Posts

Leftist Jews Ally with Suit-Wearing Jihadists in New Group [Part One] by Andrew Harrod

Anwar Khan “has been doing outreach to the Jewish community on behalf of the Muslim community for decades,” stated former American Jewish Committee (AJC) official Robert Silverman at Washington, DC’s Newseum on December 3. His praise for Khan, the director of the Hamas ally Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), typified the unsettling leftist Jewish ignorance of jihadist threats at this launch event for the Inter Jewish Muslim Alliance (IJMA).

Silverman addressed an audience that ultimately grew during the daylong conference to about 50. This included his fellow IJMA organizer, Microsoft External Affairs Director Suhail Khan, a “conservative” political operative with deep, longstanding personal Muslim Brotherhood (MB) ties. Other faces familiar to this author included the Gülenist Rumi Forum’s public relations director, Jena Luedtke, and the Iraqi-American co-founder of the American Islamic Congress, Zainab al-Suwaij.

Silverman’s association with the dubious Khan replicated Silverman’s experience as the first director of the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, previously rightly mocked as the “Wolf-Sheep Advisory Council.” Therein the left-leaning American Jewish Committee (AJC) had joined with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a nefarious MB-legacy organization, supposedly to combat hate crimes and other manifestations of bigotry. An IJMA statement distributed among the conference handouts and now available at IJMA’s new website proclaimed that IJMA members wanted, “as a Muslim-Jewish alliance, to counter voices of hatred and bigotry within our own communities.”

Yet the day’s proceedings demonstrated a decidedly one-sided view of prejudice among Jews and Muslims, as indicated by the seminar’s first presentation by Elana Hain from the Shalom Hartman Institute (SHI) of North America. “Antisemitism is converging on Jews from both the right and the left,” she correctly noted, but while “everybody in this room knows about antisemitism on the right,” leftist antisemitism “is much harder to talk about.” Today “what we are seeing on the progressive left is a type of conversionist antisemitism that says, ‘Jew, we will accept you if you disavow your commitment to the state of Israel.’” She noted particularly that “my spouse works on a college campus, and I have seen how Jewish students are increasingly unwelcome in progressive spaces.”

However true, Hain’s remarks surprisingly contained not a single reference to antisemitism involving Muslims or Islam. Excerpts from three publications (see herehere, and here) in her handout included several dubious allegations of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy and administration inciting antisemitism. By contrast, “Muslims” appeared only once in a Tablet article’s reference to hate crimes, even though the American Interest article she quoted briefly discussed “Islamic antisemitism” in an uncited paragraph. Meanwhile, internet searches of the Tablet for “Islamic antisemitism” find numerous articles (e.g. here).

Hain’s blind spot seemed particularly disturbing given the annual conference in Chicago of the viciously anti-Semitic American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) just days before (November 28-30). The conference featured inflammatory condemnations of Israel’s right to exist from prominent American Muslims. This included former Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad, and CAIR San Francisco chapter leader Zahra Billoo.

This author accordingly presented to Hain an audience question noting the AMP conference and that AJC CEO David Harris has previously called for “trifocal lenses” to confront antisemitism from the “far left, the far right, and the jihadists.” She responded that she was “including in progressive antisemitism” the “antisemitism that comes from the Muslim community around Israel.” She added that she had not devoted particular study to Islamic antisemitism and suggested that Muslim conference attendees might be better qualified to discuss this topic.

Just as Hain only circuitously referenced Islamic antisemitism, she similarly indulged questionable tropes commonplace among many Muslims. For example, without any indication of whether Jews or others had any valid objections to Islamic beliefs and/or behaviors she used the Orwellian phrase “Islamophobia.” Conflicts between Israel and Palestinians should not “lead to antisemitism or ‘Islamophobia,’” she said, as if irrational Jew-hatred were the same as critical inquiry into Islam.

Audience member Imam Abdullah Antepli, a leader of SHI’s Muslim Leadership Initiative (MLI), reflected Hain’s remarks with questions about “Islamophobic elements within the Jewish community.” “Within this organized anti-Muslim campaign in the United States, there are so many visible Jews,” he stated. Jews have a “fear of losing the state of Israel” and “when many Jews meet Muslims, that fear is all that they see,” she responded while again not explaining why such perceptions are meritless (consider Israel, Muslims, and Britain’s Labour Party).

Hain also equated Jewish national liberation in Israel with baseless claims that “Palestinians” represent a unique, historical nation and not merely a local collection of Levantine Arab communities. The statement “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people” is equally false as “Jews don’t have a history in that region” of Israel, she said. This is “mutual denial of peoples’ actual historical experiences,” notwithstanding numerous modern “Palestinian” fictions.

A veiled female Muslim audience member from the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom, a group obsessed with all real and imagined “white supremacy,” prompted more historical revisionism from Hain. The Muslim claimed that historically the term “antisemitism” encompassed prejudice against both Jews and Muslims, and Hain suggested that antisemitism could include both “Judeophobia” and “Islamophobia.” In reality, the German publicist Wilhelm Marr invented the word “antisemitism” in 1879 in order to impart a scientific veneer to his rabid Jew-hatred.

The appeasing Hain, who called the leftist American rabbi Jill Jacobs a “colleague and a friend,” paralleled the reaction to Islamic antisemitism of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an IJMA sponsor. As Islamic antisemitism scholar Andrew Bostom has documented, ADL global surveys of antisemitism in recent years have identified Muslims as world leaders in prejudice against Jews. Yet the ADL has minimized such facts.

While Hain acted conciliatory towards Muslims, they often show little reciprocity, as a following article will analyze. Conference speakers after her like the radical “Islamophobia” expert Wajahat Ali were far more direct in their accusations of bigotry against various Jews while exhibiting little interest in the anti-Semitic milieus of conference participants like ISNA members.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CAIR attacks Trump’s defense of Jews on campus on grounds of “free speech”

True Tales from the Annals of Adult-Onset Islam

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. The views are those solely of the author.

VIDEO: Excuse Me, Professor! Correcting the slant on campus

excuse me professor book coverToo often, the message students get in college is that government is the answer to all social and economic problems. This happens in classes on history, sociology, politics, literature, and even in economics. You can graduate having heard only one narrative: the market has failed, so it must be replaced by all-controlling government bureaucracies.

FEE president Lawrence Reed is the editor of a wonderful collection of essays that address myth after myth. The book is Excuse Me, Professor (buy it from FEE). The essays deal with a huge range of issues that confront students every day. Unless young thinkers have an alternative paradigm in mind, the cause of human liberty will continue to lose the intellectual battle.

In this presentation at the Acton Institute, Reed discusses his new book and why it is an important contribution to setting the record straight. (Talk begins around 4:30 mark.)

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins slam Left for giving Islam “free pass” despite Muslim terrorism

What is noteworthy about this is how selective and one-sided Maher and Dawkins are. They’re all upset about the Marxist anti-Semite Maryam Namazie being banned from speaking at a university because of her views on Islam, but have never said a word while for years Pamela Geller and I and others who tell the same truths about Islam that Namazie tells (and more consistently than she does because we do not support the “Palestinian” jihad as she does) have received the same treatment from universities and other venues. Maher and Dawkins would never think of speaking out on our behalf because they would likely think of us as “right-wing bigots” — as Sam Harris last year dismissed critics of jihad terror besides himself and his friends as “fascists.”

What Maher, Dawkins and Harris don’t seem to realize is that they only think of us as “fascists” because the same Leftist/Islamic supremacist smear machine (including their pal Namazie) that is now going after them for their “bigotry” has for years defamed us in exactly the same way, for saying essentially the same things they do about Islam. We are “right-wing” because the smear machine has called us “right-wing” for years — when I have never taken a public position on anyissue other than those involving jihad and Sharia, and the claim that defending free societies against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism is a right-wing issue, or constitutes “fascism,” is a media fiction.

I expect that Maher, Dawkins, and Harris wouldn’t be caught dead in the company of Pamela Geller or me, even though we note the same truths they do and defend the same freedoms they’re defending. That is testimony only to the effectiveness of the defamation campaign that has now turned against them, for the same reason its organizers targeted us. And as long as their indignation about the threat to the freedom of speech and the hollow truncheon of the “Islamophobia” charge remains restricted only to those on the Left, it remains inconsistent and hypocritical.

“Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins Slam Liberals for Giving Islam ‘Free Pass’ Despite Link to Terrorism,” by Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post, October 5, 2015:

Two of the most famous atheists in the world, HBO host Bill Maher and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, slammed liberals who they say are giving Islam a “free pass,” despite the human rights abuses being committed in Muslim countries and by Islamic extremist groups around the world today.

Dawkins was a guest on Maher’s “Real Time” on Friday, where Maher said it is “ridiculous” that some make out Muslims to be a “protected species.”

Dawkins added that people sometimes believe that those criticizing Muslims are racists.

Maher and Dawkins both took aim at liberals they said would shoot down free speech in order to protect Muslim sensitivities. Dawkins pointed out the case of Warwick University’s students’ union declining atheist and critic of extremist Islam Maryam Namazie the opportunity to speak at the school in October, out of fear of offending the religion.

Maher has himself faced push-back for his own university appearances, with University of California at Berkeley students starting a petition last year seeking to bar the HBO host from speaking at 2014’s fall commencement ceremony, due to his “racist” views on Muslims.

“If you can’t speak your mind at a university campus, where can you? I mean that’s what universities are about. It’s about free speech,” Dawkins said.

“So they think that if you you criticize Islam you’re being racist and you’re absolutely right that the regressive [liberals] give a free pass to Islam,” the atheist author continued. “They’re kind of right about everything else, I mean, they’re right about misogyny and all of the other good things. But in the case of Islam, it just gets a free pass and I think it is because of the terror of being thought racist.”

Maher added that those who criticize Islam are also called “Islamophobes,” which he said was a “silly word that means nothing.”

Maher, Dawkins, and other atheist authors, such as Sam Harris, have been criticized by religious commentators, such as Reza Aslan, for blaming Islam for the rise of terrorism….

Aslan added that such anti-theists get their ideas “from the most simplistic, the most unsophisticated and the most knee-jerk reaction to the very real problem of religious violence around the world,” and argued that it is “nothing less than idiotic to blame religion for religious violence without recognizing the multiple factors that are involved in violence of any sort.”

“Multiple factors” are “involved in violence of any sort.” This from a man who accused Pamela Geller and me of complicity in a murder that was initially blamed on “Islamophobia” but that turned out to be an Islamic honor killing. Aslan, of course, refused to retract.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Exclusive: Hate mail Irving mayor and police received over Ahmed Mohamed clock victimhood hoax

Islamic State blows up ancient Arch of Triumph in Palmyra

VIDEO: The Left Wing Liars Club

We hit back at the tired old lies of the left on the Iraq War, George W. Bush, the economy, the Islamic State and Obamacare.

Is there life on Mars? … And other tough, progressive questions

A recent post on the People’s Blog made me think of the following:

Is there life on Mars? If so, there are too many questions we must answer before we contemplate going there. Tough, progressive questions.

  • Is there social justice on Mars?
  • Is there an economy on Mars and if so, does it need regulating?
  • Is there a community on Mars and if so, does it need community organizers?
  • Are there genders on Mars and if so, is there gender equality for all 58 of them?
  • Is there private property on Mars and if so, is there redistributive justice?
  • Is there illegal immigration on Mars and if so, are there sanctuary cities?
  • Are there elections on Mars and if so, is voter ID required?
  • Is there Al Sharpton on Mars?
  • Is there homosexuality on Mars and if so, is there homophobia?
  • Is there parenthood on Mars and if so, does it need to be planned?
  • Are there corporations on Mars and if so, are they considered people?
  • Is there an environment on Mars and if so, does it require environmentalists?
  • Is there climate change on Mars and if so, is the Martian science settled?
  • Is there a nuclear bomb on Mars and if so, do they need negotiators?
  • Are there Muslims on Mars and if so, is there Islamophobia?

Actually, the last question has already been answered: there no Muslims on Mars.

Muslims ‘warned in Fatwa not to live on Mars’

Fatwa reportedly issued warning Muslims not to make ‘hazardous trip’ to live on Mars

Muslims have been warned in a Fatwa not to go and live on Mars because it would pose “a real risk to life”, according to a Dubai news organisation. The General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowment (GAIAE) in the United Arab Emirates said that anyone making such a “hazardous trip” is likely to die for “no righteous reason”.

Indeed, there appears to be plenty of “righteous reasons” for Muslims to die here even without Mars.

Come to think of it, progressives still have plenty of righteous causes to fight on Earth as well. Besides, if none of the above exists on Mars, there would be nothing for us to do there but to sustain ourselves by hard work.

Maybe we should join our Muslim brothers and not go to Mars after all. No matter how tempting it is to spend billions of other people’s money on such a trip.

IN OTHER NEWS…

The Sword of Revolution and the Communist Apocalypse

The Sword of RevolutionI was hired as a graphic designer and I did my job well, recycling the original revolutionary poster by Dmitry Moor, one of the founding fathers of Soviet agitprop. Now that the book is out, here’s my two kopecks.

This book has a lot of valid, factual information. At the same time, I remain skeptical about the theory that the breakup of the USSR was only a show so that the communists could take over the world by other means. Not that there aren’t powerful forces bending the civilized world towards what they call “progress” (and what I call collectivist barbarism), but those are different people and different movements with different goals. I generally don’t believe in conspiracies that require the presence of an undying, eternal, all-knowing, and superhuman brain – or in this case, community organizer.

I follow the developments in Russia very closely and one thing today’s Russians couldn’t care less about is Communism. To be sure, the Communist Party still has a strong presence there, but that’s mostly because Putin is feeding the communists in order to appease the nuts and the old-timers. That is also part of Putin’s strategy to shape and maintain his own opposition…

MORE >>

Study: ‘Crazed gunman’ stigma increases risk of suicide

'Crazed gunman' stigma may cause suicideA new study published by the country’s #1 rank school of clinical psychology, UCLA’s Dept. of Psychology, suggests a link between the high rate of suicide among alleged rampaging mass murderers and the stigma of being labeled, by mass media outlets, as a “crazed gunman.”

The study shows that close to 100% of those who are labeled as a “crazed gunman” commit suicide within the first 24 hours after their alleged rampage and, very often, within the first 60 seconds. Some, it is suggested, commit “suicide by cop” in inexplicable and “out-of-character” gun battles with law enforcement.

The study suggests that fear of being stigmatized leads many of these alleged felons to end their own lives before…

MORE >>

Stock market crash foretells third coming of Bush

third coming of BushSix days of stock market losses that have erased trillions of dollars of global wealth are being taken as a sign that the Third Coming of Bush is nigh. Those gifted in the dark art of political prognostication have reportedly been awaiting this omen for many months.

Well-known oracle Karl Rove was the first to recognize the significance of the financial portent, tweeting “As it was in 1987, as it was in 2000, so will it be in 2016. Let the Third Bush come forth and the world tremble at his glory!”

David Brooks, Chief Conservative Augur for the New York Times, elaborated…

MORE >>

FBI hires Ashley Madison hackers to retrieve Clinton emails

Ashley Madison HillaryTHE HACKERS BEHIND the Ashley Madison breach have been contracted by the FBI to retrieve Madam Hillary’s 35, 000 yoga emails that were scrubbed from her personal server.

On the heels of being stonewalled and lied to by the former Sec. of State, the bureau has determined that a bigger batch of deletions were unretrievable unless true experts, such as the Ashley Madison hackers, were contracted to retrieve the wiped correspondences.

MORE >>

Recovered images from Hillary emails prove it was only yoga

Hillary yogaWhile the FBI is still at a loss regarding the content of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail cache from her days as secretary of state, one thing they have determined beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Democratic presidential frontrunner is a diligent distance-education yoga student.

Emailing yoga routines are standard practice in distance education, said Mrs. Clinton’s online yoga instructor Maha Bharata through an interpreter. He claims that over the years he has sent her over two hundred thousand Hindu-language emails with pictures of yoga poses, which constitutes 90% of the data that had been wiped clean from Clinton’s personal server.

MORE >>

MURDAH: a stunning advancement in the right to choose

External UterusA child has grown up not how you envisioned? An elderly parent becoming a burden? Have you considered a post-birth abortion? Scientists at the Barack Obama Women’s Health Research Center have made an epic advancement in women’s health, and the right to choose.

Scientists have developed a method to allow abortions past the third trimester, as explained by the project’s lead scientist, Dr. Hillary Sanders: “Until now, women were limited to aborting only their own fetus, and only during the first three trimesters before birth. Our laboratory has pioneered…

MORE >>

The People’s Cube wasn’t always red: the story of Erno Rubik

People's CubeEverybody knows that the People’s Cube is gloriously red, which is politically correct and compliant with the Current Truth. It’s impossible to imagine today what it would look like with all the confusing unequal colors. Imagining such a thing is inadvisable. All you need to know is that it’s equally red.

All squares are equal, and all players are equal. Nobody is too smart, nobody is too slow. Guaranteed equality of results. A symbol of fairness and painless existence. Nobody’s a boob with the People’s Cube!

But it hasn’t always been that way. In progressive humanity’s past there was a hateful moment when a thoughtcriminal named Erno Rubik took the red Cube and colored every square unequally…

MORE >>

CNN to grill Democrat candidates using Fox News debate style

Fox News debate inquisitionFollowing the ratings success of Fox News in its presentation of the first Republican presidential primary debate, CNN has decided to mirror the GOP debate’s formula and tone when it hosts the first of six Democrat Presidential debates in October.

Jeff Zucker, president of CNN, tipped his hat to Fox: “I have to admit that they did a fantastic job and really held the candidates’ feet to the fire. I saw the numbers like everyone else did, and I want those ratings for CNN.”

In a surprising twist, Fox News debate moderators threw hardballs…

MORE >>

EDITORS NOTE: The political satire originally appeared on the Peoples Cube.

The Importance of Right Thinking

For fifty years liberals, progressives, socialists, those of the left or whatever they call themselves have been chipping away at every vestige of morality, right thinking, correct actions they could target.  So it is pretty darn pathetic and humorous when one of the opponents of personal responsibility suddenly decry destructive behavior.

Unless you have been in a coma, are deaf, blind or just dead, odds are you are acutely aware of the Ferguson disaster.  You are also familiar with how legions of thugs went to nutsville and tried to burn Baltimore to a crisp after their fallen thug brother Michael Brown assumed atmospheric temperature because he forgot that it is not nice to try and grab a police officer’s gun, after whacking him a few times.

I will probably never forget how Baltimore Mayor, Rawlings-Blake was at first OK with allowing the criminal rioters to wreak havoc, to let off a little steam.  Since that gruesome time of riotous woe followed by Baltimore government policies which have enormously inhibited the ability of Baltimore’s finest to effectively fight crime, things have gone more awry than usual.

So it was almost humorous to read in a CNS News report that Baltimore Mayor Rawlings-Blake stated that “the level of violence in Baltimore is unacceptable.”  Here we are a little over a year after the lunacy in Ferguson and Baltimore.  In recent months, Baltimore and other cities like Chicago have experienced record numbers of black on black murders.  One of the major reasons, amongst others is a refusal to teach individuals about right and wrong as well as personal responsibility.

Even the Mayor herself was obviously not taught about personal responsibility and property rights.  Remember her famous “they need to give the protesters room to destroy statement?  That verbiage alone opened the floodgates of destruction upon that historic city.  Unfortunately, Baltimore and increasingly throughout America society is reaping the intellectual garbage that has been sewn for decades.  When hate and blacks are victims are both taught and endorsed through the racism of low expectations what we have witnessed in Baltimore has become the fashion of the day in certain circles.

The racism of low expectations and victimization has not only damaged those who have been brainwashed by such hoopla, but the republic as a whole is negatively affected.  The burdensome cost of mad-uncivilized and enraged so-called victims is costing billions of dollars in property damage and medical costs.  More importantly, the needless loss of life at the hands of dummied downed so-called victims is costing fa

milies throughout the republic, the needless heartache of losing family members who became the real victims of so-called victims.

The black lives matter crowd is often a collection of either criminals or losers who should be considered criminals when conducting criminal acts.  If they die in the process of being criminals, then sovereign citizens should be smart enough to recognize it.  You cannot raise generations of American hating “victims” and then expect them to behave like rational human beings. It’s just not going to happen. Sorry!

If black lives matter activists and anyone else for that matter want a better life for people, they must first be willing to learn what entails a better life.

One cannot build a business, get a job or properly educate themselves if they are not first correctly instructed on the reality and importance of striving to be morally good.  Without the concept of common decency, Americans will continue to degenerate into vicious balkanized society of disunited countrymen out to hurt their fellow citizens and their property, just because they believe they can get away with it, like they did in Baltimore and Ferguson.

The time has come or some real concrete decisions to be made.  One of them is not to allow the continuation of the racist low expectation directives to poison the minds of young black Americans.  In addition, the evil choice of countless liberal educators and others to convince black Americans that they are nothing more than victims must be stopped NOW!

America was and can be great again, if “We the People” first choose to be great, victorious and through God’s grace, morally good.

Liberals HATE the History of The United States and Want to Create Their Own Utopia

In July, there are two nations that celebrate their Independence from one nation. Canada celebrated their independence from Great Britain on July 1 and the United States of America celebrated its independence from Great Britain on July 4. How interesting that the summer month of July produced such nations, birthed by an empire. Now some would argue that the empire that was Great Britain birthed another empire that was even more powerful, the United States.

Surely that was not the intent of our Founders, for us to be an empire and it is our true intent this day. We do not seek to conquer lands far and wide. We do not seek to occupy and hold territory in every corner of the world. But if you listen to Liberals, they would have you believe that the United States is nothing more than a colonial power that takes from other nations and gives nothing back. I have always found that to be strange since every time we defeated a major power or nation, we always gave it back to the people of that nation. Germany, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and the list goes on.

Surely a nation that is bent on world domination does not allow for conquered nations to live their own lives and have their own government. Remember the old Soviet Union? They surrounded themselves with nations that they controlled completely. There was no independence for the likes of the Baltic’s, Poland, East Germany and the list goes on. They had no choice but to do as their masters dictated. They had no choice but to stand and be the shield for Russia.

But Liberals in the United States, those who actually hate the United States, try to paint the picture that the United States is no better than the Soviet Union. They are so brazen with their hatred now that they even write articles that redefine history. They redefine the history of the United States of America by stating that the Revolutionary War was a bad idea. They claim that if the Monarchy of Great Britain ruled over the United States for a little while longer, there would not have been slavery and there would not have been a Civil War. These folks obviously do not know or understand their own history.

These Liberals tell us that the military Veterans of the United States should pay for their own health care. That if we didn’t spend so much on the military and if we didn’t pay our soldiers so much in salary that we could eliminate hunger in the United States and that everyone could go to public college for free. These Liberals preach that the basic foundations that made this country great and prosperous were illegal and immoral. You know, the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, Liberty and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The idea that each man is responsible for his own life.

You know the other ideals such as law and order is good for society. The military deserves our respect and admiration and that we should spend our money providing our soldiers with the best and latest equipment available to help insure their safe return home. Liberals detest the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance, the playing and singing of our National Anthem, the military jet fly overs at major sporting events, prayer before government meetings.

Liberals can’t stand the fact that you should have the freedom to choose your doctor, your health insurance, your child’s school, what kind of car you drive, and what words you can and cannot say in public. In the end, if Liberals had their way, we would not have a flag. We would not have a pledge. We would not have a military capable of defending this nation. We would not have the ability and the right to choose to live as we see fit. We would not have the right to choose what we buy, who we elect, where we speak, what we say.

In the end, what Liberals really want, what would really truly make them happy, is the death and destruction of freedom. The end of the United States of America. What Liberals would have is what that great utopian novel most of us read in high school clearly announced. In the world of the novel Animal Farm, clearly the Liberals believe that some people are more equal than others. They are more equal than you or I. And there is nothing more they would love than to be able to march you down to the nearest government building and force you to pledge your allegiance to them and their utopian, Socialistic ways.

But if they did that, would they still celebrate July 4th? Of course not, they don’t like the fact that we eat a lot of meat on that holiday.

Why Liberals Make Me Want To Hit Myself With a Sledgehammer

I often ask myself, when are the American people going to wake up? Seriously. It’s getting very frustrating dealing with people who not understand the basic concept of Freedom.

Of course there is the school of thought that you have the freedom to give up your freedom. But why would you do such a thing? Sure, you can blame former President George W. Bush for the Patriot Act but then why would you not only vote for but give undying support for others who tell you to your face they will take away your freedom and limit your choice? Does anyone stop and actually think any more? Do you really understand the meaning of hypocrisy?

I run into people all the time who are aghast that I do not support Barack Obama. When I ask them to tell me why they support him so blindly, they cannot give me a non-soundbite reason. When I ask why they would support with unwavering admiration and love the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, again I get the deer in the headlights look. What I get all too often is he will change or she will change things in Washington. Well let me ask you if Obama was the change you sought, then how is it Hillary needs to bring even more change?

Now we see many folks that once supported the notion of mandatory, government health care, not support it and indeed, want it repealed. Yet, Hillary would double down on government health care. In fact the state she once represented as a Senator recently passed a bill in one of their houses, about single payer government health care. I ask these same supporters if they like being taxed. The answer is always no they do not. I ask if they think they pay too much in taxes. Most reply with a resounding yes. But they claim it’s only because the rich do not pay their fair share. So I point out how much the rich do pay and they don’t believe it. So I tell them to look up the government numbers themselves. They often tell me they don’t have to do so because they know for a fact that the rich don’t pay enough. So then of course I ask what exactly is rich. How much do you have to earn to be rich? Who decides who is rich and who is not? I never get the same answer. How can you tax the rich, I ask, if you cannot even define who the rich are? I had one person tell me “oh the rich know who they are.” My goodness, I think I need to smash it with a hammer.

I hear the left talk about how the war in Iraq was illegal and we needed to get out. Now that we got out we are leaving them in the hands of terrorists who are winning the battle and killing innocent women and children. We are told by the left that people deserve to live in peace and harmony. But I tell them that the people of Iraq are not living in peace and harmony and in fact are being slaughtered daily by those who just don’t like their kind of religion. Should we not step in and bring balance and order to a country that wants only to live in peace? No, they respond. It is none of our business what they do over there. But the people of Iraq want peace, do they not? Of course but its our fault they don’t have peace the left tells me. So its our fault if we invade and its our fault if we do not invade? Yes they respond. I need a large hammer.

So I try to wrap this up succinctly. You wanted change that Obama promised but didn’t get. You wanted lower taxes but didn’t get them. You wanted government to allow you to do things you want to your body but you want government to tell others what they can and cannot do with their body. You didn’t want the Patriot Act under G.W. Bush but it was increased and expanded under Obama. You think that Republicans lie and cheat yet Hillary has admitted to breaking the law. And yet you still support Obama and Hillary?Yes, they say. Why? I ask. Because they are so smart. Because they are so open and transparent. Because they want to bring change. I even had one liberal tell me that the problem with Republicans is that they want to protect the Constitution too much and what we need is modern, smart government.

Oh like what we have now? Well, yes sort of, was the reply. Because we need more smart people like Obama and Clinton in office who are open and honest and let us see everything they are doing.

I blink. I need a sledge hammer. Are we really this stupid on a collective, national basis? I think a well-placed whack with an 8lb sledge hammer will put me out of my misery.

Who Ignores the Principle of Scarcity? Progressives and Politicians by Sandy Ikeda

Everyone has a theory of the way the world works, a way of connecting cause and effect. Without it, we wouldn’t know how to start the day: “If I wake up at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow, I should make it to work on time. And then…”

Our theories, the rules and principles by which we interpret the world, help us to think and plan, but they also constrain our thinking and planning to some degree. That can be a good thing, as long as our theories conform reasonably well to the real world. We understand, for example, that the best way to exit the 10th floor of a building is not necessarily to step out of the nearest window.

For economists who study human action in the real world, one of the principles we cannot ignore is that scarcity exists — to get more of one valuable thing, you will have to give up some of another valuable thing. In fact, you could say that not understanding the nature and significance of scarcity is the hallmark of someone who isn’t an economist, or is a very bad one.

In everyday life, it’s usually impossible to ignore the existence of scarcity. For most of us, it’s pretty obvious that time and money aren’t unlimited, and that if we want a bigger house we’ll probably need to earn more by giving up some leisure time and working more. In a free market, one without arbitrary political power and aggression, the economic reality of scarcity is a “hard constraint” that’s always good to keep firmly in mind when making plans.

Economics versus politics

But tracing out the more subtle and far-reaching implications of scarcity in a given set of circumstances is a skill that takes a lot of training and practice, which of course not everyone has done or, really, needs to do.

As Murray Rothbard puts it,

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in the state of ignorance.

Unfortunately, politics sorely tempts us to act irresponsibly. Politics is essentially about acquiring and using political power  — the initiation of physical violence. If the first principle of economics is that “scarcity exists,” then far too often the first principle of politics is, “ignore the first principle of economics!”

In the absence of legal privilege or persecution, people in a free market have to deal with scarcity’s hard budget constraint. But in the world of politics, people can try to immunize themselves against scarcity by making others pay for the things they want for themselves or for their cronies. Politics is the realm of the “soft budget constraint,” which may have prompted Margaret Thatcher to say, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Unfortunately, the same could easily be said for garden-variety politics almost everywhere today.

Principles versus consequences

This suggests perhaps another way of differentiating libertarians from the progressives of the left. For libertarians, economic principles constrain ourthinking. For progressives, economic reality constrains their outcomes.

What I mean is that when progressives, for instance, demand that people pay ever-higher minimum wages to those who work for them, they ignore the hard reality that someone, often unseen, must bear the cost of their “compassion,” and that those others are mostly young and unskilled workers that employers will now find too costly to employ. Or, an employer may cut back on nonwage payments they previously used to compensate their employees, making the employees worse off.

But because libertarians from the outset tend to be more mindful of economic principles, they are better able to shape their proposals, at a minimum, so as not to harm the very people that progressives aim to help. Libertarians are less likely to be disappointed when their policies confront economic reality. As someone once said, “Economics is the art of putting parameters on our utopias.” Scarcity is one of those parameters.

(Some may be reminded of Thomas Sowell’s distinction between “constrained vision” and “unconstrained vision,” which, however, I believe focuses more on one’s view of human nature: whether it is perfectible or not perfectible.)

Innovating within constraints

Faced with poverty, unhealthy working conditions, criminal violence, and a host of other persistent socioeconomic problems, we’re often admonished by the left to think beyond capitalism, to think creatively “outside the box.” Why not try to change those parameters or remove some of them altogether?

Well, even musical geniuses from traditions as different as classical, jazz, and rock must learn the rules of their genre before they can break through and go beyond them. Before he pioneered bebop, Charlie Parker had first to master the saxophone and the musical conventions of his day. Only then could he push outside mainstream jazz. To color outside the lines, you need to know where the lines are.

Moreover, scarcity is not a man-made thing that can be unmade purely by human willpower or by wishing it away. We have to account for it when we confront the real world. Otherwise, we risk personal failure or perhaps much worse. None of this means, though, that we can’t dramatically reduce scarcity and address those problems.

Sometimes there are free lunches. It’s possible to push that constraint outward and reduce scarcity through efficiency (getting more out of less) or, more importantly, through innovation (creating something of value that didn’t exist before). Henry Ford, Estee Lauder, and Norman Borlag significantly reduced the scarcity of cars, cosmetics, and food — to a world of ordinary people within the constraints of physics, chemistry, and economics.

We can get to where we want to go faster when we can see the road.


Sandy Ikeda

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

Using a Bill Gates Grant to Sidestep Standardized Testing in University Admissions?

Billionaire Bill Gates believes in testing. However, it appears that he believes in “the market” even more. Consider Gates’ words to legislators in 2009:

When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well—and that will unleash powerful market forces in the service of better teaching. For the first time, there will be a large base of customers eager to buy products that can help every kid learn and every teacher get better. [Emphasis added.]

Bill Gates has no background in K-12 classroom teaching. He has no background in assessment. He does have money, lots of money. It must be his money that allows him to even write a guest editorial in the April 2013 Washington Post to share his views on the *appropriate* role of student test scores in teacher evaluation. He assumes that student standardized test scores will work as a component of teacher evaluation. He also assumes that merit pay can and will work, if only “we” would be careful as “we” “drive the long-term improvement our schools need.”

We?

Bill Gates has no background in teaching. Instead, he views education through the lens of business. And if the tests are interfering with business, perhaps it is time to pull back on the testing in order to save Gates’ extensive CCSS investment. To this end, in June 2014, the Gates Foundation declared the need for a “moratorium”– not the end of testing, mind you, and not the end of CCSS– just a break from theconsequences of testing in order to take the heat off of CCSS:

The Gates Foundation is an ardent supporter of fair teacher feedback and evaluation systems that include measures of student gains. We don’t believe student assessments should ever be the sole measure of teaching performance, but evidence of a teacher’s impact on student learning should be part of a balanced evaluation that helps all teachers learn and improve.

At the same time, no evaluation system will work unless teachers believe it is fair and reliable, and it’s very hard to be fair in a time of transition. The standards need time to work. …

Including the assessment results in teacher evaluations even though they won’t count for two years also has benefits: First, the teachers can begin to use the assessments to inform their practice, and second, teachers can see how their performance looks using these measures and make sure it lines up with other measures of teaching practice. This is crucial in building teacher trust in the assessments.

In our view, allowing two years in which assessments will be administered and scored but not yet taken into account strikes the best balance between a commitment to teacher evaluations that measure student learning and a commitment to ensure that teachers will not be harmed as they complete the transition to the Common Core.

Protecting the Gates investment. Cutting mass education a deal.

The Gates Foundation published this position only five days after Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed legislation to immediately replace CCSS with Oklahoma’s former state standards until new standards and assessments could be developed.

This is not good for Gates’ CCSS investment, which Gates hopes will bring American education “to scale” in order to benefit “the market.”

Gates does not restrict his business applications to K-12 education. He is willing to spend his billions on better business models for higher education, as well. Consider this January 2014 grant to the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU):

Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities:

Date: January 2014 
Purpose: to support a cohort of public urban research universities to develop new business models that can increase access, improve success rates and find greater cost efficiencies and then use national association networks to scale promising practices 
Amount: $2,507,628

Much of this funding has been divided among seven universities in a seeming “innovations contest” to “improve success rates.” The seven recipients have one year to develop its “innovations”– with the intent that “successful” innovations will be “scaled” (efficiently reproduced).

Temple University was one of the recipients:

The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) and the Coalition of Urban Serving Universities (USU) announced today that Temple University is one of only seven universities nationwide selected to participate in an innovative, one-year project that seeks to transform the way higher education is delivered.

Temple will receive $225,000 as part of the Transformational Planning Grant project—an initiative funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—to research, develop and test new university business models that can increase access, improve student success rates and find greater cost efficiencies. …

APLU intends to use its national network to work to scale the most promising findings and practices of Temple and the six other grantees—California State University, Fresno; Florida International University; Georgia State University; Portland State University; the University of Akron; and the University of Illinois at Chicago—to help its more than 200 public university members across the country better meet the needs of their evolving student populations.

In an interesting turn of events, Temple University plans to use its Gates “better business of education” money to admit students without use of standardized test scores and instead incorporating “noncognitive approaches” to student success:

Temple’s Transformational Planning Grant will be used to develop new approaches for recruiting and evaluating prospective Temple students. The project will be piloted among students in Philadelphia area high schools whose potential may be overlooked by traditional measures of achievement, such as standardized testing. Temple also will analyze how these “non-cognitive” approaches—strategies that take into account factors such as a student’s grit, determination, self-assurance and self-advocacy—can be incorporated into the university’s academic policies, financial aid strategy, and advising and support services.

So, it seems that Gates might experience some “business model clashing” given the Gates preference for standardized testing as assumed “good for education business” and now a Gates grantee assuming that standardized testing could “overlook potential” in some students– which implies that standardized testing has limitations that make it suspect a component for any high-stakes decisions.

No seasoned teacher needs to be told that some students just don’t test well.

But Bill Gates is certainly no seasoned teacher. He is just a man with lots of money who gets to purchase his viewpoint. He believes that standardized tests should be “part” of “measuring” teacher effectiveness.

I wonder what Gates will do if via Temple University’s “innovation” he is faced with the news that forsaking standardized testing “promotes greater cost efficiencies” in the business of higher education.

Would he be willing to promote such a finding “to scale”?

RELATED ARTICLE: What National Group Is Funding the Pro-Common Core Lawsuit in Louisiana?

France’s united front of Jew hatred

Parts of the French left have no problems participating in anti-Semitic demonstrations demanding that Jews be kicked out of France. The Socialist government is less than pleased.

PARIS. What happened in the streets of Paris on the 26th of January? On the eve of Shoah Remembrance Day, a significant contingent of demonstrators marching in the Jour de Colère [Day of Rage] howled “Jews, get out of France” and other vicious anti-Semitic slogans.

The best coverage of the march I have seen begins with a display of Islamic Jew hatred on the Champs Elysées in October 2012. Then, scenes of wild Dieudonné fans mocking the Shoah alternate with choice excerpts from the Day of Rage, illustrating converging branches of Jew hatred packed into a cocktail of contemptuous destructive rage.

One week later, on February 2nd, a far larger crowd marched peacefully for five hours with absolutely no violence, anti-Semitism, or disrespect for the République. The Manif’ pour tous [Everyone’s protest march] is a movement created last year in an attempt to block the passage of the mariage pour tous [marriage for everyone] Bill. Though the Hollande government tried desperately to link the two movements, the difference is visible to the naked eye and confirmed by closer examination of the people, the discourse, and the outcome.

The Left, which is never more than a heartbeat away from the barricades, adores street protests… when it is in the Opposition. Today, an embattled government with nothing to show for its first 18 months in office but a tawdry politico-sexual scandal at the summit is tut-tutting about “baseless” demonstrations. The JDC [Jour de Colère] is, apparently, the brainchild of Béatrice Bourges, a dissident of the MPT [Manif’ pour Tous]. Exasperated with the failure to prevent passage of the same-sex marriage law, Bourges created an aggressive Printemps Français [French Spring] faction that engaged in battles with the police, easily used by the government to discredit the squeaky clean MPT movement that had mobilized at least half a million. Having failed to take over leadership of the MPT, Bourges sought new allies and new forms of action.

Ten days before the Day of Rage, in a debate with Pierre Cassen of the anti-Islamization site Riposte Laïque, Béatrice Bourges presented her analysis of same-sex marriage and parenthood, by adoption and eventually artificial insemination and womb rental, as part of a global project of “transhumanism.” The plan is to create a New Man hors sol [without national identity] and hors sexe [without sexual identity], a slave of an oligarchy determined to rule the world by turning people into featureless units of production and consumption. Her choice of villains and vocabulary ring with the familiar string of adjectives often associated, in times of trouble, with Jews: “stateless cosmopolitan unscrupulous money-grubbing demons of finance …”

Cassen announced he would not participate in the Day of Rage after Dieudonné encouraged his followers to join the troops. Bourges countered, helter skelter, that Dieudonné himself wouldn’t attend, the best way to discourage his acolytes was to ignore them, but it doesn’t matter if they do come because this is the Day for all the rhymes and reasons of Rage, no one should be excluded. Expressed rage, she said, is less prone to violence than repressed rage. These and other predictions about attendance—“it will be a tsunami”– and results—“the government has feet of clay, a few good blows and it will topple”– turned out to be equally inaccurate. I have not found on the Jour de Colère or Printemps Français any statement sites of disapproval of the anti-Semitic slogans, chants, and signs.

Though Béatrice Bourges is believed to be a central figure in the JDC organization, the movement adopted the anonymous Facebook-twitter image ascribed to the “Arab Spring.” Another “Arab Spring” prop, the “Hollande dégage” [Hollande, bug off] slogan, picked up from one of the participating groups, goes back to Tunisia’s “Jasmine Revolution” and subsequent uprisings in Libya, Egypt, etc. “Day of rage” is associated with a Palestinian practice of periodic organized violence against Israel. Aside from the strange Middle East echoes, these borrowings perpetuate the idea that we are living under a dictatorship that must be overthrown. (Similar echoes were found in the Occupy Wall Street movement.)

This justified accusations that the protest movement is aimed at destroying the République. But nothing can hide the Left’s paternity of a movement that coalesces dark forces from all extremes of the political spectrum. It would be impossible within the limits of this article to give an idea of the pot pourri of participating groups listed on the Jour de Colère site. Splinters, split-offs, offshoots of multiple varieties–anti-Islamization, Muslims against gender theory, anti-globalization, anti-population replacement, Catholic fundamentalists, old fashioned neo-Nazis, small businessmen, freelancers, nationalists, royalists, farmers… An undercurrent of the Jew hatred that emerged on the Day of Rage can be discerned here and there: the campaign to keep children home from school to protest gender theory indoctrination in kindergartens was organized by Farida Belghoul, one of the pioneers of the “beur” [second generation Maghrebi] movement spawned on the Left. She is now allied with arch anti-Semite Alain Soral. Media Press, a JDC-friendly site links to articles such as “Is Manuel Valls the Interior Minister of France or Israel?”

Will the coalition of united rage, fired by the weakness of the French government, find Jew hatred as its common denominator? The danger is real. Socialist deputy Julien Dray declared that an important faction of the Day of Rage demonstration intended to march into the rue des Rosiers in the heart of the Jewish Marais. Sammy Ghozlan, president of the BNVCA [Bureau national de vigilance contre l’antisémitisme] warns that when the law catches up with Dieudonné and puts him in handcuffs, it could trigger a “Crystal Day.”

Is there room for the hope that many French people, disgusted with overt Jew hatred, will withdraw from the hastily concocted coalition? It only took fourteen years for the guttural shouts of “Kill the Jews” that have been ringing out in pro-Palestinian, anti-war, pro-Hamas and go-jihad marches to reach the ears of French media. And for the government to recognize that anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism is a danger to the République.

Epilogue

The Manif’ pour Tous is another story and the government didn’t know what to do about it. Spokespersons and friendly media pumped out the talking points as tens of thousands marched in bright winter sunshine: This protest is based on wild rumors. Reproductive boosters—PMA [artificial insemination] for lesbian couples and GPA [womb rental] for males—do not figure in the Family Affairs Bill slated for March. The “ABC of Equality,” experimented in hundreds of kindergartens, is not “gender theory,” it’s just about abolishing stereotypes. Mariage pour tous is the law of the land; it is undemocratic to demonstrate against it.

It didn’t work.

Monday morning the Interior Minister, followed quickly by the Prime Minister, promised they would not allow deputies from the majority to attach PMA and GPA amendments to the Bill.

By late afternoon the government announced that the controversial Bill is postponed … indefinitely.

PODCAST: How Mother Nature will Accelerate the Looming Fiscal Avalanche

Many are writing about the looming fiscal cliff that Congress and the Obama administration will deal with upon return from the Thanksgiving break. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) warns of a looming fiscal avalanche.

In After Fiscal Cliff Comes Fiscal Avalanche, Rejection of U.S. Debt, Senator Lee writes, “While Washington is preoccupied with the so-called fiscal cliff, little attention has been given to the fiscal avalanche that will occur if we continue down an unsustainable, long-term path, causing markets to turn sour on U.S. debt and leading to a spike in interest rates.”

Senator Lee states, “The Congressional Budget Office projects that under the most likely policy scenario, in 30 years, net interest payments on the debt could total $3.8 trillion in today’s dollars. That is more than total government spending for 2011.”

Robert Wiedemer co-author of America’s Bubble Economy – Aftershock wrote America has suffered through a number of financial bubbles and the aftershock following each. To date each of these bubbles, the most recent being the housing bubble, have burst and fallen onto two other looming bubbles. These two bubbles are the “dollar bubble” and the “debt bubble”. Wiedemer predicts these two bubbles will burst when pricked by the pin called “inflation”.

The government fiscal policies which have lead the US to the fiscal avalanche may be helped along by mother nature.

Relying heavily on the research of experts globally, as well as his own original research that correctly predicted the change in the Sun’s behavior, Mr. John L. Casey has spelled out in his book Cold Sun a convincing case that a new cold era has arrived. In Cold Sun, Mr. Casey presents the evidence showing:

1. Global warming ended years ago.
2. The Sun has entered an ominous state of ‘hibernation.’
3. The Earth’s ocean and atmospheric temperatures are dropping rapidly and are now on a long term decline for the next thirty years.
4. Glacial ice worldwide is growing again and the threat of rising sea levels is over.
5. Why we should be preparing now for the coming cold and its ill-effects including record earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions as well as global agricultural devastation.

Mr. Casey’s predictions of mother nature taking her own course fly in the face of current government policies at the national, state and local levels. In this exclusive interview Mr. Casey explains how mother nature will have her way no matter what we try to do:

While government is focused on reducing CO2 emissions to prevent global warming, the earth is in fact cooling. According to Casey this cooling will shorten the growing season causing food prices to increase, require more fuel and energy to heat homes and businesses. The US will experience an increase in the number of natural disasters costing human life loss and property damage on a grand scale. The US ability to recover from such natural disasters here and globally will be restricted by our debt and cost to service that debt in the long term.

The world’s growing population depends on food. Brian M. Carney in his article for the Wall Street Journal asks, “Can The World Still Feed Itself?“. Mr. Carney interviews Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of Nestle’ the world’s largest food-production company. According to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, “Politicians do not understand that between the food market and the energy market, there is a close link.” That link is the calorie.

Carney reports, “The energy stored in a bushel of corn can fuel a car or feed a person. And increasingly, thanks to ethanol mandates and subsidies in the U.S. and bio-fuel incentives in Europe, crops formerly grown for food or livestock feed are being grown for fuel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent estimate predicts that this year, for the first time, American farmers will harvest more corn for ethanol than for feed. In Europe some 50% of the rapeseed crop is going into bio-fuel production, according to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, while “world-wide about 18% of sugar is being used for bio-fuel today.”

What does this all mean?

If John Casey is correct in his predictions, and SSRC always is, then cold weather brings with it a shorter growing season and increased demand for fuel to keep people warm. Therefore, we must have policies that increase calories, not decrease the food supply.

These natural events will occur during the same 30 year period where our payments on the national debt will increase to $3.8 trillion.

RELATED COLUMN: Are we living in the Hunger Games?

A government shutdown is a good thing!

shutdown if that is what it takes signThe government shutdown at midnight is a “sequester” of non-essential government employees. That is a good thing according to Brian S. Wesbury.

According to Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist for First Trust, “It looks like House and Senate won’t come to a budget agreement by midnight and, as a result, the federal government is going to partially shut down starting Tuesday morning. Run for the hills? Armageddon: right? Nope!”

Westbury notes, “As we said a few weeks ago, a shutdown is not as scary as it seems. Money still flows into the Treasury Department and money still flows out, for Social Security or to make interest payments on the debt, for example. The military, border control, food inspections, air traffic, prisons, weather service, and post office, all keep going. And, as long as the Treasury Department has room to continue its ‘extraordinary measures’ or if the debt limit goes up in the meantime, Treasury still pays the debt as it comes due, without missing a beat.”

There have been many government shutdowns.

“Some pundits and analysts say a shutdown will hurt the economy, but it’s hard to say that based on history. The Washington Post recently listed every shutdown from 1976 to 1996. There were 17 shutdowns totaling 110 days. Out of those 110 days, only 6 days were during recessions. That’s very few given that we were in recession about 14% of the time during that twenty–year period,” writes Wesbury.

The last and longest shutdown doesn’t appear to have hurt the economy either writes Wesbury.

“That was the three-week shutdown from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996 under President Clinton. Real GDP grew 2.3% in the year before the shutdown, a 2.9% annual rate in Q4-1995 and then at a 2.6% pace in Q1-1996, despite the shutdown and the East Coast Blizzard, a multiple day massive snowstorm in January that was followed by large floods,” states Wesbury.

So getting rid of the government fat is a good thing for the economy. Perhaps Washington, D.C. staffers and government workers will now understand what their Main Street counterparts are facing.

VIDEO: The global threat of a Red (Marxist) on Green (Islamist) alliance

Tom Trento, National Security Expert, Director of The United West.

Tom Trento, National Security Expert, Director of The United West.

Tom Trento, Florida talk show host, author and internationally known speaker on national security issues, spoke at the Villages TEA Party on September 17th. The topic was the global threat facing the United States, our allies and Israel. Trento covered topics including Syria, Iran, the 9/11 remembrance and the threat to Western civilization posed by a new/old alliance. This Red (Marxist) and Green (Islamist) alliance has strengthened recently with the reemergence of the role of Russia in the Middle East.

Trento takes questions from the TEA Party members and put into perspective what is happening in this and previous administrations. Please watch Trento’s presentation (video courtesy of The United West):

ABOUT THE UNITED WEST:

The United West is dedicated to defending and advancing Western Civilization against the kinetic and cultural onslaught of Shariah Islam, so that America remains a land of freedom, justice and opportunity grounded in the principles of our Constitutional Republic.The United West has taken up this challenge because the ever increasing forces of darkness, whether political, social, or philosophical seek to destroy, subvert or subjugate all that Americans hold to be right and true.The United West will succeed in this mission by educating, training and activating Americans to stand on proven principles, guide public opinion and amend public policy so that leadership is selected on November 6, 2012 which affirm the canons of jurisprudence.

Specifically, TUW educates and activates freedom minded people, wherever they may live, to effectively develop strategies and tactics which propagate the exceptionalism of Western Civilization over against the totalitarian choke-hold of shariah Islam. Immediately, our objectives include the mobilization of Americans and Europeans to stand firmly for the defense and protection of the State of Israel.

The United West combines top-shelf academics with a military-grade activism to distinguish itself from every counter-jihad organization. There is no other nongovernmental organization like it, in the world. Visit TheUnitedWest.org to learn more.

Candidate Bonilla challenges Grayson to debate the issues

As Florida has had a cool no hurricane summer the political storm clouds are gathering for the 2012 Congressional elections. One of the hottest seats in Florida is Congressional District 9. There are a number of national issues with a major impact on Floridians including the cost of health insurance (Obamacare), education (Common Core), employment (recession), growth (housing markets, mortgage rates), national security (Syria, Iran, Russia) and domestic social policies (2nd Amendment, gay marriage, states rights).

Republican Congressional candidate Jorge Bonilla has sent a letter to Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL District 9), stirring the political pot. Bonilla is requesting five debates, the first one on Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare).

Javier Manjarres recently reported:

Bonilla, who is one of the contributing writers here at the Shark Tank, will be facing off with none other than Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson, in Florida’ 9th Congressional District. Here is Jorge’s recent post about Kathleen Sebelius.

According to his website, Bonilla’s family story is very similar to that of many immigrants who have traveled to America to make a better life for themselves and their families, as well another Hispanic member of Congress who ran for the U.S. Senate in 2010.

Bonilla’s parents moved from the Island of Puerto Rico in the mid-Sixties, where his father picked apples as a day-laborer, while his mother worked in an aviation seatbelt factory.

The 42-year-old married father of one first answered the call of duty when he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves, before transferring over to the U.S. Navy, during the Desert Storm era.

Rep. Grayson supports full implementation Obamacare as well as the President’s domestic, social and foreign policies. Bonilla is challenging Grayson to walk the walk not just talk the talk.  The gauntlet has been thrown, will Grayson pick it up and meet the challenger?

The text of the letter requesting a minimum of five debates follows:

September 12, 2013

Congressman Alan Grayson
8419 Oak Park Rd
Orlando, Florida. 32819

Mr. Grayson,

You have been one of the most outspoken supporters of President Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act, or Obamacare. Because this law is set to be fully implemented in 2014, I believe it is important that your constituents have an opportunity to hear from you about the healthcare law mandates they will be forced to adhere to.

Because I believe in full transparency and accountability, not to mention that the constituents of Florida’s 9th Congressional District deserve to know the truth about this disastrous law you are selling to them, I challenge you to a town hall-style debate to discuss the Obamacare law before the end of the 2013 calendar year.

There are several “Constituent Work Weeks” in the coming months in which you will be available to join me in debating the merits of the Obamacare law. In looking over the current Congressional calendar, the third week of October, and the second week of November look pretty open for you.

In addition, I am also requesting four other issue-related town hall-style debates, bringing the total number of debates requested of you to five.

Considering that you have not run from a challenge posed by any of your past congressional campaign opponents, I look forward to debating you on Obamcare and the other pressing issues that are concerning to Americans.

Sincerely,

Jorge Bonilla