Why Jesus’ Name? Why Not Allah When People Curse?

This is An Answer to World Net Daily’s Editor Joseph Farah’s question: What if filmmakers used ‘Allah’ as a curse word? Editor Joseph Farah cites Ray Comfort who interviewed people on the street, asking if they ever cursed using Jesus’ name? Most have, but they deny using Allah’s name that way. Why?

Farah acknowledges a historical figure that Christians know as Jesus Christ. They believe he fulfilled Bible prophecy to die the death that we deserve in our place to reconcile us to God who loves us and forgives our sins when we accept His love and plan of salvation that includes seeking His help to live for Him and truth as we progressively understand it.

But why do people, who don’t even believe in Christ, use his name to curse or swear? We might consider the Bible teaching that as humans, we wrestle against powers of darkness—demons who seek to control us. It’s not hard to find examples of some who have given the control of their lives to demonic forces in areas of alcohol, drugs, appetite, sex, perversions, crime, greed, gambling or hatred.

That’s a reality of life in this world, but why is the name of Jesus connected to a loss of self-control? We are not to take God’s name in vain. We have heard others say, God damn it, vainly asking God to forbid what just happened.

Actually God is a generic word translated from the Hebrew word, El, Eloha,  or Elohim meaning God. But “God” is not a name. According to Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian,  in his classic book, Wars of the Jews, the “sacred name [engraven on the High Priest’s golden crown]…consists of four vowels.”

This impacts our topic of Christ’s name, because Christ said, “I am come in my Father’s name and you receive me not. If another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.” John 5:43.

If the Father’s name was Zeus, then Italians say it right as they pronounce Christ’s name as Yea Zeus! In Latin America they pronounce the Savior’s name as Hey Zeus. We say Gee Zus!

But the Father’s name was not Zeus. Zeus was the savior god of Greek mythology who saved everyone who appealed to him with no need of repentance. Philosophically, this idea appeals to most people in our world and is why, in the end-times, “when another shall come in his own name [Zeus], Jesus will be personated by the devil who will sit in the [rebuilt] temple and claim homage from the whole world as 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 supports, though it does not mention the name.

God’s plan of salvation is not based on a simple appeal and claim in the name of Jesus. It is based on “a deal” we make with Christ to give him our lives so that he becomes Lord as well as Savior. Many don’t understand it that way, but in the end, we must repent of our way of doing things and choose his ways, not living in sin, but saving us from it. A life of repentance is proof of God’s power to save.

Because there are demons struggling for the mastery of every human being (Ephesians 6:12), when we lose self-control and exclaim, Jesus Christ! or God damn it, we may be reflecting a demon force that  acknowledges his master as an odd form of praise.

Moishe Rosen is author of Y‘shua the Jewish way to say Jesus. Why is it a “Jewish way to say Jesus”? Because Jews know the real Messiah could not have been named Jesus. There is no J letter or sound in the Hebrew language. Jesus is a translated name, but names (proper nouns) should not be translated. They should be transliterated to give the same sounds. President Bush was not called “little shrub” in China. They called him Bush so he would recognize his name.

Oddly enough, Christ said “Not one yod” should pass from the law (which had God’s name) but translators removed God’s entire name which began with a yod. As the introduction to the Goodspeed Bible says, Wherever we see LORD or GOD in all caps, translators removed God’s name (four vowels). Can we see a problem for those who think the King James Bible is perfect?

Jerusalem

Jerusalem burning.

The apostle Paul encountered the Greeks on Mars Hill who had many gods–they even had one image to the Unknown God. Paul wanted to tell them about God and he later commented, “the times of this ignorance God winked at, but commands everyone to repent in a time of judgment.” Acts 17:30,31.

When we know better, we should go by the best information we have. This is safe. God knows our intent, and the times ahead will test our willingness to suffer for His name when the vast majority will acclaim the name of Jesus when the savior is impersonated by one working miracles on the throne in Jerusalem. When it happens, the biggest clue to his identity will be his name, a derivative of Zeus.

This is not an issue now, but it will be then, or why would God have taken the trouble to encode the true name of the Savior in the Old Testament prophecies in equidistant letter sequences as explained in a book titled Yeshua Is My Name by Yacov Rambsel? This is explained by Grant Jeffrey in his book, The Signature of God on Jeffrey’s website, though Jeffery does not understand Jesus and Yeshua are not equal, though they are treated as equal for now by those who don’t understand the above issue.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Onderwijsgek. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Netherlands license.

Hawaii: Teachers Bribed with $410 to Learn How to Make Teens Gay-Friendly?

The Southern Poverty Law Center recently conducted a voluntary two-day training session in Hawaii for teachers interested in piloting the “Perspectives” program. The workshop was meant to precede a research portion in which participating teachers incorporate the materials into their classrooms and then provide the center with feedback. Twenty-eight teachers participated in the workshop and volunteered to teach the lessons to their students, according to DOE spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz.

Hawaii is one of just six school districts to pilot the program. Roughly 200 teachers are formally taking part nationwide, according to Costello, while another 500 or so are informally experimenting with the materials and providing feedback.

The teachers received $160 in compensation from the DOE for participating in the Saturday workshop, as is standard under department policy. They got an additional $250 stipend from the Southern Poverty Law Center for attending the session and helping the center with its research.

McDermott describes that second stipend as “a bribe.”

“I am unaware of any circumstance under which a private, nongovernmental entity can make such large, direct payments to teachers without running afoul of ethical standards,” McDermott wrote in his memo to the DOE. “It would be equally troubling if the tea party of the conservative Focus on the Family were allowed to similarly influence public teachers and educators in their decision-making regarding curricula.”

Les Kondo, executive director of the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, declined to comment, saying the commission has received an inquiry from McDermott about the issue and is looking into it. He said he doesn’t know of another instance in which the commission has been asked to examine this issue, though it has received relatively similar inquiries in the past about things like state employees receiving money to speak at events.

RELATED STORY: McDermott: Gay-Friendly Tolerance Program Breaks Hawaii Ethics Code

Minneapolis: From Hijab to Jihad

ows_139674139624040

Mayor Betsy Hodges donned a dark blue hijab as she addressed a group of business owners and elders at a Somali mall in south Minneapolis. Photo courtesy StarTribune.com.

Did Minneapolis’s democrat Mayor Betsy Hodges not get it? This was no game, not dress-up playtime or Carnival. Then I wondered if she ever found occasion to dress in the ethnic clothing of her city’s other ethnicities – the Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, English, Polish, Irish, French Canadians, Native Americans? Perhaps she had not done her homework about the Somali immigrants, and it took her only 100 days into office to don a hijab for an alliance.

Surely, she has heard all the recent news about the subjugation and severe treatment of women in the Islamic Middle East; the Honor Diaries film that the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is trying to suppress; the controversy over Brandeis University’s bestowing and then rescinding an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the pressure applied by CAIR that forced Disney to cancel a movie that Muslims find “offensive,” and more. Then why would she don the quintessential symbol of inequality and bondage – the shroud of the Islamic woman.

Interestingly, the mayor has a strong admiration for Wonder Woman, the most popular female superstar in figure-hugging, stars-and-stripes regalia, with bracelets that make her invincible. Hodges is a collector of Wonder Woman dolls and has recently hung a photograph of this shining symbol of strength and sexual equality on her office wall. Rather than emulate her heroine, however, she abandoned the image with which she allegedly identifies, this icon of bravery and justice, for cowardice and deceit.

Perhaps she is a Lost Soul, one without direction, without ties to ethics or principles, unstable in today’s culture and society. Unwilling or unable to stand up for American ideologies, she too easily acquiesced to the preferences or demands of the archenemy of humankind. Whether Hodges was clueless and diplomatically inept or has emerged with a heretofore concealed agenda remains to be seen, but both choices do not bode well for the office she holds.

What began as the 7th century Bedouin woman’s attempt at privacy and protection in the desert, these shrouds have become a symbol of woman’s indignity and servitude. As Nonie Darwish so aptly explained in her book, Cruel and Usual Punishment, woman has come to represent the totality of evil and inferiority in Islamic teaching. Considered lacking in intelligence and religion, women are seen as half, and sometimes a quarter, of man’s worth in a Shari’a court (Islamic law). They may be beaten by their husbands and forbidden to leave the house unless accompanied by a male relative. They may be killed by their fathers if the parent deems his honor compromised. In this oppressive society, women are the ones who preserve the honor of the male, so that he may avoid responsibility and disrepute for any unpleasantness or trouble.

Betsy Hodges Endorsement

Betsy Hodges campaign ad. For a larger view click on the image.

The hijabs and burqas serve the purpose of enforcing obedience to Shari’a and to men. With the obligation of defending their enslavement under constant threat of their own destruction, they may become very self-justifying when challenged. Some may even try to earn honor and respect by joining the radicals for violent jihad (holy war against the infidel). But there’s more. To cultures that relish freedom, these hidden women are deemed victims of sadism, forced to endure the insufferable heat of the subtropics under layers of clothing, and prevented from enjoying the summer sun and cool breezes. In fact, medical experts have noted that women so covered in northern climes, with less sunshine, are suffering more from osteoporosis from the lack of Vitamin D, and experiencing an increased risk of pelvic fracture during childbirth. Their newborn babies are more prone to getting seizures from the same deficiency.

Islamic law is concerned more with raping, beating, flogging, and stoning women than it is in honoring them. The Shari’a demand that women be covered from head to toe is also the Islamic way of solving the problem of male sexual temptations. Rather than teach the men self-restraint and respect, the onus is on the woman to hide herself, her sexuality, her body, her shame. Tragically, because there are women who want to appear as being obedient to their god and faith, it becomes the burden of other women to withstand being hated, ridiculed, or become targets of fatwas. Women face divisiveness or derision at every turn, and their society discourages, and even hinders, women from establishing friendships, particularly where polygamy is practiced.

Betsy Hodges Ad Campaign

Betsy Hodges Ad Campaign. For a larger view click on the image.

To have surrendered her dignity, self-esteem, pride in her American heritage and culture. goes beyond Hodges’ courtship of a voting bloc or fulfilling a promise to constituents. She is responsible for having her female police chief and city council representatives wear the hijab on February 28, proclaimed Hijab Day at City Hall. Rather than guide these new immigrants in becoming Americans, as previous ethnic groups have done, she is accepting their customs and laws over our own.

When the intruder or invader makes demands (no matter how subtle) that are met with compliance and submission from the host culture, this is conquest, not assimilation. I am deeply concerned as to how Hodges and her administration will address future demands, as they will surely be forthcoming – whether for Islamizing children in the classroom, serving only halal foods in the cafeterias, observing Islamic holidays on the city calendar, or all manner of accommodations in everyday life.

Hodges’ decision may well have been meticulously planned. Her hijab is stealth jihad.

RELATED STORIES:

Minneapolis Lesbian Police Chief Dons Hijab for “Hijab Day”
Minneapolis City Council creates Somali-American day
Connecticut: Lawsuit alleges Edible Arrangements favored Muslims over non-Muslims

America’s Suicide Pact with Communism

It was a Founder and our second President, John Adams, who said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

He was right and I am sure he would be appalled to know that the Constitution has since been interpreted to permit the murder of the unborn or that the ancient definition of marriage has been trashed to permit people of the same sex to “marry.” The legalization and use of marijuana is a further sign of decline.

These and other elements of the values expressed and expected by the Founders are eating away at the present and future of the United States of America. The Supreme Court was created to rule on what the Constitution’s actual words say and mean, not on the passing aspirations of generations who have abandoned the fundamental principles of the remarkable government it created.

The Constitution represents a federal government that was granted limited powers. The rest were retained by the States, but Communism and Socialism are based on a strong central government, one ruled by an elite class of intellectuals to oversee all elements of the economy and to set the rules by which everyone must live even if they conflict with their religious convictions and moral values.

The degradation of the nation has tracked the rise of Socialism, begun with Karl Marx’s creation of Communism. Born in Prussia in 1818, Marx was influenced by the writings of Hegel, a German philosopher. Marx’s socialist writings would get him expelled from Germany and France. In 1848, with Friedrich Engels, he published The Communist Manifesto and was exiled to London where he wrote the first volume of Das Kapital, living there until his death in 1883. Suffice to say that the Communism he unleashed would cause the death of hundreds of millions, particularly in Russia and China where it was embraced.

Americans and, in particular, conservatives who have a high regard for the Constitution and the values of personal freedom and liberty it bestows on individuals, have been fighting against the tyranny of Communism and Socialism, but it has always had an appeal to those who prefer to let others determine the actions of government and the bigger it is, the better. This is enhanced by a government that redistributes the wealth from those who worked for it to those who have not.

Along the way there have been voices that have spoken out against Communism and Socialism. I came across a speech by one of them. At the time he said, “We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.”

It is happening today in an America that has twice elected a Communist as its President, some say out of guilt over the slavery the nation countenanced and which took a Civil War to end. That Civil War was fought between moral Americans who hated slavery and those who profited from it. In the latter part of the last century, Americans joined with the black community to put an end to the injustices it had encountered for a century. That was the act of a nation with its moral values intact.

Barack Obama was “a red diaper baby” raised from birth by a family devoted to Socialism and educated in universities where it thrives today. His actions are entirely determined by the Marxist theology to which he has devoted his life and his failures demonstrate its failures. In the process, millions of Americans are suffering unemployment in an economy that knows what it takes to create growth, but which has been thwarted by massive government regulation and the crony capitalism that corrupts it. It has wasted billions on the global warming/climate change hoax that is still being advocated by some in Congress.

AA - Reagan on GovernmentIn the stump speech given to support the campaign of a leading conservative, the speaker said that the issue of that elections was “Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” That question exists today.

A centralized government was the “very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that… a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.”

At the time he gave his speech, he noted that “For three decades we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.”

He warned that, “Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp at this moment.”

He could have delivered that speech today, but the speaker was Ronald Reagan and the speech was given on October 27, 1964. He was campaigning for Sen. Barry Goldwater who was running against Lyndon Baines Johnson who was the incumbent as the result of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Johnson was overwhelmingly elected and, while expanding the war in Vietnam that would cost more than American 53,000 lives, he also launched the “Great Society” program based entirely in Socialism. Like the war, it too would fail.

Goldwater had rejected the New Deal socialism of Franklin D. Roosevelt and it was Roosevelt who would preside over the nation’s longest economic doldrums from his first election in 1932 until the Great Depression would end in the wake of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. Four years later Americans would celebrate the defeat of the Japanese Empire and Germany’s Nazi regime.

Reagan would be elected President in 1980 and, through two terms, would oversee economic growth that would be passed onto George W. Bush. The nation would turn to Bill Clinton in 1992, electing him twice.

To save the nation today, Americans must reject a Democratic Party that resembles the Communist Party USA. The voters must secure control of the Senate and House by a Republican Party that must tap into the values of men like Reagan and predecessors that included Coolidge, Hoover, and Eisenhower. Both Bush presidencies tried as well.

The warnings Reagan voiced in 1964 are no less true today and, with Barack Obama in the Oval Office, an even greater threat exists than did five decades ago. If we fail, we will be signing a suicide pact with Communism.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Students protest public school’s Day of Silence with “Gay is not OK” T-Shirts

Ian Parker, KATU News Oregon City, Oregon, reports, “Students wearing anti-gay T-shirts to class disrupted Oregon City High School’s celebration of unity Friday. Friday was National Day of Silence. It’s where students take some form of silence to call attention to the bullying of the LGBT community in schools. Two students told KATU News that if the school is supporting Day of Silence, then they have the right to speak out against it.”

They wore T-shirts to school that said, “Gay Is Not Ok” and “Gay Day Is Not OK,” which is a reference to Day of Silence. They sought out a KATU reporter to be interviewed.

Dr. Judith Reisman has decried the Day of Silence as a direct assault “on traditional parental, American values.” Dr. Reisman in her column How teachers’ “attitude restructuring” is hypersexualizing your kids notes:

The whole purpose of these “sex positive” programs is not to liberate adults from their Victorian moral prisons but to indoctrinate children into an unrestrained, sexually available lifestyle. Even if such “programs” are not being taught in all schools yet, this material has been made available on multiple websites and are widely promoted to all, regardless of age. The Kinsey Institute, SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, AASECT and others all provide, or recommend, sites that extoll the virtues of unrestrained sexual experimentation.

Is it any wonder that youthful STDs, pregnancies, abortions and abuse are pandemic?

Which brings us to one of the big lies spread by these organizations: safe/safer sex.

“I’m not comfortable with you guys making a whole day about what you believe,” said Alex Borho, a senior. “So if you’re going to make a whole day out of it and not talk and a have a ‘moment of silence,’ then I can wear my T-shirt.” They claim they’ve received a lot of support from other students at Oregon City High, but most of the students KATU spoke to said it’s the shirts that are “not okay.”

So, freedom of speech is not OK? Watch this KATU video news report:

According to Wikipedia:

In 2005, the Alliance Defense Fund began sponsoring a yearly counter-protest called the Day of Truth.”Events like these actually end up promoting homosexuality in public schools, and that actually creates a hostile climate for students of faith,” said Candi Cushman, an education analyst for Focus on the Family. A card carried by participants in the Day of Truth reads: “true tolerance means that people with differing—even opposing—viewpoints can freely exchange ideas and respectfully listen to each other. It’s time for an honest conversation about homosexuality. There’s freedom to change if you want to. Let’s talk.”

Other socially conservative organizations, including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Mission America, Traditional Values Coalition, Americans for Truth, and Liberty Counsel, opposed the Day of Silence in 2008 by forming a coalition urging parents to keep their kids home on the DOS if students at their school were observing it. The Rev. Ken Hutcherson, the principal supporter of those who skipped school, said, “We want education, not indoctrination.”

[ … ]

In April 2010, in opposition to the Day of Silence, several students in Laingsburg High School in Laingsburg, Michigan wore t-shirts stating “Straight Pride” on the front side and bore a reference to Leviticus 20:13 on the back. That Bible verse refers to homosexual behavior as an abomination and prescribes death as the penalty for it. The same protest, which was organized on a Facebook group, also took place in the St. Johns and Bath school districts.

On October 6, 2010, CNN reported that Exodus International, which promotes “freedom from homosexuality through Jesus Christ”, would not support the 2011 annual Day of Truth as the organization had done in 2010. President Alan Chambers stated, “All the recent attention to bullying helped us realize that we need to equip kids to live out biblical tolerance and grace while treating their neighbors as they’d like to be treated, whether they agree with them or not.”

In 2011, Focus on the Family acquired the “Day of Truth” event and renamed it into the “Day of Dialogue”. As of 2012, the Day of Dialogue website stated: “Now it boasts a new name, while maintaining the same goal it’s always had since its founding — encouraging honest and respectful conversation among students about God’s design for sexuality.”

EDITORS NOTE: The feature image is courtesy of KATU News.

Bundy Ranch, Nevada: Has the American Spring begun?

10153046_243809939145413_6471996933610397881_n

Dennis Michael Lynch with militia members at Bundy Ranch, NV. Photo courtesy of Bud Parriott. For a larger view click on the photo.

The internet is ablaze with stories about what is and has happened at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. When this all began I never expected that the federales would back down in the face of armed citizen militia members.

ABC NewsLiz Fields, via Good Morning America, reports, “A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters. Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally. Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a “range war” against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.”

“I have no contract with the United States government,” Bundy said. “I was paying grazing fees for management and that’s what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay.”

Here is an amazing Facebook post on DML Daily from Dennis Michael Lynch:

Its me DML. Today was insane. I got the best footage. I was in the heart of it all. In fact, I think I may need an appointment with a psychiatric specialist because I took the firs[t] step and walked alone toward snipers who told me I needed to retreat or else they’d shoot. I did not turn back and they continued to warn ne [sic] but i ignored the warning. Eventually, everyone behind me started coming forward and there was no way they could stop us. 

Amon Bundy later said to me, “Man you have guts like I’ve never seen.” I replied, “No, you do. Had you not stood up to the BLM, me and the other thousands of Americans wouldn’t be here.”

Today was a victory and a tremendous step towards taking back America. My footage and story of events will be on The Kelly File this Monday. Right now I’m going to drink a few scotches because it is sinking in that I had 40 plus AR15 riffles (sic) pointed at my head. 

i didn’t have a camera guy today — i shot all the footage myself — so the only proof that says I was in NV is this shot that i inadvertantly grabbed while I tried fixing the camera. However, I am sure other people captured the heated stAndoff when I was in it. More importantly, I captured everything that took place including BLM giving back the cattle. Great Americans stood up today. So many excellent new friends. Heroes all over Nevada and around America came together. One of the best days of my life. 

America won today!!!!!

I must agree.

RELATED STORIES:

UPDATE: Sheriff Announces BLM Will Cease Operation…
‘Serious concern about safety of employees and public’…
Backdown Comes Hours After Reid/China Land Grab Report…
Confiscated Cattle to be Released…
‘Control Our Borders, Not Our Ranchers!’
Wild horses targeted for roundup in Utah rangeland clash…

RELATED VIDEO FROM ABC NEWS:


ABC US News | ABC Business News

RELATED PHOTOS:

10171073_716235721749221_1615940644521970357_n

 

10155752_716179235088203_6642169996764298258_n

10169292_716147181758075_2942411614697547002_n

EDITORS NOTE: The photos used in this column are courtesy of Dennis Michael Lynch – DML Daily. 

Keep Unions Out of College Athletics

We’ve been raised to compete, to want more! More! More! It’s a way of life. It’s about greed. — Sandy Duncan, actress, singer

And so, the label “amateur” will likely be lifted from college football players very soon. No more is it about earning scholarships, attaining a college education, and working hard at a sport in order to pay for that education. It’s all about greed.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

The National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling in March declaring football players from Northwestern as “employees” of the university and therefore the right to form a union.

What?

That’s like saying tuba players in the band are employees of the college. Maybe even swimmers, cheerleaders and chess players. After all, they all compete, they all enhance the “sporting” events and they all work hard.

Yes, football players work hard at their sport. But they are not employees! They are students of a college or university who – in most situations – must maintain a particular grade average in order to be granted the privilege to compete.

Now, a mighty foot has wedged into the proverbial door for unions to take over college sports. It may start with football, but don’t think for a minute this won’t spill over to basketball, baseball, soccer, lacrosse, wrestling and more, even beyond sports.

For their hard work and training, many football players have earned scholarships at institutions of higher learning, which is worth a lot of money, not only in tuitions but in achieving an education that will prepare them for profitable careers in later life. There’s the reward.

Some outstanding players are often cherry-picked into the big leagues where millions of dollars are bestowed upon them as a pro. That’s another reward for being great at their sport.

But until then, the kids are primarily students. Other than teachers, there is no place in amateur/university sports for unions. Union power will eventually translate in to sport domination, collective bargaining and if they deem necessary, strikes and sit-downs. And it will reach out to all other extra-curriculum activities on campus.

Talk about opening Pandora’s box.

Collective bargaining will translate to higher and higher salaries, which will create the need for new sources of funding. Network television is already established and on board. So where will that come from?

Ticket sales. Vendor costs.

Today’s pro baseball and football, ticket prices have soared out of sight to where the average family can barely afford a day at the ball game, unless they sit in the bleachers over center field or the end zone. The bulk of good seating is reserved for corporations, politicians, and clients of all sizes and shapes of money bags.

Fortunately, prices for attending amateur school games have not hit the stratosphere – yet. But wait until the costs of ball players generate the need for revenue – revenue which the average Joe cannot afford.

Going to college is first and foremost about attaining education. Sports and their associated events are an important element of college life, but it’s not a “profession.” If kids wish to dodge education and go for the big bucks, they can always apply for the pros once out of high school.

Amy Perko, Executive Director of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics said, “Universities and the NCAA, not unions, need to be the ones to guarantee benefits, like multi-year scholarships.”

When it comes to students, regardless of their extra curricula, unions should be kept out of the universities and colleges. To say that students who play sports are an “employee” of the school, is not only absurd, it’s nothing but a money-grubbing ploy to destroy the spirit of school sports now and forever…not only for the kids, but the families and spectators as well.

Amy Perko enunciates many of the benefits that college athletes should be entitled to, outside of being paid “salaries” as an employee. Watch the video:

RELATED STORIES:

College Players Granted Right to Form Union – NYTimes.com

College Athletes Granted the Right to Unionize—Is This the End of the NCAA? | Alternet

His Aim Is True, Sometimes by SARAH SKWIRE

William Shakespeare. Merchant of Venice. Circa 1598.

Everyone knows about Shylock. Even those who have only a passing familiarity with Shakespeare know about the vicious money-lender in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. He lends Antonio (the merchant of the title) 3,000 ducats to give to his friend Bassanio, and if Antonio fails to repay the loan in time, he must give Shylock a pound of his flesh.

A lot has been written about Shylock and about his contract with Antonio. (Some of it has even been written by my brother.)

But we spend a lot less time thinking and talking about Bassanio, the friend for whom Antonio takes on the debt. Bassanio interests me because he represents what seems to be a completely different way of financial thinking. In contrast to Antonio’s fairly conservative financial approach—while he has invested heavily, he has diversified his investments into three different ships—and Shylock’s grasping, near-miserly attitude, Bassanio is a spendthrift. When we first meet him he is explaining to Antonio exactly how he has ended up broke again.

‘Tis not unknown to you, Antonio,

How much I have disabled mine estate,

By something showing a more swelling port

Than my faint means would grant continuance:

Nor do I now make moan to be abridged

From such a noble rate; but my chief care

Is to come fairly off from the great debts

Wherein my time something too prodigal

Hath left me gaged.

In other words, in the style of spendthrifts the world over, he tells Antonio that he has spent more than he has to look like a more important person than he is. Now he is in debt, and he is worried. But, he adds, he won’t be worried for long, because he has “plots and purposes/How to get clear of all the debts I owe.” Those plots will involve, however, just a little bit more investment from Antonio. After all, Bassanio argues, money management is like archery.

In my school-days, when I had lost one shaft,

I shot his fellow of the self-same flight

The self-same way with more advised watch,

To find the other forth, and by adventuring both

I oft found both . . .

This is a perfectly reasonable way to find a lost arrow, according to several archers I consulted—but it’s a fairly rotten financial plan. It amounts to “throwing good money after bad” or doubling down on a bad hand.

And what are the precise details of Bassanio’s plan? It seems that “in Belmont is a lady richly left,” and Bassanio means to wed her and her inheritance. If he can win her.

Despite Bassanio’s appalling credit history,  Antonio acts on the notion that “sunk costs are sunk” (this joke is much funnier if you have read the play) and takes out the loan to help him. While this decision rapidly brings things to a peak of tension for Antonio in Venice, events go beautifully for Bassanio. He arrives in Belmont. Portia, the “lady richly left” is delighted to see him. All he must do to win her is to play a little game that her father devised before he died.

In a scene straight from a fairy tale, Bassanio is presented with three small caskets or chests—one of gold, one of silver, and one of lead. The gold casket reads, “Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire.” The silver casket says, “Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves.” And the lead casket is engraved with, “Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath.” By the time that Bassanio is ready to choose, those of us watching or reading the play have already seen two suitors choose and fail. So we know several things. First, by the immutable law of fairy tale triplets, we know that Bassanio will choose correctly merely because he is choosing third. Second, we know that the right choice is the lead casket, because the two earlier suitors chose the gold and the silver caskets and were rejected. Lastly, we know that Bassanio’s character means that he is perfectly suited to make the right choice.

How do we know this? Well, the lead casket says, “Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath.” Portia’s previous suitors argued against this casket by saying it (and perhaps Portia) was too unappealing for such a risk—“You shall look fairer, ere I give or hazard” and:

Men that hazard all

Do it in hope of fair advantages:

A golden mind stoops not to shows of dross;

I’ll then nor give nor hazard aught for lead.

These previous suitors are following some very sensible real world financial principles. Bassanio, however, is following fairy tale rules. He has already proven in Venice that he is perfectly happy to take all kinds of irrational risks with his fortune and with his friend’s fortune. The possibility of a very high return on a risky investment in something that is apparently worthless is irresistible to Bassanio. Of course he will choose lead. He would choose lead even if he didn’t like Portia. He would choose lead for much smaller stakes than her endless wealth. And in a place like Belmont, where marriages are decided by casket games, he is a clear winner.

So here are the questions that I have always had about Bassanio. His financial irresponsibility, taken out of the realistic world of Venice (which is governed by scarcity and real risk) and transported to the fairy tale world of Belmont (which is governed by luxurious superfluity) is transformed into good sense. Are we meant to see him as the model for good choices in this play? Are we meant to remember that his initial stake in the casket game means that his best friend nearly dies? Are we meant to think that his choices are only good choices in a world with no scarcity? The great thing about a great play is that it can open these questions, and leave them for us to ponder through repeated readings. At the moment, I’m inclined to think that Bassanio may serve as the opposite extreme to Shylock—both of them willing to see Antonio die in order to achieve their own satisfaction and neither of them engaging in anything like a reasonable relationship with wealth.

Thanks to Adam Cowming, Kyle Trowbridge, Joe Lehman, and Sean Malone for their helpful elucidation of archery questions.

20121127_sarahskwireABOUT SARAH SKWIRE

Sarah Skwire is a fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.

Does Megyn Kelly understand the Fallacy of Radical Islam and Moderate Muslims?

Megyn Kelly of Fox News has done an outstanding job of pounding CAIR’s Spokesperson Ibrahim ‘Dougie’ Hooper. Although she and other major journalists and self proclaimed counter-terrorism experts continue to make the same mistake. 

I counted at least a half dozen times that Ms. Kelly used the term “radical Islam.” If you really want to fight and defeat the Islamic ideology that advocates the destruction of Israel and America this practice must stop.

Is it intentional so as not to offend the Saudi government and terrorist supporting organizations such as CAIR? Islam is Islam and there is no word within Islam, the Hadith, or within Sharia law, for the term ‘Radical Islam’. One is either fully practicing Islam with their hearts, soul, and minds, or they have chosen to not practice Islam completely. In accordance with Sharia law these people are referred to as Apostates within Islam.

I will use an analogy but first must make a statement. Never, ever try to correlate
Christianity or Judaism with Islam. It can’t be done and Islam never intended them to be understood as having the same rules and guidelines. For instance. I often hear people saying there are Christians who do not adhere to all aspects of Christianity. This is true, but in comparison to Islam there is nothing within Christianity that says a non practicing Christian can be killed for this action. Sharia law does condone and advocate killing people within Islam who practice and adhere to Islam partially.

If a Christian does adhere to all 10 Commandments of the Bible is he/she a ‘Radical Christian’ or is it not better to define him/her as a practicing Christians? If a Muslim follows all aspects of Sharia law are they ‘Radical Muslims’? No, they are doing exactly what Islam dictates to be a good Muslim.

Journalists make the huge mistake by continuing to use the term ‘Radical’. The groups such as Hamas, Al Qaeda, Taliban, and the Saudi government are practicing Islam as Islamic leaders from 1400 years stated it must be followed. They are not being ‘Radical’ by following their ideology of hatred of Jews, Christians, and others. They are being faithful to their ideology.

I have released the following a couple of times. It is a more extensive explanation of the’ fallacy of the moderate Muslim’.

The Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”

There have been, and will continue to be, debates on the authenticity of ‘who and what are moderate Muslims’? I could spend two years giving my personal opinion and it would mean as much as Bill O’Reilly giving his opinion of the next Super Bowl Game. The point being there are no experts pertaining to the Islamic based ideology. During my years of first-hand research I have obtained thousands of materials from Islamic Centers/Mosques, interviewed hundreds of Islamic scholars and Imams. The evidence I provide in this article is based on their information and not my opinion. In accordance with Sharia law a Muslim is either 100% Sharia compliant or they are not. If they do not accept all aspects of Sharia law they are considered Apostates. This eliminates the term ‘Moderate Muslim’. This term is man-made and in reality has no meaning or existence. In other words a ‘Moderate Muslim’ is simply a non practicing Muslim. Since 1979 I have been traveling throughout the Middle East and have met thousands of good people who have called themselves Muslim. Again in reality the ‘good Muslims’ were people who did not adhere to Sharia law, specifically in regards to physical Jihad.

Many will by right now wondering why I did not use the word ‘religion’ in the same context as Islam. To best answer this it is best to explain to the reader that my background has led me to the Middle East since 1979. Since that period of time I have had the fortunate opportunity to speak with hundreds of the leading Islamic leaders and Imams throughout the world. I was selected as the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003. Although the rules of engagement did not specifically give us the authority to enter mosques, schools, and hospitals, I had insisted the men and women with me check these places before all others. My number one responsibility was to ensure the young 18 and 19 year old kids who were putting their lives on the line for people of all religions, races, and cultures, were going to go home and be with their families – regardless what a ‘political General’ had read from a book about sensitivity training in dealing with the Muslim people.

Per my suspicions our team located senior Saddam Forces, Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Fedeyeen forces hiding in the off limit areas: schools, mosques and hospitals… We captured them without incident.

Many Muslim people risked their lives and in fact many gave the ultimate sacrifice to assist the American forces. Of course in war this is not seen by the enemy as a ‘medal of honor’ nominee. On the contrary the Muslims who helped protect Americans were considered traitors and ‘Apostates’ of Islam. Islamic Sharia law demanded the death penalty for the Muslims who assisted the enemy (the American forces and their allies).

Why would I bring up a war time situation to try and explain ‘moderate Muslims’ living in America? The one and only point is for the American people to understand Muslims can only have allegiance to either Allah and Sharia law, or to the U.S. Constitution and America. Islamic leaders stress this avidly to their worshippers across the U.S. A Muslim can’t serve two masters. Sharia law and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible.

Again the word of Dave Gaubatz is not important. The words of Islamic leaders such as Yusef Estes, Ahmad Sakr, Zaid Shakir, Siraj Wahhaj, CAIR and ISNA Executives and a half dozen other pseudo-based Islamic leaders need to be listened to before me. These leaders take their orders directly from Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and more importantly from the Saudi government.

I have personally visited over 250 Islamic Centers/Mosques throughout America. 95% are Sunni dominated (“Pure Islam”). Islamic leaders put out material distributed from Pakistan, India, and Saudi Arabia detailing the specifics of how a ‘Pure Muslim’ should lead their lives in accordance with Sharia law. A Muslim can’t pick and choose which aspects of Sharia they want to adhere to and which ones they prefer not. A Muslim is either Sharia compliant or they are not. In other words, they either practice Sharia law or they are non practicing Muslims. If a Muslim does not adhere at least in his or her heart to all aspects of Sharia law, they are considered Apostates by their leaders. This is a death sentence for them regardless of what country they reside in. Islam and Sharia law have no boundaries. Boundaries are man-made specifically by Jews and Christians, and in the hearts of Muslims they are meaningless.

Within America we have politicians and media who use the term ‘moderate Muslim’ as if this word has a legitimate meaning to ‘Pure Muslims’ who control the actions of Islamic terror groups. There are three requirements which non Muslim world leaders must come to terms with if we are ever going to live in safety and if our children are to ever have a fighting chance of having peace from Islamic terror groups in their lifetimes.

The following three requirements are directly from Islamic leaders/Imams from whom my research team and I have received advice over the last three years. The intelligence I collect is always first-hand intelligence.

  1. Islam is not a religion.
  2. Islam is a political, economic, and military ideology.
  3. Religion within Islam is used as a tactic to achieve the ultimate goal of Islam which is an Islamic Ummah (nation) worldwide and under Sharia law.

Sharia law is an all or nothing. A Muslim can’t pick and choose which parts of Sharia they desire to adhere to. 90% of Sharia law may be peaceful, but it is the 10% that innocent people must ‘fear’. This part pertains to the intolerance of other religions, the hatred of Jews, Christians, and even Muslims who do not adhere to Sharia law, and physical Jihad. All Muslims are not required to physically fight their enemies, but ‘All’ Muslims must assist in equipping and financing their brothers and sisters who are engaged in physical Jihad. For a Muslim to choose not to do so equate to him/her being an Apostate of Islam; again this is a death sentence for the accused.

The innocent people of all races, religions, and cultures are at war with Islam. This is the hardest and most difficult concept for people to understand. The Muslims who committed murder on 11 Sept. 2001 were doing so in the name of Islam. The 4000 plus men and women who have been murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed in the name of Islam. Maj. Hassan from Ft. Hood who killed several people did so in the name of Islam. The same materials being studied by Hamas, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban are the exact materials being distributed across America and provided to innocent young Muslim children to study in order to be ‘Pure Muslim’.

Readers should note that in 90 plus percent of the mosques my research team visited in America, the following was being advocated for the worshippers. The manuals of ‘Riyadh Ul Salheen’ are literally an explanation to Muslims on how to interpret the Quran in their present day lives. For instance the following is an explanation of how Muslims should always be prepared for war against their enemies; yes even in America!

“In accordance with the conditions of his times, the Prophet (PBUH) ordained the Muslims to acquire every possible power and keep it ready for war. Elucidating his order on this point, he stated that by power he meant archery and then he repeated this word three times to stress its importance. He did it because the art of archery had fundamental importance in war at that time. In the present-day world, archery has lost its value as it has been replaced by other inventions like tanks, guns, atom bombs, etc. Similar is the case of devices which are used in naval war, and all these military wares have superb importance in modern warfare.

In the present-day context, the injunction of the Noble Quran to acquire power means manufacturing and possession of all these devices. It is incumbent on the Muslims that they equip themselves with all this material and show no carelessness in this regard. In modern times, Muslims have badly neglected this field with the result that non-Muslims have more knowledge of modern warfare and by dint of that they are dominating the world and making a claim of their supremacy all over the world. Unless Muslims pursue the Quranic injunctions on this score and acquire greater or equal or at least similar measure and style of power, as is possessed by the non-Muslims, they will not be able to check the onslaught of their enemies, and to defeat them. It is incumbent upon the Muslims to overpower the might and power of the infidels for the “glorification of Islam”.

The commentary and instruction to the Muslim worshippers throughout America is:

“It is essential that they should not slack in acquiring the material resources required for war, nor neglect military preparations and exercises. Modern military weapons and new style of warfare have now taken the place of archery, and Muslims should master all of them”.

“He who neither performs a good deed nor aspires for it, has a hypocritical disposition. This is especially true of a Muslim who does not even aspire to take part in Jihad. Such a Muslim develops a resemblance with hypocrites”.

If our country has even the remotest chance of securing our nation we must accept America is indeed at war with Islam. There is no nice way to ignore the violence within neither Islam nor its teachings. There are millions of ‘good people who call themselves Muslim’, but in actuality they do not follow Sharia law and are Apostates of Islam. Sharia adherent Muslims are not ‘good Muslims’. Islam forbids this trait which naïve Americans desire. There is nothing I have said in this article that the leaders of Islam have not repeated over and over to their worshippers and to non-Muslims.

Now is the time to take them for their word, or else you are risking the lives of your children by ignoring their warnings.

RELATED STORIES:

Legalized Rape: Iraq Legalizes the Raping of Young Girls Starting at the Age of Nine
EXCLUSIVE: Report: Ansar Bait Al-Maqdis Threatens To Harm American Interests In Egypt Including KFC
AQAP Cleric Calls On Muslims To Avoid Infighting And Killing Of Other Muslims, Says Allegiance To Islam Takes Precedence Over Differences
ISIS French Spokesman: ‘Woe To The Infidels And The Apostates Facing The Islamic State (ISIS)’

It’s Academic: Kinsey’s Love Affair with Pedophilia Three Generations Later

Twentieth-century philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead defined western philosophy as “footnotes to Plato.” Similarly, sexology can be defined as “footnotes to Alfred Kinsey,” whose psychopathologies are writ large in the hetero and homosexual child-abuse epidemic that is touching every corner of the world, particularly in academic settings.

My own academic case study illustrates the woeful state we are in. On June 18, 1986, American University’s (AU) celebrated psychology chairman, Dr. Elliot McGinnies, was discreetly “charged with sexually abusing a 9-year-old girl on four occasions in his trailer at a nudist colony.” Meanwhile, my staff and I were being rather indiscreetly banished from our AU annex. AU administrators deliberately subverted our research on both Professor Kinsey’s child sex crimes and our findings of systematic child sex abuse by “Kinsey’s pamphleteer,” Hugh Hefner, which were published in a U.S. Department of Justice study titled Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler (1984–1986), a study for which I was principal investigator. Why were we targeted, I wondered?

Was there more to it than McGinnies’ nudist escapades? Did other AU academics protect their colleague in order to protect themselves from exposure? Indeed, birds of a feather must have flocked together: In 1990, AU’s distinguished president, Dr. Richard Berendzen, pled guilty to charges arising from years of making obscene phone calls to daycare centers. Berendzen would call the centers and talk to the caretakers about having sex with children, child pornography, and sex-slave auctions, and he even claimed to be keeping a 4-year-old girl caged in his basement.

Shocking but Not Surprising

Fast forward 21 years, to the arrest of Penn State’s popular assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, for allegedly engaging in the sexual molestation of boys over a period of at least 15 years. In the wake of Sandusky’s arrest, head coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier were fired, and other Penn State officials were formally charged with failing to report Sandusky’s alleged abuse to proper authorities.

Spanier himself had subscribed to Kinsey’s views for years. In 1972, he endorsed Kinsey to the Midwest Sociological Society, claiming that Kinsey had accurately documented the “widespread existence of extramarital sexual relations” in the United States. In 1976, under a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Development, Spanier validated Kinsey’s data on “childhood sex play”5 for similar “scholars.” More recently, Spanier approved the choice of Pat Califia, a transgendered advocate of sadomasochism and pedophilia, as the keynote speaker for a women’s health conference held at Penn State in 2002. The previous year, the group Womyn’s Concerns hosted a “Sex Faire” on campus, featuring such activities as “orgasm bingo” and “the tent of consent.” Asked if the fair was morally wrong, Spanier was quoted as saying, “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.” So while news of the Sandusky affair is shocking, it should come as no surprise.

About the same time as the charges against Sandusky surfaced, Syracuse University associate basketball coach Bernie Fine was also charged with having engaged in homosexual child abuse and fired. Like Sandusky, Fine had allegedly been molesting boys for years. One of his accusers, a former ball boy, said Fine had abused him for six years, beginning as long ago as 1984.

Training in Deviancy

Alfred Kinsey

Alfred Kinsey

In fact, as long ago as 1948, the world’s future leaders were being taught that sex with children was intelligent adult behavior. Their teacher was that Rockefeller Foundation-funded biology professor at Indiana University, Alfred Kinsey. For 64 years—almost three generations—his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male has trained millions of young college students—like Berendzen, McGinnies, Sandusky, Spanier, and Fine—to believe that all sexual perversion is normal. Both hetero- and homosexual interactions with children are said to help children by replacing “sexually repressed” Judeo-Christian morality with a more “enlightened” sexual worldview. According to one Kinsey disciple, the late Dr. Loretta Haroian, “free sexual expression of children” requires “a sexually supportive society . . . in which every man, woman and child can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to sex.” Dr. Haroian was a member of the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, which has trained millions of “sexologists” in the Kinsey mode.

The inroads made by the academic pedophile coterie are reflected not just in the reports coming out of Penn State and Syracuse, but also in earlier incidents at American University, Johns Hopkins, and scores of other institutions of higher learning. Academic journals embraced the Kinseyan worldview early on, as illustrated by Ralph Slovenko’s comment in the 1962 Vanderbilt Law Review that “even at the age of four or five, [a girl’s] seductiveness may be so powerful as to overwhelm the adult into committing the offense”; in other words, a little child could be an “initiator and seducer.”

In 2007, the first Chinese-language book on Kinsey (English title: Kinsey, the Man Who Has Changed the World) was published and sold 500,000 copies in China. Co-author Liana Zhou, head of the Kinsey Institute library, says that, thanks to Kinsey’s “pioneering” work, we can now “study human sexuality within the confines of science rather than only through the lens of religion or social morality.” In Italy, researchers claim to have found a possible “pedophile” gene, and the bankrupt Greek government has just amended state-recognized disability categories to include “pedophiles, exhibitionists and kleptomaniacs.” So now the sexual immorality and psychopathologies of Kinsey are being spread in other countries, too.

All this modern sexual insanity may be a “footnote to Alfred Kinsey,” but a few people are trying to set the story straight. When former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann was told by a critic that “10 percent of the population is gay,” she replied, “Well, that’s according to the Kinsey Report.” Her husband, Marcus, then added, “It’s been a myth for many years.” Alas, that myth invented by Kinsey, “the Man Who Has Changed the World,” has been normalizing abusive sex education, pornography, child sexual abuse, and sexual trauma all over the world, training millions to be as sexually insane as he was.

Special thanks to Mary McAlister, Esq., who contributed to this article.

Endnotes:

1. Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, (Free Press, 1979), p. 39.
2. www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/McGinnies.html.
3. http://articles.philly.com/1994-05-15/living/25829613_1_childhood-sexualabuse-richard-berendzen-child-pornography.
4. www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/penn_state_officials_tim_curle_2.html.
5. Graham B. Spanier, “Mate Swapping,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 4, no. 2, 1975, and “Formal and Informal Sex Education,” ibid., vol. 5, no. 1, 1976.
6. www.wnd.com/2002/03/13317.
7. http://www.localsyr.com/sitesearch?q=Bernie-Fine%20fired%20from%20Syracuse%20University
8. www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm.
9. R. Slovenko & J. Phillips, “Psycho sexuality and the Criminal Law,” 15 Vanderbilt Law Review (1961–1962).
10. www.kinseyinstitute.org/newsletter/sp2008/zhoubook.html.
11. http://worldcrunch.com/therepedophilia-gene/4032.
12. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-10/news/30613327_1_disability-welfare-system-greece.
13. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/18/bachmann-pausesin-iowa-tour-to-talk-myth-of-kinseyreport

RELATED STORIES:

Police pore through council files on Cyril Smith’s special school

Miami, FL: Language arts teacher simulates orgasim, maturbates and gives massages to students

EDITORS NOTE: The edited featured image is by R. Rafson. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Obama’s Chickens Have Come Home

In a March 26, 2014 article for The Jerusalem Post, titled Column One: Campus Brownshirts Rising, writer Caroline Glick reports on the efforts of Vassar College Earth sciences professor Jill Schneiderman’s abortive attempt to arrange a field trip to Israel to study water supply issues in the Holy Land.

The trouble started when Professor Schneiderman conducted a pre-trip seminar for students who intended to participate in the field trip to Israel.  When the Vassar student chapter of an anti-Semitic hate group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), picketed her seminar, pressuring Earth science students to drop Schneiderman’s class and to forego any plans to travel to Israel, Schneiderman complained to Vassar college administrators, seeking redress for her students whose civil rights and academic freedom were under attack by the SJP.

Instead of taking action against the thuggish actions of the pro-Palestinian students, college administrators once again demonstrated the sort of cowardice that has become so common among college and university administrators across the country.  They referred the issue to the college’s Committee on Inclusion and Excellence.  But when those vested with the responsibility for “inclusion and excellence” at Vassar convened to discuss the anti-Semitic outrage, Professor Schneiderman was, as she noted in her blog, “knocked off-center by a belligerent academic community dedicated to vilifying anyone who dared set foot in Israel.”

As Schneiderman and her Vassar students proceeded with plans for their trip to Israel, the University of Michigan student government was voting on a motion to suspend debate, indefinitely, on a resolution submitted by an anti-Jewish student group, calling upon the University to boycott and divest from all companies that do business with Israel… precipitating yet another confrontation in which Jewish interests came in second to the interests of Muslims on a traditionally liberal college campus.

According to the Jerusalem Post, a Michigan students group, calling itself Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE), “responded with rage and violence,” staging sit-ins at the student government offices and cursing Jewish members of the council, hurling epithets such as “kike” and “dirty Jew.”

Then, on Thursday, March 27, 2014, fascism reared its ugly head on the Dearborn campus of the University of Michigan.  On that evening the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was successful in blocking the screening of a documentary film, titled Honor Diaries.  The film tells the story of the unspeakable horrors endured by women throughout the Muslim world, including such brutal practices as female genital mutilation, honor violence, honor killings, the forced marriage of eight and nine year old girls to thirty and forty-year-old men, the lack of educational opportunities for women, and restrictions on their freedom of movement.

However, according to a Fox News report, CAIR wasn’t doing its own dirty work, or even its own research.  The group relied on facts and arguments presented by Richard Silverstein, a liberal blogger who argued, “One has to ask why a film about the purported abuse of Muslim women was produced by Jews… ”  In other words, how could a group of Jews possibly produce a film that profiles human rights abuses against Muslim women?  It flies directly in the face of Muslim sensibilities… the truth of the matter be damned.

In the end, those who sponsored the screening of the film were fearful that the showing would be seen as “Islamophobic.”  Wishing not to offend the Islamic community… and perhaps in fear of violent retribution… university administrators canceled the screening, proving once again that intimidation works.  But, as the Fox report asks, “Who is being offended when we are talking about mutilation and women setting themselves on fire to escape marriage before puberty?”

Then, just days later, the April 9, 2014 edition of Frontpage Magazine reported that Brandeis University, a longtime bastion of liberal orthodoxy, had conferred an honorary degree on leftist anti-Semitic writer, Amos Oz, who has described religious Jews as “Hezbollah in a skullcap.”  Brandeis is the very same “progressive” institution which yielded to pressure from Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as CAIR and the Muslim Students Association, causing the university to withdraw a similar honor intended for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a noted Somali critic of Islam and co-producer of the Honor Diaries film.

So what’s happening on our college and university campuses?  Haven’t the most liberal colleges and universities always been places where Jewish academics hold forth and children of Jewish families are prepared for lucrative careers in medicine, academia, and the law?

CarolineGlick

Caroline Glick

For answers we might refer to a February 1, 2014 Jerusalem Post article by Caroline Glick,  titled, Column one: The New York Times Destroys Obama.”  In that column, Glick quotes extensively from a Times report by David Kirkpatrick on Barack Obama’s handling of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.  Glick writes that Kirkpatrick “tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.”

Glick reminds us that “Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University.”  It was his first venture abroad as president and is best remembered for his warm embrace of Islam, for his unprecedented bow to the King of Saudi Arabia… described in the Washington Times as a “shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate”… and for the cold shoulder he delivered to Israel, America’s most steadfast ally.

The thought that a newly-inaugurated president of the United States would take a major overseas trip, passing within fifty miles of Israeli territory, and not pay a courtesy call on the Israelis… the only functioning democracy in the Middle East… was a snub of gargantuan proportions and a major diplomatic faux pas.  It was also a portent of things to come in the Obama foreign policy.

Reassuring his friends in the Muslim world of his belief that the violent extremists in the Muslim world were but a “small but potent minority of Muslims,” Obama went on to say that he had traveled to Cairo “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”  Instead, he asserted, “they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

The Israelis, listening to his words from less than 220 miles away, must have been shocked and dismayed to hear Obama refer to Islam… the most violent and intolerant force on the face of the Earth, where Christians, Jews, and others are brutally murdered and persecuted simply because they are not Muslims… as sharing American principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of human beings.

Then Obama went on to say that Islam had “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.  It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed… And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

It was then that he shocked Americans, describing how “Islam has always been a part of America’s story…”  He reassured Muslims that “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the (Sharia) laws, religion, or tranquility of Muslims.”  He claimed that, “since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.  They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch.  And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.”

So, if we wonder how radical Muslims have come to feel as if they are welcomed with open arms at our institutions of higher learning, and if we are wondering why Muslims feel as though they can shut down major portions of America’s busiest cities by holding prayer sessions in the middle of public thoroughfares, we may have struck on the answer.  It is Barack Obama who has set the stage and who has invited them to take full advantage of American tolerance and generosity.

Since the first day that Obama occupied the White House, he has extended the hand of friendship to the most brutal and intolerant people on the face of the Earth.  In doing so, he has denied the Judeo-Christian origins of our great nation.  He has caused the gloom of a declining culture to fall across the face of America; his chickens have come home to roost.

EDITORS NOTE: The features image is courtesy of S. Schofield and Watchdog Wire.

April 14, 2014: Celebrating Passover and Survival

Photo courtesy Center for Jewish History, NYC of Yahawah Children’s Home, Berlin, Passover Seder Table March 2010.

At sundown on Monday, April 14, Jews around the world will celebrate Passover with the traditional Seder dinner. Passover is about the exodus from Egypt and a reminder that they were slaves until led to freedom by Moses. Passover is an annual reminder of the survival of Jews and Judaism against extraordinary odds.

Conquered and exiled people in the past often disappeared. As Wikipedia notes, the first appearance of the name “Israel” was an Egyptian inscription dated around 1200 BCE. The term “Land of Israel” is found in the Torah, also called the Old Testament. Around 722 BCE it was conquered as was Judah in 586 BCE. Later, in 165 BCE the Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom was established, lasting 99 years and destroyed after the Romans captured Jerusalem in 66 BCE.

Until the State of Israel was reestablished in 1948, a constant Jewish prayer was “Next year in Jerusalem.” When Israel’s independence was declared, it was immediately attacked by five neighboring Arab nations who were to various degrees defeated.

In 1967 Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, but they were again defeated. 1n 1973, the Yom Kippur war took its name from having been attacked on its most holy of days by Syria and Egypt. While other nations are granted the lands they capture in war, particularly a war of defense, Israel continues to be accused of “occupying” them.

Israel has never really enjoyed peace with the nations that surround it and others in the Middle East. These days it is continually under attack from the Palestinians who protest their refugee status, but nothing is ever mentioned of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who became refugees when they were forced to flee from Middle Eastern nations in which many had lived for generations; double the number cited for Palestinians displaced in 1948.

A constant stream of UN resolutions has been directed against Israel. The Palestinians today are demanding recognition as a separate state, but after six decades they have never accepted the right of Israel to exist, insisting instead on its destruction.

These days it is the Christians of the Middle East experiencing the persecution the Jews have always known.

I was thinking about this as I read of the latest failure of the Obama administration to achieve what no previous one accomplished, a state of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Secretary of State, John Kerry, was so desperate for any solution that he floated the notion of freeing the Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, currently serving a life sentence, in exchange for Israel’s acceptance of the transfer of strategic parts of its homeland and acceptance of the return of millions of Palestinian Arab refugees—now the oldest “refugee” group in the world. Even Pollard denounced this.

How eager have the Israelis been to find any grounds for peace? They have repeatedly released Palestinians who engaged in terrorist attacks, many of which resulted in the deaths of Israelis. The latest such release was abandoned as the Palestinian leadership repeated its impossible demands. Unlike Gaza that was abandoned by Israel to provide Palestinian living space and is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization, the Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights as their Jewish neighbors, a true democracy that does not exist anywhere in the Middle East where monarchies and despots continue to rule.

The “Arab Spring” was an effort by Egyptians, Libyans, and Tunisians to overthrow their despots. The new, interim Egyptian government has declared the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. The Palestinian groups, Hezbollah and Hamas, have a long history of terrorism as do fascist Islamic groups such as al Qaeda and others.

The Passover Seder is the same dinner as the Christian “last supper” celebrated by Jesus and his apostles. While Jews pray for a messianic age, Christians identify Jesus as their messiah. Ironically, early Muslims prayed facing Jerusalem until the Jewish tribes of their time refused to accept Mohammed as the final prophet of God and were driven from Medina, suffering great slaughter and enslavement.

Islam practices a form of equal opportunity intolerance. It holds all other religions in contempt, but retains a special disdain for Judaism and Christianity.

320px-Passover_Seder_Dinner_at_the_White_House_2010

Passover Seder Dinner at the White House in 2010

I doubt that either President Obama or John Kerry know or care about the history I have cited. Despite the fact that Israel is literally the only ally the U.S. has truly had in the Middle East, Obama’s policy has been to withdraw from that region of the world and largely abandon it to the turmoil it is enduring. Their effort to negotiate with Iran ignores its hatred of the U.S. since it took our diplomats hostage in 1979 and its long quest to have its own nuclear weapons with which to impose its hegemony. All of Obama’s efforts regarding the Middle East have met with failure.

In two places, Israel and America, a population of six million Jews in each nation represents the bulk of the world’s Jews. Scattered throughout the rest of the world is the Jewish Diaspora. All suffer open or silent anti-Semitism to some degree. Jews have not engaged in the evangelism of Christianity or Islam, but they have never closed the doors to anyone who has adopted their faith.

From a spiritual point of view their existence and the resurrection of Israel is a miracle. In my lifetime, they have risen like the mythical phoenix from the ashes of the Holocaust in which millions were killed, as were Christians who also perished in Nazi death camps.

I do not know why Jews have been the subject of so much hatred over thousands of years. Some of it can be attributed to the competition of the religions whose roots began in Judaism; Christianity and to a lesser degree, Islam. Some of it has to be an irrational belief that Jews are different from the rest of humanity, but they are not.

They are a people who have survived based on their belief in a universal God of all mankind, the laws He set forth, and in their history as recorded in the Old Testament and since.

“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel. And Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the Lord had commanded him…And all the people answered together and said: ‘All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.’” Exodus, 19.

The holy nation endures.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

The Arab Spring: An Assessment Three Years On

A new Henry Jackson Society Report – The Arab Spring: An Assessment Three Years On – examines the ways in which the Arab Spring has affected the citizens of countries across the Middle East and North Africa, and assesses the impact on countries three years later.

The Arab Spring: An Assessment Three Years On, launched today by The Henry Jackson Society, provides an urgently-needed examination of the impact of the Arab Spring uprisings. Surveying the economic, social, political and security arenas of countries in the Middle East and North Africa region, the report finds that despite high hopes for democracy, human rights and long awaited freedoms, the overall situation on the ground is worse off than before the Arab Spring uprisings.

Among the report’s key findings:

  • Economy: Libyan oil production has dramatically fallen by 80% as neighbouring Tunisia’s economy is now dependent on international aid. Egypt’s economy, suffering from a substantial decrease in tourism, has hit its lowest point in decades, at the same time Yemen’s rate of poverty is at an all-time high.
  • Democracy: Whereas Tunisia has been progressing towards reform, Libya’s movement towards democracy has failed with militias now effectively controlling the state. Egypt remains politically highly-unstable and polarized, as Yemen’s botched attempts at unifying the government has left many political schisms.
  • Social: Egypt’s human rights, especially those of women and minorities, have deteriorated to the point of regular physical attack; in Libya, arbitrary detention, torture and attacks against religious groups have become common; and Yemen’s social freedoms have been ranked as progressively worse every year since the Arab Spring. Only Tunisia represents hope with a new constitution providing freedom of press and increased rights for women.
  • Security: Extremist and fundamentalist activity is rising in all surveyed states, with a worrying growth in terror activities across the region: Tunisia has suffered from an unheard number of terror attacks from al-Qaeda; Libya‘s southern provinces have been taken over by jihadist groups; Egypt has seen a spread of insurgent activity in the Sinai as well as the state’s capital; and in Yemen, the influence of the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the north is expanding, leading to confrontation with government troops.

Olivier Guitta, Research Director at the Henry Jackson Society and co-author of the report, said:

“Contrary to popular perception, there is insufficient analysis of the impact of the Arab Spring revolutions on the lives of those it most directly affected.  This report presents an accurate picture of what is actually happening, providing Western states with a deeper understanding of the security threats coming out of these countries.”

Download the full report here

For the Love of Money? by Gary M. Galles

Money at the margin, not everything for money.

It’s not unusual to hear market systems criticized for relying too much on money, as if this comes at the expense of the altruistic relationships that would otherwise prevail. Ever heard the phrase “only in it for the money”? It’s as if self-interest has a stink that can corrupt transactions that generate benefits for others, turning them into offenses. So this line of thinking suggests reliance on market systems based in self-ownership would be tantamount to creating a world where people only do things for money, and lose the ability to relate to one another on any other terms.

People Don’t Do Everything for Money

One need not go far to see the falsity of the claim that everything is done for money in market systems. My situation is but one example: I have a Ph.D. in economics from a top graduate program. It is true that, as a result, I have an above-average income. But I did not do it all for the money. One of my major fields was finance, but if all I cared about was money—as my wife reminds me when budgets are particularly tight—I would have gone into finance rather than academia and made far more. But I like university students. I think what I teach is important, and I value the ability to pass on whatever wisdom I have to offer. I like the freedom and time to pursue avenues of research I find interesting. I enjoy the ability to tell and write the truth as I see it (particularly since I see things differently from most) and I prefer a “steady job” to one with far more variability.

Every one of those things I value has cost me money. Yet I chose to be a professor (and would do it again). While it’s true that the need to support my family means that I must acquire sufficient resources, many things beyond just money go into choosing what I do for a living. And the same is true for everyone.

Ask any acquaintances of yours who they know that only does things for money. What would they say? They would certainly deny it about themselves. While they might apply this characterization to people they don’t know, beyond Dickens’s Ebenezer Scrooge and his comic book namesake, Scrooge McDuck, they would be unable to provide a single convincing example. If market critics performed that same experiment, they would recognize that they are condemning a mirage, not market arrangements.

Confusing Ends and Means

Beyond the fact that all of us forego some money we could earn for other things we value, the fact that every one of us gives up money we have earned for a vast multitude of goods, services, and causes also reveals that individuals don’t just do things for the money. Each of us willingly gives up money up to further many different purposes we care about. Money is not the ultimate end sought, but a means to a vast variety of possible ends. Mistakenly treating money as the end for which “people do everything” is fundamentally flawed—both for critics of the market and for the participants in it.

To do things for money is nothing more than to advance what we care about. In markets, we do for others as an indirect way of doing for ourselves. This logic even applies to Scrooge. His nephew Fred’s assertion that he doesn’t do any good with his wealth is false; he lends to willing borrowers at terms they find worth meeting, expanding the capital stock and the options of others.

That an end of our efforts is to benefit ourselves, in and of itself, merits neither calumny nor congratulations. Money’s role is that of an amoral servant that can help us advance whatever ends we ultimately pursue, while private property rights restrict that pursuit to purely voluntary arrangements. Moral criticism cannot attach to the universal desire to be able to better pursue our ends or to the requirement that we refrain from violating others’ rights, only to the ends we pursue.

To do things for money in order to achieve world domination could justify moral condemnation. But the problem is that your intended end will harm others, not the fact that you did some things for money, benefitting those you dealt with in that way, to do so. Using money to build a leprosarium, as Mother Teresa did with her Nobel Prize award, does not justify moral condemnation. Similarly, using money to support your family, to live up to agreements you made with others, and to try not to burden others is being responsible, not reprehensible. Further, there is nothing about voluntary arrangements that worsens the ends individuals choose. But by definition, they place limits on ends that require harming others to achieve them.

It is true that money represents purchasing power that can be directed to ends others object to. Money is nothing more than a particularly powerful tool, and all tools can be used to cause harm. Just as we shouldn’t have to forego the benefits of hammers because somebody could cause harm with one, there’s no reason to think society would be better off without money or the market arrangements it makes possible just because some people can use those things for harmful ends. And if the ends aren’t actually causing harm, then the objections over them come down to nothing more than disagreements about inherently subjective valuations. Enabling a small class of people to decide which of these can be pursued and which can’t makes everyone worse off.

Those who criticize people for doing everything for money also do a great deal for money themselves. How many campaigns have religious groups and nonprofit organizations run to get more money? How much of government action is focused on getting more money? Why do the individuals involved not apply the same criticism to themselves? Because they say they will “do good” with it. But every individual doing things for money also intends to do good, as he or she sees it, with that money. And if we accept that people are owners of themselves, there is no obvious reason why another’s claims about what is “good” should trump any “good” that you hold dear, or provide for another in service through exchange.

Criticizing a Straw Man

Given that the charge that “people do everything for money” in market systems is both factually wrong and logically lame, why do some keep repeating it? It creates a straw man easier to argue against than reality, by misrepresenting alternatives at both the individual and societal level.

At the individual level, this assertion arises when people disagree about how to spend “public” resources (when we respect private property, this dispute disappears, because the owner has the right to do as he or she chooses with it, but cannot force others to go along with or allow it; “public” resources are obtained by force). The people who wish to spend other people’s confiscated resources in ways the original owners disagree with claim a laundry list of caring benefits their choice would provide, but foreclose similar consideration of the harms that would be caused to those they claim care only about money. That, in turn, is used to imply that the purportedly selfish person’s claims are unworthy of serious attention. (Something similar happens when politicians count “multiplier effects” where government money is spent, but ignore the symmetrical negative “multiplier effects” radiating from where the resources are taken.)

This general line draws support from a misquotation of the Bible. While more than one recent translation of 1 Tim 6:10 renders it “the love of money is a root of all sorts of evils,” the far less accurate King James Version rendered it, “the love of money is the root of all evil.” When one simply omits or forgets the first three words, it becomes something very different—“money is the root of all evil.” Portray those who disagree with your “caring” ends as simply loving money more than other people, and they lose every argument by default. Naturally, it’s a seductive strategy.

At the societal level, criticizing market systems as tainted by the love of money implies that an alternate system would escape that taint and therefore be morally preferable. By focusing attention only on an imaginary failing of market systems that would be avoided, it allows the implication of superiority to be made without having to demonstrate it. This is a version of the Nirvana fallacy.

By blaming monetary relationships for people’s failings, “reformers” imply that taking away markets’ monetary nexus will somehow make people better. But no system makes people angels; all systems must confront human flaws and failings. That means a far different question must be addressed: How well will a given system do with real, imperfect, mostly self-interested people? And it shouldn’t be necessary, but most political rhetoric makes a second question nearly as important: Does the given system assume that people are not imperfect and self-interested when they have power?

Given that the utopian alternatives offered always involve some sort of socialism or other form of tyranny, an affirmative case for them cannot be made. Only by holding the imaginary “sins” of market systems to impossible standards, while holding alternatives to no real standards except the imagination of self-proclaimed reformers, can that fact be dodged. But there’s nothing in history or theory that demonstrates that overwriting markets with expanded coercion makes people more likely to do things for others. As Anatole France noted, “Those who have given themselves the most concern about the happiness of peoples have made their neighbors very miserable.” And as economist Paul Heyne wrote, “Market systems do not produce heaven on earth. But attempts by governments to repress market systems have produced . . . something very close to hell on earth.”

Money at the Margin

Money is not everything. But changes in the amounts of money to be earned or foregone as a result of decisions change our incentives at the many margins of choice we face, and so change our behavior. Such changes—money at the margin—are the primary means of adjusting our behavior in the direction of social coordination in a market system.

Changes in monetary incentives are how we adapt to changing circumstances, because whatever their ultimate ends, everyone cares about commanding more resources for those purposes they care about. It is how we rebalance arrangements when people’s plans get out of synch, which is inevitable in our complex, dynamic world. In such cases, changing money prices allow each individual to provide added incentives to all who might offer him assistance in achieving his ends, even if he doesn’t know them, doesn’t know how they would do so, and doesn’t think about their wellbeing (in fact, it applies even if he dislikes those he deals with, as long as the benefits of the arrangements exceed his perceived personal cost of doing so).

For instance, consider a retail gas station faced with lengthy lines of cars. That reflects a failure of social cooperation between the buyers and the seller. Those in line are revealing by their actions that they are willing to bear extra costs beyond the current price to get gas, but their costs of waiting do not provide benefits to the gas station owner. So the owner will convert those costs of waiting in line, which are going to waste, into higher prices (unless prevented by government price ceilings or antigouging directives) that benefit him. That use of money at the margin benefits both buyers and sellers and results in increased amounts of gasoline supplied to buyers.

Further, people can change their behavior in response to price changes in far more ways than “outsiders,” unfamiliar with all the local circumstances, realize. This makes prices, in turn, far more powerful than anyone recognizes.

Consider water prices. If water prices rose, your first thought might well be that you had no choice but to pay them. You might very well not know how many different responses people have already had to spikes (ranging from putting different plants in front yards to building sophisticated desalinization plants). Similarly, when airline fuel prices rose sharply, few recognized in advance the number of changes that airlines could make in response: using more fuel-efficient planes, changing route structures, reducing carry-on allowances, lightening seats, removing paint, and more.

If people recognized how powerful altered market prices are in inducing appropriate changes in behavior, demonstrated by a vast range of examples, they would recognize that the cost of abandoning money at the margin, which enables these responses by offering appropriate incentives to everyone who could be of assistance in addressing the problem faced, would enormously exceed any benefit.

Massive Improvements in Social Cooperation

If we could just presume that individuals know everyone and all the things they care about and the entirety of their circumstances, we could imagine a society more focused on doing things directly for others. But in any extensive society, there is no way people could acquire that much information about the large number of people involved. Instead, this would extend the impossible information problem that Hayek’s “The Use of Knowledge in Society” laid out in regard to central planners. You can care all you want, but that won’t give you the information you need. Beyond that insuperable problem, we would also have to assume that people cared far more about strangers than human history has evidenced.

Those information and other-interestedness requirements would necessarily dictate a very small society. But the costs of those limitations, if people recognized them, would be greater than virtually anyone would be willing to bear.

Without a broad society, the gains from cross-pollination of ideas and different ways of doing things would be hamstrung. The gains from comparative advantage (areas and groups focusing on what they do best, and trading with others doing the same thing) would similarly be sharply curtailed. A very small society would eliminate the incentive for large-scale specialization (requiring more extensive markets) and division of labor that makes our standard of living possible. Virtually every product that involves a large number of separate arrangements—such as producing cars or the gasoline to power them—would disappear, because the arrangements would be overwhelmed by the costs of making them without money as the balance-tipper. As Paul Heyne once put it,

The impersonal transactions that constitute the market system . . . have, over the course of a few centuries, enormously expanded our ability to provide [for] one another . . . while at the same time vastly extending our freedom both by offering us a multitude of options and by freeing us from arbitrary restrictions on our choice of life goals and on the means to further those goals. To reject impersonal transactions as unethical amounts to rejecting the foundation of modern life.

Conclusion

A pastiche of false premises leads many to reject out of hand what Hayek recognized as the “marvel” of market systems, which, if they had arisen from deliberate human design, “would have been acclaimed as one of the greatest triumphs of the human mind.” This is great for those who seek power over others—they have an endless supply of bogeymen to promise to fight.

But it’s a disaster for social coordination. The record of disasters inflicted on society demonstrates what follows when voluntary arrangements are replaced by someone else’s purportedly superior vision.

But it’s often forgotten. We must continue to make the case.

ABOUT GARY M. GALLES

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.

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

Pope Frances Fulfills Prophecy?

A recent video from Pope Francis appealing for unity with Protestants in America has gone viral. Many are asking, “Is this a fulfillment of Bible prophecy?” Watch this special message from Pastor Doug Batchelor.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/IsF2q-8ez08[/youtube]