Dear 45,

Welcome to the neighborhood! Well, not quite yet, but you’ll have to forgive us for being excited. A new administration represents a potential fresh start for America, and on behalf of the U.S. business community, we’re eager to work with you. After all, there’s a lot of important work ahead.

Dear 45 logo

Of course, we don’t yet know your name, nor do we know what party you represent. But that’s not what’s important. We’re interested in talking policy, not politics, and we hope you are, too. Because if we’ve learned anything over the past century, it’s that entrepreneurs and small business owners don’t think in terms of left and right, liberal and conservative; they’re too busy thinking about their next sale, their next client, their next hire – and they need policies that help them get there.With that in mind, we want to take the opportunity to introduce you to the issues that are most important to the employers, executives and entrepreneurs who will soon call you their president. So over the next year, as you traverse the campaign trail, we’ll be sending letters your way to get you up to speed on some of the most important issues, so that you’re ready to hit the ground running on Day One.

These ideas include bipartisan proposals for streamlining and improving our nation’s unruly regulatory system. This “fourth branch” of government has grown so massive and intrusive that it is driving jobs away, discouraging business investment and stifling small businesses. The good news is that there are ways we can cut through all that red tape without shortchanging the health and safety protections Americans need.

In addition, U.S. businesses will benefit from your leadership abroad. They need a president who is committed to building stronger ties with our partners overseas, paving the way for more exports of American goods around the world – including a portion of our vast energy resources. They also need a president who will stand up for their interests in foreign countries, helping to protect their investments andintellectual property.

On other important issues, you won’t be able to go it alone. You’ll have to work hand-in-hand with Congress, and, as we have seen in recent years, that can be easier said than done. That’s why it’s so important you arrive ready and willing to forge a cooperative relationship with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Only then can we break through the gridlock in Washington.

Working with Congress, it will be up to you to set an agenda that addresses our country’s most important unfinished business, including modernizing our immigration rules while protecting our borders, cementing a long-termtransportation and infrastructure plan, rewriting our tax code, and securing entitlement programs through reasonable, sustainable reforms. Business leaders also will be counting on you and lawmakers to address serious shortcomings in recent efforts to reform our health care and financial services sectors, as well as to promote changes to the U.S. education system that better prepare tomorrow’s workforce for tomorrow’s job market.

These are just a few of the many issues on which our nation’s businesses will look to you for leadership. It won’t be easy, but then, easy isn’t what you signed up for when you announced your candidacy. You signed up to lead the most free and most prosperous nation in the world – a country that celebrates risk, rewards hard work and embodies the spirit of free enterprise.

We may not always agree, but we’ll always be straightforward with our advice and we’ll always strive to work together.

But you’re not alone. We’ll be here to help, and we’re right across the street. We may not always agree, but we’ll always be straightforward with our advice and we’ll always strive to work together. No matter what problems our country may face, we hope you’ll remember that America’s businesses can be a big part of the solution.

So please keep an eye out for more correspondence from us. In the meantime, best of luck out there on the campaign trail. We’re ready to get to work, and we know you are, too.

Until next time,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce signature

 

Senator Marco Rubio straddling the fence on Muslim refugees/Muslim migration

Julia Hahn has another good piece at Breitbart yesterday (hat tip: Joanne) on the refugee resettlement controversy and how it is roiling the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Haven’t we seen what happens when a boy runs this country?  And, so I can’t believe that any thinking person could say that Florida Senator Marco Rubio is ready for the job—don’t you think it’s time for an alpha male?  (O.K. throw tomatoes, eggs, whatever at me, I said it and stick by it!).

Somali terror woman

This Somali refugee woman was convicted of terror funding in Minnesota in 2013.

Here is Hahn about what Senator Rubio said yesterday in an interview with Chris Wallace:

In a surprising twist in the 2016 election, presidential aspirant Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has proposed a new plan for helping President Obama resettle Syrian refugees in the United States.

Under Rubio’s new proposal, outlined on FOX News Sunday, the United States would focus on resettling the oldest and youngest refugees inside the United States, including those orphaned and widowed in what has become an Islamist battleground.

Rubio argued these refugees could be admitted under the “commonsense” test: “the 5-year-old orphan, a 90-year-old widow, and well-known Chaldean priest, these are obviously commonsense applications, and you can clearly vet them just by commonsense.”

This new tactic may be a politically risky one for Senator Rubio, as an outright majority of all voters oppose any Syrian resettlement—and, according to Rasmussen, 65 percent of conservative voters want zero refugees admitted into the U.S. from the Middle East.

Rubio cannot be trusted on immigration, the most important issue this country faces, or may ever face!

rubio

Continue reading here and consider a few additional points.

Once the women (not all will be old because they won’t leave the young mothers and bring in the children) are admitted they can apply, under the present refugee program, for their family members to join them (this is called chain migration).  In 2008, the Wall Street Journal first reported the shocking (maybe not so shocking!) news that thousands of Somalis had entered the US illegally by claiming a relationship to those already here.  The family reunification (P-3) was closed by the US State Department for years, but is now wide open again.

We covered the discovery and aftermath extensively, here.  The fraud was originally reported at the Wall Street Journal in August of 2008.

Even for those who say the State Department could now catch the fraudsters, does anyone really think that the women and children won’t be quickly applying for more family members to join them.  On what grounds would the husbands be refused?

~ Hahn discusses it, but I want to reiterate that it is the next generation of a refugee family where the jihadist recruitment is happening.  The parents might pass security checks while it is those little children (grown up) we raised and educated with our tax dollars who are thumbing their noses at your generosity and heading off to join al-Shabaab and ISIS.  Remember this?  Just a few news stories beginning back in 2008!

~And, what on earth makes Rubio think that American taxpayers are willing to bring in old women who will be placed immediately on Supplemental Social Security? See here, once and for all—-refugees over 65 years old are eligible for benefits under SSI!

~Hahn mentions Senator Rand Paul who was brave back in 2013 when he realized refugee terrorists had been resettled in his home town and wondered out loud why we were bringing in all the Iraqis and putting them on welfare.  He has since stopped asking that question, why?  Here is our complete archive on Rand Paul and Iraqi refugees.   See especially here and here (what role did Grover play in dissuading Paul from earlier critical comments?).

Following that Syrian refugee “vetting” shiny object?

And, my final thought as I watch and listen to Syrian refugee news on TV and on radio:  Are we being distracted (I know Trump is!) by the Syrian refugee resettlement plan at a point in time when we are bringing in thousands of other Muslim refugees who frankly can’t be screened much better—thousands and thousands of Somalis and Iraqis for instance (Uzbeks, Rohingya and Afghans too)?

I think the average American (watching TV) is thinking that the Syrians are the only refugees we are bringing in from the Middle East and Africa, and it isn’t helping them understand the serious implications of resettlement when they think the resettlement is in the future and that Obama is to blame—Republicans have supported the migration for decades as well!  They are here!

And, on the vetting issue, we have plenty of evidence that the youngsters are growing up radicalized (more devout!) in the US and the West generally, so let’s stop talking about vetting for just a few minutes!

3 Mistakes Free Marketers Often Make by Sandy Ikeda

Libertarians like to think of themselves as economically literate, at least when compared to other political groups, and for the most part, I believe that’s true. But there are at least three mistakes that I keep hearing even libertarians make when talking about the free market.

Mistake #1: “The free market doesn’t need regulation.”

One of the dangers of talking with someone who disagrees with you, or sometimes even with someone who seems to agree with you, is that you talk past each other. I find that’s true in discussions about regulation.

Even among libertarians, whether and to what extent we need government regulation — for example, to prevent environmental catastrophe, to prosecute violent criminals, to defend against territorial aggression — is a subject of heated debate.

We’re fooling ourselves if we think that even in a free market, there won’t be unscrupulous sellers who will try to sell to unsuspecting buyers unsafe food and drugs, dangerous cars, and shoddy housing, or that there won’t be unscrupulous buyers who will try to cheat unsuspecting sellers with false claims about their ability to pay.

In the real world, knowledge is imperfect. It’s impossible always to know when someone is telling the truth, and people are vulnerable to opportunists. Such unsociable behavior, if not restrained by internal norms, requires external constraints — regulation — of some kind. But even libertarians too often concede that regulation means expanding the role of the state.

If, by “regulation,” we mean external constraints on harmful behavior by buyers and sellers, then people in free markets do need regulation to protect them. The mistake is to assume that only government — that is, a monopoly over the legitimate initiation of violence — can do the regulating.

Free markets unleash forces not only to lower costs and to innovate; they also unleash the resourcefulness of ordinary people to regulate antisocial behavior.

Mistake #2: “Markets will regulate themselves.”

Now, this statement isn’t a mistake if you understand that it’s shorthand for a more complex argument. The trouble is, to someone innocent of basic economics, it makes the free market sound like a magical black box. Worse, opponents of the free market like to twist it into the straw-man idea that sellers and buyers will exert enough self-control to regulate themselves individually, or that markets would form trade associations to maintain the quality and practices of members — which is true sometimes, but not always.

Better, then, to spell things out.

In a free market, a great deal of potentially unscrupulous behavior by sellers and buyers is indeed restrained by constraints that we internalize, called “norms.” They’re lessons we learn, usually early in life, about why it’s important to trust and to be trustworthy, and to be honest and play fair even when no one is looking. A free market wouldn’t flourish without these “non-market foundations of market processes.”

Again, while necessary, they won’t always be enough to keep buyers and sellers in line, and so we do need regulation. But…

In a free market, the heavy regulatory lifting, the lion’s share of constraining unscrupulous behavior, comes not from government but from competition. Competition pressures buyers and sellers to be trustworthy and to make fair and attractive deals or else risk losing business to their rivals.

So what does this market competition consist of?

Mistake #3: “Buyers and sellers compete with each other.”

In a free market, buyers do not compete with sellers, nor do sellers compete with buyers. In a free market, buyers compete with other buyers to offer sellers the best deal, and sellers compete with other sellers to offer buyers the best deal.

Now, because buyers and sellers often find themselves sitting on opposite sides of the bargaining table — when buying a car, selling a house, or closing a business deal — we sometimes associate that with market competition. It is not. There’s a difference between a buyer and a seller bargaining within a range of prices and the competition among buyers and buyers and among sellers and sellers that creates that price range.

Let’s say Jack would sell his house for as low as $100,000, and Jill would pay as much as $125,000 for it. Within those terms of trade, Jack and Jill will bargain for the best price from their point of view and, if the exchange is voluntary, both will gain from the transaction. But if Ralph would sell a similar house to Jill for $90,000, that would certainly help Jill (at the expense of seller Jack). Or if Alice would pay Jack as much as $140,000, that would certainly help Jack (at the expense of buyer Jill). Bargaining happens in the interstices left over from competition. And notice that competition disrupts bargaining situations, as happens when an OPEC cartel bargaining agreement gets disrupted by competition from non-OPEC oil producers.

Putting It All Together

So why isn’t government regulation superior to regulation via competition, especially when knowledge is imperfect and buyers and sellers are vulnerable?

First, markets do not require accurate and complete knowledge to work. Quite the contrary. Buyers and sellers have an incentive to discover mistakes and profit from them. If Jill erroneously thinks she can’t do any better than paying $100,000 for a house, Ralph has an incentive to see this and undersell Jack, keeping Jill from paying too much. Competition is an error-discovery and error-correction process.

Second, even if the men and women in government are no more or less selfish than the buyers and sellers they regulate, why should they have better information than profit-seeking buyers and sellers on the market, and why should they have a greater incentive to acquire it? If a product is defective, who is more likely to discover and correct the problem: a self-interested regulator who can’t profit from doing so, or a host of self-interested competitors who could profit from offering a better product?

Third, who effectively regulates the regulators? What checks and balances there are in government — voting, party politics, whistle-blowing — are cumbersome and much less effective than regulation by consumers and producers. And how do you make sure that the coercive power you give to good government regulators doesn’t get misused by opportunistic and self-interested regulators?

In the market, buyers regulate buyers and sellers regulate sellers via peaceful, competitive rivalry. In government, such an effective error-correction process is absent.

Sandy Ikeda
Sandy Ikeda

Sandy Ikeda is a professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

3 Essential Hans Rosling Videos for Thanksgiving by Daniel Bier

Hans Rosling is a Swedish doctor and statistician, and in his many talks and videos, he clearly and eloquently presents big-picture data about the world, human progress, and economic development.

Here are three essential Hans Rosling videos that make me grateful and excited to be alive today.

1) The Magic Washing Machine

2) 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes

3) Most of the World Is Better Off than You Think

What caused this explosion in living standards, in wealth, in life itself? Why did this happen where and when it did?

Well, as a bonus, here’s science writer Matt Ridley and economist Deidre McCloskey:

Everybody Is Working for Everybody Else

Why Does 1% of History Have 99% of the Wealth?

Daniel Bier
Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier is the editor of Anything Peaceful. He writes on issues relating to science, civil liberties, and economic freedom.

There is Nothing New Under the Sun

King Solomon of Israel is known as the wisest man who ever lived.   So when one observes the struggle between good and evil, liberty and tyranny, communism and capitalism, unalienable rights and sharia law, one thing rings true.  That there is absolutely nothing new under the sun as King Solomon wisely stated.  The current state of affairs in our republic turned mob rule democracy is not unique to America.

The British Empire was once so vast that the sun was always shining on a land possession of that famous nation, whose territories once spanned all the way around the entire globe.  The Roman Empire, whose ancient roads were so well constructed that many of them are still used today influenced the entire known world at the time of her past glory.

The United States of America became the greatest nation in the history of the world.  Not just because great men sought religious freedom, but also because they realized that both freedom and liberty did not come from government, but rather from God, who’s son saves us from Satan’s vow of death and damnation, if we choose it.  One of the common traits of those who reside in great, prosperous and overall blessed nations is a never say die attitude.

For example, it did not matter what life presented to those historic figures who landed at Plymouth Rock and dedicated their new found home to God and regularly sought His wisdom and general guidance.  Those men and women who left the familiar confines of Great Britain refused to be inhibited by so-called limitations.  Against all odds and obstacles they persevered, overcoming the fear of the unknown, natural disasters and disease to plant the seeds of greatness that would later grow into the United States of America.

Another familiar trait of those who achieve greatness is not giving into situations or even naysayers who present themselves as harbingers of hopelessness in the midst of someone’s mission to secure a particular goal.  In prior generations, it did not matter what tragedy the men and women of destiny, there were no mountains too high to climb, oceans to wide to cross, or other impossible odds to overcome and eventually secure what they set out to achieve.

That onetime common trait of never say die or getting tough when the going gets rough has in recent years become less adhered to among the American population of today.  One of the primary reasons has been a multi-generational effort between big government and government schools to dissuade sovereign individuals from their God given unalienable rights and turn them into improperly focused wards of the politically correct state.  That is one of the major reasons why the United States of America has suffered the misfortune of falling like a rock from greatness over the past several years.

Far too many of our fellow countrymen and women have chosen to sit idly by while those who clamor for the power to dismantle the very bedrock of this country forge ahead in their dastardly mission.  One of their main goals is to drive out constitutional guidelines and even God himself from the fabric of society.

The good news is that in recent months, more and more Americans are refusing to be corralled by their real or imagined limitations.  Whether one is in favor of Donald Trump becoming president or not, he has in a sense rekindled a real spark of interest in the affairs of our republic among Americans, who for too long have been cornered by stupid limitations.  Whether the limitations are fear, apathy, indifference or just plain ignorance concerning the times we live in.

The Trump and to a lessening degree, Carson phenomenon is a great first step away from the limitations that have hampered far too many sovereign citizens for much too long.  Both Dr. Carson and Donald Trump are admirable contemporary examples of letting go of their limitations.  They did not allow any possible setbacks to become the standard or roadmap for their lives.

As we Americans refuse to allow our limitations to define us or the direction our republic takes in the coming months and years, we can begin to step out in faith to break off the negative limitations.  Of course, not only in our personal lives but throughout our great republic as well.

Among the premier limitation destroyers is first believing and knowing that you were created by a loving and patient God who endowed you with unalienable rights that government cannot obstruct or dare to take away.

“We the People” can no longer be a direct or indirect part of the problems besetting our republic.  Even by just sitting idly by and doing nothing is a form of approving of the destructive mission of those helping president Obama fundamentally change America.  It is now high time to shake up the status quo of progressivism inspired destruction that has been the decades long mission of far too many misguided victims of government school indoctrination, weak parental instruction and inept church teachings.

Let us put an end to the mind inhibiting practices of common core, agenda 21 etc. etc. not only of individuals, but the republic as a whole.  Just remember, that by the grace and blessings of God, you are limitless in your potential to be all that you can be and so is America, still the greatest nation ever.  Remember there is nothing new under the sun including you God given potential as a great American overcomer.  God Bless You, God Bless America and May America Bless God.

From Bitcoin Skeptic to Evangelist by Amanda B. Johnson

Bitcoin evangelist, FEE’s director of digital development, and Liberty.me founder Jeffrey Tucker was not always a Bitcoin believer. He initially struggled with how a non-tangible item could possibly qualify as money, much less “sound money.”

But Bitcoin’s persistence as a medium of exchange kept Tucker on a fiery path of research which eventually lead to a crypto-romance that everyone in the libertarian world is familiar with.

Bitcoin.com (BC): What and when was your first experience with Bitcoin?

Jeffrey Tucker (JT): It was 2011 when I first started receiving submissions on Bitcoin, to be published on an economics website. I couldn’t understand the technical details, and I was biased against it. I didn’t believe you could make money from code. So I turned them down. Big mistake.

And that’s where I stood until February 2013. A group of bitcoiners surrounded me and made me an owner. My doubts began to fade. I later spent some Bitcoin online. That experience converted me. Over the following months, I wrote a dozen or so articles on the topic.

I was surprised that I was pretty much alone in my opinions in my neck of the woods. I received a torrent of criticism.

Part of the problem for me intellectually is that while I was convinced Bitcoin was real, I didn’t really have a handle on the source of its value. It took me another year to figure out that puzzle. I’m finally satisfied that I’ve figured it out.

In the early days after actually becoming a Bitcoin owner, I finally had to ask myself whether I would believe my own theories or the evidence of my experience. I went with my experience, and that caused a shift in my own thinking.

I got a hard lesson in humility: markets are indeed smarter than intellectuals.

This is why no one should ever stop looking outside the window and observing the way the world works. Markets are our best teachers.

BC: As an economist, you report that you struggled with the ’moneyness’ aspect of bitcoin for two whole years. Briefly describe the Austrian theory of money, your initial response to Bitcoin’s having value as money, and the eventual conclusion you reached as to why it meets Austrian theories of money.

JT: I had long believed that the only possible money that could enter the world had to grow organically from bartered goods. As I began to reread in the market literature — Menger, Mises, Rothbard, Hayek — I realized that they never said this precisely. What they said is that money emerges from exchange involving goods with use value. It didn’t have to be barter, and it didn’t have to be physical goods. The source of value emerged from people actually using something, and that can be a good or a service.

This is where it clicked for me. The Blockchain has enormous use value.

Once that became obvious, the monetary marker that caused the Blockchain to work — namely Bitcoin — became the expression of that value, and hence money.

Further, I found that all these thinkers had anticipated that moneyness doesn’t happen overnight. It comes about gradually through entrepreneurial experience. Something can work as money in one place but not in another, for some transactions but not for all. This is precisely the experience of Bitcoin. It is following the same path as every other money in history. It is not different in that sense. Bitcoin brings the efficiency of advanced technology to one of the world’s oldest institutions.

BC: In your book Bit by Bit: How P2P is Freeing the World, you describe commercial transactions as literal acts of love. Explain.

JT: Love is the coming together of two people with volition and intention, and the results of love are always greater than the sum of the parts that go into creating it. The value of each is multiplied in the cooperation of spirits.

If one person defects, the love ends. It is the same with trade. We own. We exchange. The results are that each person is better off.

But in order to realize this enhanced state of being, you have to have the volition of each party engaged. That’s when the magic takes place. Even though nothing in the physical world has changed, you enter into a new state of mind where a new level of valuation exists. That’s a very beautiful thing, and the least appreciated merit of an exchange economy.

BC: Some have likened Bitcoin to a gun – a tool that’s just as useful for doing evil as doing good. Do you think this comparison is accurate? Why or why not?

JT: I suppose the same can be said of knives, rope, or bricks. It’s a bit of a trivial point. The main thing is that we need a monetary technology always. And we need one that is keeping up with technological trends.

Our national monies are extremely old fashioned, having been nationalized for 100 years, while our payment systems are half a century out of date. This is unsustainable. Bitcoin has been invented and won’t be uninvented. It is on an inexorable march toward mainstream acceptance.

BC: You seem to agree with Roger Ver that large modern wars have been the direct result of the monopolization of money by central banks. But many disagree that privatized money like Bitcoin will do anything to prevent wars. Why are they wrong?

JT: If Bitcoin is to prevent wars, a number of things need to happen. National monies will have to keep up their near universal use and surrender to cryptocurrencies. I can see this happening, but that future is way down the road. National monies will not entirely disappear of course, not under any scenario. They will always be used for taxes, always be spent by governments.

But reduced circulation of the dollar does make it less effective as a tool for funding large-scale spending programs via inflation. And let me say this too: there is no question that central banking and total war are linked.

BC: Bitcoin is in the larger category of distributed networks, which your book describes in detail. How do you see the world changing in light of the advent of the distributed network?

JT: Distributed networks change so much, perhaps everything. As capital, it is not owned by any one institution, which is amazing. And yet it puts massive economic power into the hands of the individual. The great economic debate really came down to: which is worse, big government or big corporations? That’s a terrible way to frame the debate but we weren’t able to avoid it.

Maybe that won’t be the main question in the future. Maybe the question will be: which is better, universal and distributed capital or centralized institutions of all sorts? We can win this one. It changes the political dynamic. Suddenly everyone has so much to lose from the continuation of monopolization policies.

BC: For those who’d like to understand more of the sound money and property rights theories (i.e. Austrian) as they apply to cryptocurrency, what further reading do you recommend?

JT: I would strongly suggest F.A. Hayek’s “Denationalization of Money” from 1974. I think that’s the best. Satoshi’s White Paper should be reread every few months. Then I would recommend Murray Rothbard’s What Has Government Done to Our Money?

This interview is reprinted from Bitcoin.com.

Amanda B.  Johnson
Amanda B. Johnson

Amanda is the writer and kindly host of The Daily Decrypt.

Reversing the Muslim Tide

In the days following the horrific slaughter of innocent men, women, and children by radical Islamists in Paris, small groups of Syrian refugees have been  detained in unlikely ports of entry throughout the western hemisphere.  Eleven Syrian refugees, traveling with fake passports, were detained in Paraguay; 5 Syrians, traveling with stolen Greek passports, were arrested in Honduras; 3 Syrian men, traveling with fake Greek passports, were arrested on the Caribbean Island of St. Maarten after traveling through Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti; and 8 Syrians were arrested after making it as far as the INS border checkpoint at Laredo, Texas,

Is it my imagination, or is there a pattern developing here?  Is it pure coincidence that so many Syrians were detained in unlikely western hemisphere locations while trying to enter the U.S. illegally?  Could it be that they were acting under orders from ISIS to make their way into the U.S. for purposes of committing acts of terrorism?  And if these four insurgencies were detected, how many others went undetected?

In the meantime, Barack Obama’s plan to import more than 100,000 Islamic refugees per year has drawn strong opposition across the country.  While Republican presidential candidates argue that the 10,000 Syrian refugees now destined for resettlement should be barred from entering the U.S. until a fail-safe vetting formula can be developed, Democrats argue that U.S. immigration officials should simply trust the refugees to answer truthfully when asked whether or not they represent an existential threat to the American people.

In light of a great many vicious terror attacks, both here and abroad, the American people are understandable frightened and are unwilling to accept additional large numbers of Muslims into our country.  Unfortunately, members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, fail to recognize that the question of whether or not to admit additional Muslims has already been decided in the negative.  What I have suggested in recent columns is that, if the intent of the current law is unclear, the Congress should rewrite sections of the Communist Control Act of 1954, a statute that has not been overturned by the courts and is still in force, to read as follows:

 SEC. 1. PURPOSE.  The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence.  Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.                                                                                  

SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS.  Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose it is to overthrow the government of the United States, or to force the political or religious conversion of its people by force or violence, or threats thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded.

This amendment to the Communist Control Act of 1954 would serve to reinforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 414, which effectually bars any and all Muslims from either entering or residing in the United States.  That law, otherwise known as the McCarran-Walter Act, is still on the books.  And while it has not been enforced by recent administrations, Democrat or Republican, it is sufficient to protect the American people from attacks such as those carried out on September 11, 2001, and subsequent atrocities.

Chapter 2, Section 212, of the McCarran-Walter Act contains numerous provisions which bar  Muslims from legally entering or residing in the United States.  For example, Islam permits Islamic men to marry up to four wives.  And although fewer than 2% of Muslim men have multiple wives, the practice of polygamy is permitted under Islamic law.  Section 212(11) of the McCarran-Walter Act prohibits all aliens who are polygamists, or who practice polygamy, or who  advocate the practice of polygamy, from entering or residing in the United States.

Section 212(19) of the Act bars entry to any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.

Section 212(27) of the Act bars all aliens “who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally, to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.”

Section 212(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens who are anarchists, or who have at any time been  members of or affiliated with, any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.

In addition, the McCarran-Walter Act contains provisions for a reporting system whereby all aliens are required to report their current address to the INS each year.  It also establishes a central index of aliens in the U.S. for use by security and enforcement agencies… much as Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson have suggested.

Section 212 of the Act makes irrelevant any current debate or legislative proposal that would restrict or delay the entry of large numbers of Middle Eastern refugees.  Section 212 concludes by saying, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

In other words, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Muslims are prohibited from obtaining visas to enter or immigrate to the United States, and it gives Obama the authority to do exactly what the American people want him to do… i.e. suspend any further immigration of Muslim refugees to the United States.

Muslim immigration is prohibited under McCarran-Walter because the Koran and Sharia Law require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.  All those who subscribe to the Koran as their guiding principle, by definition, subscribe to Islam and its form of government.  Most liberals and Democrats insist that Muslims cannot be prohibited from entering the U.S. because Islam, as a religion, is a protected class under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.  However, Islam is not merely another religious denomination.  Islam is a complete social, political, economic, legal, judicial, and military system with a religious component.  As such, it is totally incompatible with principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  Islam does not, and cannot, merit 1st Amendment protections.

When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was sent to President Harry Truman for his signature, he vetoed the bill.  However, his veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate.  Speaking in support of a veto override, Senator Pat McCarran (D-NV), a principal author of the Act, said what any Republican of today might say.  He said, “I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization, and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished.  I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors.  However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary, are its deadly enemies.”

He concluded by saying, “Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain.  The solution to the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.  I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.”

How prophetic!  The enemies of America have been highly successful in “riddling our system to pieces,” and never before has the “last flickering light of humanity” been in greater danger of being extinguished than it is today.  What is needed is not a temporary halt to immigration by the “hard-core, indigestible blocs” that now threaten us, but a reversal of the immigration that has taken place since the McCarran-Walter Act became law in 1953.  So long as radical Islamists insist upon achieving world domination through acts of unspeakable violence, and so long as so-called “moderate” Muslims merely look on as bystanders, peace-loving peoples must insist that Muslims settle their age-old differences in total isolation, in their own barren lands.

If and when a new immigration bill comes before Congress for a veto override, Republicans would be well advised to resurrect the wise counsel of their 1953 colleague, Pat McCarran.