May 26, 2016

Obama's bathroom diktat like the Jim Crow South

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://theresurgent.com/obamas-bathroom-grab-is-like-school-segregation-and-jim-crow/
Obama’s Bathroom Grab Is Like School Segregation and Jim Crow
By Steve Berman | May 26, 2016, 12:02am |

President Obama’s transgender bathroom access isn’t about transgenders, and it isn’t about bathrooms. It’s about Federal power over every aspect of our lives, by decree and by use of force to compel us to live as one man in Washington pleases. Obama is about to segregate schools, separating the well-funded, transgender-friendly ones from the funding-starved ones that refuse to comply with his bathroom grab.
Listen, I understand that people have different opinions about who should use a men’s room or a ladies’ room. We’ve spent a lot of time discussing the whole idea here at The Resurgent, and there’s no complete consensus of opinion, other than the facts. The facts are that boys are boys and girls are girls by biological certainty. Aside from true biological hermaphrodites (of which there are likely less than 3,000 total in the U.S.), plumbing determines whether a person can successfully use a urinal.
The discomfort occurs when someone previously known as a male decides to impersonate a female without changing the plumbing (or vice versa). Especially when that person was, up to 24 hours ago, dressing, acting, and walking as a male, and now they’re in a dress and high heels. It’s weird and distressing, but our government seems not to care about the distress everyone else suffers, only the distress of this person seeking to use the ladies’ room to pee standing up over the bowl. Or the teenage girl looking for a place to discard her tampon in the boys’ room.
Thankfully, this does not happen often. It’s rare enough that the total number of people afflicted with this particular distress (some doctors call it a mental disorder) is somewhere around the population of Montana. (Not to be unfair to Montana or to suggest that all transexuals can go live there; it’s also about the population of Rhode Island.)
So, many parents feel they can just ride this one out and, as one parent put it "keep her head in the sand and not deal with it.” Fair enough. My wife and I simply told our soon-to-be first grader that if a girl walked into his school boys’ room, not to go in there, or to leave as soon as he could. We think it’s wrong. Some parents are pulling their kids from public schools, and we can expect to see private school enrollments rise. But private school may offer no protection from Obama’s decree.
And that’s why this is an enormous problem for the American republic.
Obama used a federal law passed in 1972, Title IX, which was written to prevent discrimination against women, to compel schools to offer transsexual access to restrooms. I am 100 percent certain that the lawmakers in 1972, and President Nixon, who signed the bill into law, did not have this in mind. So the first problem is that the president has decided for himself how to interpret laws written well before his term (not the first, or even second time he’s done this).
The second problem is that the federal government will compel compliance with this bathroom "guidance” not by using the courts, or by criminalizing not offering transsexuals access to the restroom of their choice. It’s much more pernicious than that. They will use the power of the purse (which is Constitutionally reserved to Congress) by withholding billions of dollars of federal education dollars from schools that don’t comply.
That’s your kids’ school, my kids’ school, public schools, private schools, schools that get USDA reduced price lunches (including church schools, even daycares). Obama has resorted to pre-integration "separate but unequal” policies, but instead of race, he’s applying it by religious status and worldview.
If any state enacted such a caste system for schools, the federal courts would be slapping injunctions like a meter maid in a fire lane. But the federal government operates in its own rule-by-fiat world.
At least eleven states are fighting back. Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin have joined a lawsuit accusing the Obama administration of "educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the lawsuit.

The Obama Administration is attempting to rewrite Congress’s use of the term "sex” in federal law to now expand to include "gender identity.” If successful, this radical change opens up all intimate areas within schools simultaneously to members of both sexes. Texas is joined by 10 other states in pushing back against enforcement of these unconstitutional rules.

If the current president can successfully redefine a word like "sex” in federal law, what can the next president do? Maybe redefine "citizen,” or "mother,” or "father.” There’s really no limit to the damage this could do to our republic. Not only that, but by tying federal funding budgeted by Congress and administered by executive agencies to compliance with "guidance” based on these definitions, the imperial president can blackmail any class of Americans to comply or suffer insurmountable tragedy.
Even liberals should oppose this kind of centralized power, because it could very easily be used to rob them of their own liberty. African Americans spilled blood and suffered jail to win the right to attend the best schools along with white people and overturn segregation. Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared transgender bathroom access to that fight against Jim Crow.
Clarence Henderson, one of the students who occupied the lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, N.C. in 1960 took issue with her.

During the Jim Crow Era, we stared down the nozzle of firehoses, felt the piercing bite of police dogs, dangled from trees after being strung up by an angry mob, all because of the color of our skin. Our businesses were burned, churches bombed, communities destroyed, all because of the color of our skin. We had to drink at separate water fountains, shop at different stores and even had to sit at the back of the bus, all because of the color of our skin. All this and more took place after enduring 400 years of arguably the most heinous crime in history – slavery.
In comparison, transgender individuals do not have to fight dogs, can shop anywhere and can use any water fountain. They are free to work, shop and ride the bus. And to my knowledge, they have not experienced 400 years of slavery and the ongoing fight for parity 151 years after emancipation.

The Obama administration, with this bathroom power grab, is pulling out the threads to unravel all those civil rights activists fought for. This is Jim Crow all right, but not by the people of North Carolina; it’s Jim Crow by a vengeance-obsessed Obama administration drunk with its own power.



Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1164 words, total size 7 kb.

The truth that won't see the light of day


Wil Wirtanen

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-truth-warming-alarmists-dont-want-you-to-know-about-the-climate-models/

From the article:

"Michaels and Wojick did a little digging and what they learned was "that modeling completely dominates climate change research.” In other words, climate scientists put greater faith in results produced more by math calculations than solid science.

So much of climate change research is based on modeling, in fact, that it accounts for "fully 55% of the modeling done in all of science. This is a tremendous concentration, because climate change science is just a tiny fraction of the whole of science,” they write. "In the U.S. federal research budget, climate science is just 4% of the whole and not all climate science is about climate change.

"In short it looks like less than 4% of the science, the climate change part, is doing about 55% of the modeling done in the whole of science. Again, this is a tremendous concentration, unlike anything else in science.”

Trusting the models too much is not the only gaping hole in the climate alarmists’ claims. Their bigger problem is that they rely on models that have been consistently wrong. The heat that the models have predicted for decades has simply not arrived.

And, as the Daily Caller pointed out last week, the federal government has spent billions — close to $100 billion, actually, since just fiscal 2012 — on "science” that is undergirded by failed models. About a month earlier, the Daily Caller also noted that the models were unable to "predict CO2 would green the Western U.S.”"

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Learning from other's mistakes


Wil Wirtanen

"A smart man learns from his mistakes, an intelligent man learns from other’s mistakes, don’t know where that leaves 0bama”

http://reason.com/archives/2016/05/24/5-ways-capitalist-chile-is-much-better-t

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

The Math Tells the Story For UNITY

Bill Been

NBC and ABC News Shine Spotlight On Democratic Divide, 15 Percent Of Obama Voters Supporting Trump
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/05/24/nbc-and-abc-news-shine-spotlight-on-democratic-divide-15-percent-of-obama-voters-supporting-trump-n2167141?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=
Matt Vespa
Matt Vespa
|
Posted: May 24, 2016 12:45 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of my article forwarded last Sunday, I encourage everyone to read the above article presenting NBC and ABC assessments of the Democrat Party 2016 problem. More accurately, this problem is a huge opportunity for the Republican nominee. It gives Mr. Trump a clear path to a landslide victory if the Republican voters can UNIFY and go to the polls. For what it is worth, the 15% number is consistent with observations and discussions at Mr. Trump's rallies that I attended in Ohio.

The math clearly shows the opportunity. Assume the vote content of 2012 will be the same in 2016 with the only difference being the 15% swing. Suddenly, a 4 million vote Dem win for Obama becomes a 70 million to 56 million popular vote win for Donald Trump. Going one step forward is the estimate that 6-8 million conservative voters stayed home in 2012. The potential is phenomenal-20 million vote plurality!!! That is why I wrote the article distributed Sunday pleading for unity. We have the opportunity to thoroughly defeat Hillary Clinton and CRUSH the cancerous anti-American Progressive Movement that has dominated the Democrat Party.

Realistically, I do not think all else will be the same as the anti-American Socialist Globalists will not yield the White House without using any and every available angle to maintain their power after, using the words of Bill Clinton, having won the great culture war. As stated in my book, I have no doubt that the Dems would jeopardize the economy to win that war and I believe they did just that in 2008. Now the question is what will they do in 2016 if we can unify the voters who oppose Hillary and the Progressive Democrats. But first, we must unify or potentially lose this history altering election of 2016.

In closing, I believe it is the responsibility of all citizens to reject openly behavior that is potentially detrimental to our country, to our family, and even to our religious beliefs. Just yesterday, one of the people with influence lamented that we had come to the sorry state where all we have for presidential candidates are two New York Progressives. IT WAS THEN SAID THAT WE MUST UNIFY IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROGRESSIVE RIGHT!!!! Please ask what benefit this type of comment serves. This is how we can lose this election and it is up to all of us to do what we can to let the pundits who spew such damaging and dangerous commentary that it is no longer appreciated and it is detrimental to everything that most of us believe and what we pray for in the 2016 elections.

Thanks to all who have supported as this is the start of very trying times and we more than ever need all of our energy and resources redirected towards those elements that comprise the modern day Progressive Democrat Socialist Party.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 4 kb.

Why Trump's Attack on NM Governor Matters

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://theresurgent.com/trump-attacks-martinez-this-is-actually-a-really-big-deal/
Trump Attacks Martinez: This is Actually A Really Big Deal
By Erick Erickson | May 25, 2016, 11:06pm

I noted yesterday that the Trump campaign is signaling they are fine with Republicans keeping their distance from Trump due to election concerns. I even noted that it was surprisingly mature for the Trump campaign.
But, like all things good in the Trump campaign, it ended abruptly when Donald Trump attacked Susana Martinez, the Republican governor of New Mexico.

"We have got to get your governor to get going,” Trump said to a cheering audience. "She’s got to do a better job. Okay? Your governor has got to do a better job. She’s not doing the job. Hey! Maybe I’ll run for governor of New Mexico. I’ll get this place going. She’s not doing the job. We’ve got to get her moving. Come on: Let’s go, governor.”
Trump also criticized Martinez for allowing "large numbers” of Syrian refugees to resettle in the state. Although governors have limited control over these federal resettlements, Trump faulted Martinez for allowing it to happen.

It is a really big deal for a few reasons.
First, Martinez is now the chair of the Republican Governors Association and the Republican governors around the country like her a lot more than they like Trump. Plus, Martinez controls the purse strings to help these governors and they know it.

Second, Martinez is the first female Hispanic governor in the country and one of the first statewide elected Hispanics in the United States. For those of you who don’t remember, in 2012 at the Republican National Convention Martinez told the story of how she and her husband converted from Democrats to Republicans. It was on values and taxes that they made their decision. She has been a forceful advocate within immigrant communities to show them the Democrats do not actually share values.

Third, New Mexico is a state that has, in the past, tilted barely to the Democrats, but has been held by this popular Republican Governor. Not only does Trump risk the state going Democrat with Hillary easily, but he also puts it at risk for Republicans in general. The first rule of any candidate at the top of the ticket should be "do no harm,” but Trump seems intent on doing harm.

Lastly, Trump’s campaign had signaled a strong willingness to let Republicans keep their distance if needed. Trump’s personal reversal on this is the latest sign that Republicans cannot expect Trump to honor the obligations and promises made by his campaign.

This is a really, really big deal. Republicans headed to Cleveland should pay attention to this. The Trump campaign promises are not binding on Trump.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

Religious Schools Now Transgender Targets

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/05/24/sorry-religious-schools-bathrooms-now-target/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
Sorry Religious Schools, Your Bathrooms Are Now A ‘Target’ Too
By: Caleb Howe (Diary) | May 24th, 2016 at 07:30 PM | 19

NoReligionBathroomSign2in
It’s not just businesses. It’s not just North Carolina or Target stores or even just government-run schools. As was totally predictable, the voracious appetite for tyranny by leftists is never sated, and now private, religious schools are on the hit list for the activists and troublemakers.
The Federalist reports this week on a religious private school that is under attack by anti-religion leftist bullies over so-called "trans rights” regarding bathrooms.

The Obama administration is investigating a school in Wisconsin for sending home letters telling parents and students that they expect students to live within Christian values while at school. This is a private Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod school that serves a tiny group of students—from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade they have 147 students and 10 teachers.
In February the school instituted some new policies that sparked a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. These policies include having parents provide a birth certificate (with the child’s sex on it) and signing a handbook that gives the school the right to discipline students for exhibiting sinful behavior.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation. Isn’t that nice?
The school receives some federal funds, such as to subsidize school lunch programs, and that is what is being used as the paper-thin premise to get leverage over the school’s policies. How long from deciding the school can’t have gender specific bathrooms will it take to decide they can’t have religion-specific teaching? This "Foundation” has only one real goal, the same one that most lefty groups have: abolish religious freedom, institute leftist ideology. In this case, they’re getting boys in the girls bathrooms first. Getting Jesus out of the classroom won’t be far behind.
At the Federalist, Scheer writes:

It seems ridiculous to question if religious schools should be able to operate within the bounds of their church’s doctrinal stances. Until recently, this is something that many of us have taken for granted. If you don’t agree with the basic tenets and premises of a religion, don’t attend their services, don’t attend their schools, and don’t expect them to change for you.
Complaints like this call that premise into question.

So it does. It calls a lot into question, like where is America going, why are we going there, and what is the end game? This is a frog in boiling water scenario. They’re heating it up slowly so you don’t jump out.
First them came for the bathrooms …


End

A NOTE FROM FAY VOSHELL:

Thanks, Jack. I guess. * winking

Seriously, I have been warning my church about this new leverage tool of the Left for some time. I hope my pastor and session are listening.

Basically, the transgender doctrines of who man and woman are happen to be in direct contradiction of Jewish and Christian doctrine; so for the Left, it is Jewish and Christian doctrine that has to go--by force if necessary.

The Church is in for some very tough times.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 4 kb.

Target shareholders sue the co. in MN court

Jack Kemp


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-205612756.html

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Target Corporation and Certain Officers – TGT
Pomerantz LLP 17 hours ago GlobeNewswire


NEW YORK, May 24, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Target Corporation ("Target” or the "Company”) (TGT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Minnesota, and docketed under 16-cv-01485, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Target securities between February 27, 2013 and May 19, 2014 inclusive (the "Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Target securities during the Class Period, you have until July 18, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
[Click here to join this class action]

Target currently operates general merchandise discount stores throughout the U.S. The Company sells a wide variety of household essentials, music and movies, electronics, clothing, and other items, through its traditional stores, its website, and via direct shipment from vendors or third-parties.

On January 13, 2011, Target announced that it would expand its retail operations into Canada, with plans to open between 100 and 150 stores in the country during 2013 and 2014.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the time of the opening of Target's first group of stores in Canada, Target had significant problems with its supply chain infrastructure, distribution centers, and technology systems, as well as inadequately trained employees; (2) these problems caused significant, pervasive issues, including excess inventory at distribution centers and inadequate inventory at retail locations; (3) the excess inventory at distribution centers and lack of inventory at retail locations forced Target to heavily discount products and incur heavy losses; (4) the supply-chain and personnel problems were not typical of newly launched locations in Target's traditional U.S.-based market; and (5) as a result, Target’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 21, 2013, Target announced its results for the second quarter of 2013, including weak guidance for full-year earnings per share ("EPS”) for 2013. Although Chief Executive Officer ("CEO”) Defendant Gregg Steinhafel sought to reassure investors that the poor performance was of "the same kind” that Target saw "every time we open a new store here in the United States,” Target’s stock price declined by $2.45 per share, or 3.61 percent.

On November 21, 2013, Target released downbeat results for the third quarter of 2013, including news that the Company’s Canadian segment had suffered a drop in operation margin from rates exceeding 30 percent in prior quarters to only 14.8 percent due to the need to aggressively discount merchandise. Although Chief Financial Officer ("CFO”) John Mulligan attempted to assure investors that Target’s personnel were working to "rationalize” the Company’s "inventory overhang,” Target’s stock price declined by $2.30 per share, or 3.46 percent.

On May 5, 2014, Target announced that its Defendant Steinhafel, the architect of the Company’s Canadian expansion, would leave the Company effective immediately, without any clear successor. Instead, the Company’s CFO Mulligan was appointed interim CEO. On this news, Target’s stock price fell $2.14 per share, or 3.45 percent.

On May 20, 2014, prior to the trading session, news reports circulated that Target had fired Tony Fisher, the Company’s president of Canadian operations. The abrupt termination of Mr. Fisher revealed that the string of weak results from Target’s Canadian operations were not simply growing pains associated with normal store openings, but rather due to significant operational issues and were partial disclosures of Defendants’ fraudulent scheme to conceal the persistent and ultimately intractable problems with the expansion.

Eventually, on January 15, 2015, Target revealed the Company would discontinue its Canadian operations and that Target Canada Co. had filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada. In response to this news, Target stock declined $1.63 per share, or 2.1 percent.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com
Contact:



Robert S. Willoughby

Pomerantz LLP

rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 874 words, total size 6 kb.

Disney vs. Sander's mickey mouse criticisms

Jack Kemp

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/05/24/disney-vs-big-government/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
Disney vs Big Government: Sanders Takes a Swing At Mickey
Let them fight...

By: Brandon Morse | May 24th, 2016 at 08:00 PM | 7

Talk about a battle of the titans. It’s the foremost example of American success vs…well, not that.
First the Secretary of the VA – the poster child of government inefficiency – decides to compare its wait times to Disney, to which Disney made a very timely reply that completely made a fool of the VA. Essentially, Disney politely reminded the VA that they take wait times very seriously, and make sure that their customers and guests are taken care of while they wait so that they don’t even feel like they’re waiting.
You can read that epic takedown here.

But it would appear that government isn’t done trying to make an example out of Disney yet. In fact, big government’s head cheerleader, Bernie Sanders, decided he would take a swing at the Magic Kingdom because it *gasp* makes money.
"Anybody here work for Disney?” he said during a speech, to cheers. "Anybody here making a living wage from Disney?” he asked the crowd to a thunderous "no.”

"Here in Anaheim, and the surrounding area, Disney pays its workers wages that are so low that many of them are forced to live in motels, because they can’t afford a decent place to live.” said Bernie.
You can watch the video here.

Bernie Sanders Goes Off On Disney and ABC at… by DailyPolitics
As it happens, I have a friend – who wishes to remain anonymous – who worked at Disney California, and completely blew Sander’s claim out of the water.

"It is not true. It’s like any place.” she says. "Schedule, hours, and hourly pay, depends on your seniority. They hire in part time. Full time is granted on seniority and performance, so I don’t really think people apply there to support families or themselves.”

As it stands, most of the people who apply there for lower paying jobs are younger, and are usually there for summer jobs, or internships. Pay raises, hours, and promotions are awarded based on the dreaded merit.
Looking at the Disney full time benefits list shows me that working there gives you lots of perks.
As taken from the website.

Pursue Good Health
Your health and wellness benefits

* Medical
* Disney Health Pursuits Wellness Resources
* Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
* Behavioral Health
* Prescription Drug Coverage
* Dental
* Vision
* Healthcare and Dependent Day Care Flexible Spending Accounts
* Life, Accident and Disability Insurance

Build Your Career
Your growth and development resources

* Learning and Development Opportunities
* Educational Reimbursement

Take Time to Refuel
Your time off and work/life programs

* Paid Holidays
* Vacation
* Sick Pay and Short-term Disability
* Leaves of Absence
* Bereavement and Jury Duty
* Personal Life Resources
* Group Legal Plan
* Adoption Assistance Program
* Onsite Childcare Centers

Save for Tomorrow
Your retirement and financial benefits

* 401(k) Savings Plan with Company Match
* Retirement Savings Plan for Salaried Employees

Enjoy the Magic
Your special extras

*

Complimentary Theme Park Admissions

*

Employee Discounts, including local, national and Disney-themed discounts

*

Merchandise discounts at selected Disney-owned and operated stores

*

Company-sponsored Events and Services

*

Disney VoluntEARS

*

Disney Employee Matching Gifts

*

Commuter Assistance Program

*

Many Other Unique Advantages

I’m in the wrong profession.
Glassdoor.com tells us that even interns make over $15 an hour, and gives us a much wider view of the pay scale at Disney if you want to take a look for yourself.
As far as the H-1B program, Disney had this to say:

Over the past 5 years, The Walt Disney Company has added more than 18,000 jobs in the U.S. Approximately a year and a half ago, we reorganized our Parks and Resorts IT department, taking it from a team that focused primarily on maintaining our existing systems, to one that is more focused on developing new capabilities. A focus on innovation is critical given the constant evolution of technology.

Approximately 250 people were affected by the reorganization, and we were able to hire back more than 100 of them in other positions with Disney. In addition, since the reorganization, we have hired more than 140 other US IT workers into technical roles within the Parks technology team, and we are currently recruiting candidates to fill more than 100 IT positions. The Parks US IT team will ultimately be larger than it was prior to the reorganization.

I won’t agree that Disney’s use of H-1B was right, and I agree with Marco Rubio who said that any company, including Disney, who abuses this rule should be bared from using it in the future. Disney, however, has clearly taken steps to right whatever wrong was done, and even expand its IT department with US workers since.
Funny that Sanders never mentioned that.

Suffice to say, Sanders is just an old man yelling at a Mickey shaped cloud. He even attempts to shame Disney’s CEO for the amount of money he makes compared to his lowest workers at the company, as if that was some kind of gauge to judge pay by. The man runs Disney, one of the largest corporations on the planet. He’s not exactly preparing someone’s cotton candy on a stick.

Sander’s class warfare tactics generate an us vs. them mentality, with them being anyone who has gone above and beyond to make a stack of money. The house the mouse built might have problems – what massive entity doesn’t – but in this case you can see they take pretty good care of who they employ, and any mistakes they make, they quickly make up for.
If only government, which Bernie champions, had such compunctions.

Disney is a successful company that made the profit it did, not because it took advantage of its workers, but because it made some insanely good moves, such as…improving its wait times at their parks, Mr. VA secretary.
Then there’s the whole Marvel Comics Universe thing they do, which is essentially a goldmine. In short, everything Disney does is designed to give its customers a great experience to make – and brace yourself – money, because that’s what a corporation does.

Disney is efficient. Sanders is a liar.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1062 words, total size 7 kb.

May 25, 2016

EPA Forcing More Ethanol in Gas

Jack Kemp

Any opinions, drivers?

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/epa-just-declared-war-on-millions-of-car-owners/

EPA Just Declared War On
Millions of Car Owners
Investor´s Business Daily, by Editorial
Original Article
Posted By:KarenJ1, 5/24/2016 8:17:54 PM
Emergy: The EPA’s proposal to increase the amount of ethanol that must be blended into gasoline is a trifecta of regulatory abuse. It will do nothing for the environment, it will do nothing for energy security, and it could wreck millions of car engines. The decision stems from a misbegotten 2007 energy bill signed by President Bush that requires ever-increasing amounts of ethanol to be included in gasoline. Not an increasing percentage, but an actual amount. The EPA’s proposal would require refineries to blend in almost 19 billion gallons of ethanol and other "biofuels” by 2017, which is 700,000 gallons

Comments:
I am utterly exhausted by the constant war on all of us in America. And to think that George W. Bush is the one who signed this into law makes it even worse. Those in the Obama regime are always so concerned about justice, where do we go to seek justice when our cars, mowers, etc. are destroyed? I´m so sick of politicians and what they are doing to us I could scream.

Reply 1 - Posted by: nwcudagal, 5/24/2016 8:50:22 PM (No. 10799446)
Stock up on octane booster. DH has buy that for his HD.

Reply 4 - Posted by: Ribicon, 5/24/2016 9:09:55 PM (No. 10799473)
FTA: "But there’s a problem. Americans aren’t consuming enough gasoline. In fact, consumption this year is well below the 2007 forecast, both because cars are more efficient and because people are driving less than expected."

A publication that calls itself Investor´s Business Daily might have an inkling of why people are driving less, and it´s perfectly predictable.


Reply 7 - Posted by: flowerladytoo, 5/24/2016 9:49:59 PM (No. 10799510)
Minnesota is a big ethanol state and we have E-85 pumps everywhere. They all have a warning on them that they can void the car warranty if used in new vehicles. It´s bad enough having the amount we have in the regular gas, now. Increasing it will just make our fuel efficiency and how many repairs we need on gaskets and other parts dissolved by this garbage, even worse. Grrrr!!
We got a "survey" from the Dept of Transportation this week. it wants to know our driving habits for "research purposes". Sure, right. It was burned in our fire ring. Thinly veiled attempt to start finding ways to tax us by the mile. We are rural and of course, we drive longer distances to work. It´s none of their darn business!







Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

Sanders Sticks Hillary with Radical Population Control Kooks, Israel Haters

Jack Kemp

I guess Chairman Mao and Che Guevara weren't available...Hillary's stuck with these radicals, as is Chuck Schumer and Debbie Wasserman "I know nothing" ("Sgt.") Schultz. I can see the Trump ads now in NY...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/05/24/sanders-places-onechild-policy-activist-and-israel-critics-on-dnc-platform-committee-n2168069?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=
Sanders Places One-Child Policy Activist and Israel Critics on DNC Platform Committee

Cortney O'Brien
|
Posted: May 24, 2016 2:00 PM

Will the Democratic National Committee come to regret its decision to offer Bernie Sanders seats on a key committee at the July convention? After granting the Vermont senator five positions on the Platform Drafting Committee, he chose a few of the most controversial figures available.

Among his choices are Bill McKibben, an environmentalist who has penned support for a one-child policy in the United States. In his book called "Maybe One: A Case for Smaller Families,” McKibben argues that single-child households will help space out our dangerously overcrowded population.

Sanders also offered seats to figures who have spewed hate against Israel, such as Dr. Cornel West. West, for instance, once accused Israel of launching a "crime against humanity” and said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has blood on his hands.

That may be nothing, though, compared to Arab American Institute President Jim Zogby’s history of attacking our Middle Eastern ally. Zogby, another Sanders supporter who will sit on the DNC platform committee, has made it clear Israel comes second to the needs of Palestinians.

Zogby is likely the most controversial of Sanders' picks thanks to his activist work on behalf of pro-Palestinian caus"es. He's repeatedly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who himself hasn't always been the favorite of pro-Israel Democrats, and he's compared the "plight of the Palestinians" to the Holocaust in a 2010 column for The Huffington Post."

Clearly, Sanders is trying to make a statement at this summer’s DNC convention. These three figures represent a radical wing in the Democratic Party and would push the party platform far left. How will that fare in the November election? How will Clinton, the presumed Democratic nominee as far as the math is concerned, be able to explain to independents her party’s radical progressive agenda?


A NOTE FROM TIM


We should call this convention the Internationale!

McGibbbon is a fool; even China dumped the one child policy as unworkable (and bad for a nation to have nothing but spoiled only childre0. If he wants to reduce American fertility he should support border control and immigration restriction first and foremost; one in five people here were born overseas, and the fertility rate of immigrants is far higher than of native born. Somehow I don't see him - or any of the other Democrats - doing that.

Trump should run Spanish-language commercials on Telemundo and the like saying the Democrats want to take their children from them. Hispanics are very family oriented and would detest such an idea

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

Dennis Prager replies to #Never Trump crowd


Jack Kemp: forwards this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2016/05/24/dennis-prager-n2167737?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

A Response to My Conservative #NeverTrump Friends

Dennis Prager

When you differ from people you admire, you have to question yourself. After all, what is the purpose of admiring people if they aren't capable of influencing you?


So, I have had to challenge my position -- stated since the outset of the Republican presidential debates -- that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for him over Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter.
I devoted many hours of radio and many columns to criticizing Trump. His virtually assured nomination has therefore caused me grief as an American, a Republican and a conservative. That his character defects, gaps in knowledge on some important issues, and lack of identifiably conservative principles came to mean little to so many Republican voters is quite troubling. (Though, I might add, it is even more troubling that virtually all Democrats ignore the even worse character of Hillary Clinton, as well as the idiotic socialist ideas of Sen. Bernie Sanders.)

#NeverTrump conservatives, such as (in alphabetical order) Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, Bret Stephens and George Will are not merely people I admire -- they are friends and colleagues. Goldberg, Stephens and Will have made multiple videos for Prager University, which receive millions of views. Shapiro and I have spent Shabbat together. I have had the privilege of writing for Kristol's The Weekly Standard and having him on my show many times. And I have enthusiastically promoted their books. These individuals are special to me not only as thinkers, but as people.


However, in the final analysis, I do not find their arguments compelling.

Take the "conscience" argument that one can sleep with a clear conscience by not voting for Trump. I don't find it compelling because it means that your conscience is clear after making it possible for Clinton or any other Democrat to win.

In fact, the "conscience" argument is so weak that Goldberg -- to his credit -- published a column two days ago titled "Sorry, I Still Won't Ever Vote for Trump." He wrote, "If the election were a perfect tie, and the vote fell to me and me alone, I'd probably vote for none other than Donald Trump."

Shouldn't all Americans vote as if their vote were the deciding vote? Including those whose votes "don't count" because they live in states that are so left-wing they would still vote Democrat if Vladimir Lenin headed the Democratic ticket?
The choice this November is tragic. As it often happens in life, this choice is between bad and worse, not bad and good.
But America has made that choice before. When forced to choose between bad and worse, we supported Joseph Stalin against Adolf Hitler, and we supported right-wing authoritarians against Communist totalitarians.

It seems to me that the #NeverTrump conservatives want to remain morally pure. I understand that temptation. I am tempted, too. But if you wish to vanquish the bad, it is not possible -- at least not on this side of the afterlife -- to remain pure.

The most moving interview of my 33 years in radio was with Irene Opdyke, a Polish Catholic woman. Opdyke became the mistress of a married Nazi officer in order to save the lives of 12 Jews. She hid them in the cellar of the officer's house in Warsaw. There were some Christians who called my show to say that Opdyke's actions were wrong, that she had in fact sinned because she knowingly committed a mortal sin. In their view, she compromised Catholic/Christian doctrine.
In my view -- and, I believe, the view of most Catholics and other Christians -- she brought glory to her God and her faith. Why? Because (SET ITAL) circumstances almost always determine what is moral (END ITAL), even for religious people like myself who believe in moral absolutes. That's why the act of dropping atom bombs on Japan was moral. The circumstances (ending a war that would otherwise continue taking millions of lives) made moral what under other circumstances would be immoral.

In the 2016 presidential race, I am not interested in moral purity. I am interested in defeating the left and its party, the Democratic Party. The notion (expressed by virtually every #NeverTrump advocate) that we can live with another four years of a Democratic president is, forgive me, mind-boggling. To that end, with at least one, and probably multiple, additional leftists on the Supreme Court, a Republican presidential victory in 2020 would mean little. All the left needs is the judicial branch, especially the Supreme Court. Left-wing judges pass so many left-wing laws that they render those who control Congress, and even the White House, almost irrelevant.

Here, then, are nine reasons (there are more) why a conservative should prefer a Trump presidency to a Democrat presidency:

--Prevent a left-wing Supreme Court.

--Increase the defense budget.

--Repeal, or at least modify, the Dodd-Frank act.

--Prevent Washington, D.C. from becoming a state and giving the Democrats another two permanent senators.
--Repeal Obamacare.

--Curtail illegal immigration, a goal that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with xenophobia or nativism (just look at Western Europe).

--Reduce job-killing regulations on large and small businesses.
--Lower the corporate income tax and bring back hundreds of billions of offshore dollars to the United States.
--Continue fracking, which the left, in its science-rejecting hysteria, opposes.
For these reasons, I, unlike my friends, could not live with my conscience if I voted to help the America-destroying left win the presidency in any way.

I just don't understand how anyone who understands the threat the left and the Democrats pose on America will refuse to vote for the only person who can stop them.

End

A NOTE FROM TIM:

You know, his Nazi reference made me think of some eye witness accounts I read about Krystallnacht. Several different accounts from different cities spoke of the silence of the onlookers as they watched what was happening to their neighbors, an eerie silence. It was, I think, the same motivation of the #NeverTrump types; they either agreed with what was happening or did not disapprove so much as to try to stop it. In point of fact many of them had voted for the Nazi Party in elections, and this was exactly what the Nazis had promised. On Krystallnacht they realized what they were seeing was terrible, but they could stand apart with the sense of a clean conscience while others did this to their neighbors. (Granted, some of them were probably cowed by what was happening rather than approving). They could always say to themselves "I didn't do it" but they as much did as anybody, because they could have at least protested. So they may not have liked their Jewish neighbors, but their inaction gave them far worse.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1148 words, total size 7 kb.

May 24, 2016

Hawaii to Violate Second, Fourth Amendments with Gun Owner Database

Timothy Birdnow

Hawaii plans to violate the Second Amendment by putting the names of firearms owners in an F.B.I. database.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/hawaii-could-be-first-to-put-gun-owners-in-federal/article_e6fb4736-d27d-53b7-b6e4-599307c8d4d2.html

And the state is going to charge a fee for this privilege.

I really don't see why liberals can't understand the clear language of the Second Amendment, nor understand that you cannot be faithful to the Fourth Amendment and keep a database to use against a person exercising their Second Amendment rights. Strange how quick the left is to demand rights for criminals and thugs and to take them away from decent folks.

Hawaii gave us Barack Hussein Obama. They gave us homosexual marriage. Now they want to give us a Big Brother database. Perhaps it's time to rethink our inclusion of these islands into our Union?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Deer Me! PETA Objects to Bow Hunting in St. Louis Suburb

Timothy Birdnow

Ladue is a wealthy suburb of St. Louis, and it has suffered (along with other West County communities) from a plague of deer. Deer are essentially large rats; they overturn trash cans, dig up foliage, block traffic (and cause accidents), and generally make a nuisance of themselves. Ladue wisely institituted a policy permitting deer hunting with bow and arrows. Why? You don't want people firing guns off in the suburbs and risk accidental injuries of people, after all. So Ladue instituted bow hunting with a minimum acreage requirement. http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/ladue-condones-cruelty-of-bow-hunting/article_46679a24-efff-5743-a5b9-f3b81208f315.html

This set off the good folks from PETA, who wrote the following:

"It seems that Ladue Mayor Nancy Spewak and the Missouri Department of Conservation had concerns about the city’s approval of archery and crossbow hunting of deer ("Ladue approv Michelle Kretzees bow hunting for deer,” May 17). The mayor said that she and the department set a minimum acreage necessary for bow hunting because, "we fear that, if a property is too small, a wounded deer could easily travel to another property.”

By acknowledging that some deer will be shot and will escape wounded, officials are tacitly acknowledging that bow hunting is inherently cruel. Perhaps instead of discussing minimum acreage they should be questioning why bow hunting was approved in the first place.

A study conducted by wildlife biologists at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department found that for every deer killed by a bow hunter, at least one other deer is shot and escapes. The "wound rate” for bow hunting exceeds 50 percent.

By allowing bow hunting, Ladue has signed off on suffering for deer."

End excerpt.

Typical liberal; bleeding heart has drawn all the blood from the brain. What should Ladue do? The deer population is out of control and something must be done. Is it better for the deer to starve, or die after being hit by a car? Which is more important; human life or these cuddly little love children? Would author Michelle Kretze prefer people blast away inside the city limits and perhaps kill children? Ah, but then a dog is a fish is a bird is a boy to these morons.

Deer are not wild animals so much as scavenging critters; they flourish around human habitation, feeding from gardens, farms, and the food discarded by restaurants and whatnot. As a result, they have to be controlled in much the same way as mice and rats. I suppose this woman would favor contraception for them, as the neighboring community of Town and Country experimented with and rejected.

Also, the deer meat can be used to feed the poor. But then when have liberals ever cared about the poor, except at election time?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

Barack HoBama and the Washington Hanoi Hilton

Timothy Birdnow

Obama stole money earmarked to combat Zika virus and gave it to the U.N. Climate Fund.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/obama_administration_stole_funds_to_combat_zika_to_pay_for_un_climate_change_fund.html

This is what happens when you take impeachment off the table and then are afraid to defund anything the President wants. The GOP is so terrified of another government quasi shutdown that they will let Obama openly defy them.

We should welcome another shutdown; the last one had such terrible repercussions that the GOP swept the Democrats in the following election. I know; the Republicans don't want that, because then they might actually have to do some work and will be blamed when they fail (not if, given the nature of modern politics.)

After the last shutdown John McCain came out in his bathroom slippers and spoke through his chattering dentures "I hope we've learned our lesson!" Well, John, did you? Hows that surrender working out for you now? McCain, a man suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, has never met an enemy he didn't like, and is all too happy to toss his friends to the media captors. Learneed that in the Hanoi Hilton, I suspect. At any rate, McCain is the cause of much of this, his refusal to go after Obama and his unwillingness to stand firm before an enemy has given us an imperial presidency. He is Barack Ho (Chi Min) Bama.

mcCain and the GOP are stuck in an opulent cage, a Hanoi Hilton for the rich and powerful. I hope they enjoy it; there will come a day when they will have to answer for their timidity, either in this world or the next.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama is training young terrorists here

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=874395

Refugees Will Build Drones As Part Of Federally Funded Jobs Program

Daily Caller, by Rachel Stoltzfoos Original Article
Posted By: Tianne- 5/23/2016 9:10:17 PM

The Department of Labor has awarded Utica, New York, $2 million to teach young refugees how to build drones as part of a summer jobs program. About 400 teenage refugee students living in the city will get part-time summer jobs through the program, as well as tutoring in English and Math. Those who demonstrate academic competence will then take part in a year-long drone building challenge during the school year, as the work and tutoring continues. The 14- and 15-year-old refugee students will learn how to design a drone and then construct their own model using the lab of the local Mohawk

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Straight Talk

Dana Mathewson

WOW !!! listen to this girl !!

Thought you might like to know that not all young are voting for Bernie. This young woman expresses herself with facts about Hillary history.
Her closing comments is an expression of her anger that Americans would even consider voting for Hillary for President of the U.S.A.

She uses some raw language at the close that may be offensive to some.
Think everyone should forward this one to all their young friends.

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=oI08BKgT8MI

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Gore Still Remembers Elian Gonzales

Jack Kemp

Back in early 2000, the Clintons moved to send Elian Gonzales back to Cuba, even as illegals flooded the border from Mexico. Al Gore, who knew how to count probable Florida and national Electoral College votes as well as anyone, endorsed letting Elian stay in the U.S. The loss of many of Florida's Cuban refugee votes cost Gore the Presidency. My personal calculation - and most likely Gore's as well - was that the Clintons wanted him to lose in 2000 so that Hillary could be guaranteed a major chance at the Democratic nomination in 2004. After all, the Democrats couldn't vote in the 2004 primaries against a sitting President Gore, so the Clintons "had to" throw Al Gore under the bus. As Brent Scowcroft once said, paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, "In politics, a friend is someone who stabs you in the front."

But Gore did not forget that move by the Clintons. The New York Post reports today that:
http://nypost.com/2016/05/23/al-gore-still-wont-support-hillary-clinton/

Despite renewed pleas from Hillary Clinton’s desperate team that he endorse the former first lady, Al Gore on Monday again declined to support the Democratic front-runner....
Gore also refused to endorse Clinton during her primary fight with then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008.

END OF QUOTE

I suspect Hillary will have to wait until Catlyn Jenner gives birth to twins before Hillary gets an endorsement from Al Gore.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Glenn Beck: Fooled by Facebook?

Selwyn Duke

In the wake of reports that Facebook censors conservative voices, media figure Glenn Beck met with company chairman Mark Zuckerberg and emerged from the meeting, as he put it, "convinced that Facebook is behaving appropriately and trying to do the right thing.” Nothing to see here, move along. Unfortunately, this is nonsense. http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/19/what-disturbed-glenn-about-the-facebook-meeting/

Beck admits in his article on this subject, http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/19/what-disturbed-glenn-about-the-facebook-meeting/ "I am not an expert on data or AI or algorithms.” Neither am I. But the Facebook censorship in the news isn’t about artificial intelligence but human intelligence — and its biases. In fact, the focus on technology could be (I’m not implying this is the case with Beck) an effort at Machiavellian misdirection: "Watch what the machine is doing, watch the machine, so you don’t see the man behind the curtain.”

I’ll get right to the point. Fraudbook employs a group of young journalists, known as "news curators,” who are empowered to manage the algorithmic results and "refine” what qualifies for the site’s "Trending Topics” section. As company vice president of search Tom Stocky put it, the curators "audit topics surfaced algorithmically: reviewers are required to accept topics that reflect real world events, and are instructed to disregard junk or duplicate topics, hoaxes, or subjects with insufficient sources.” http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

So already evident is a Fraudbook deception: the Trending Topics section is supposed to reflect "popularity,” not politically correctness. Who decides what constitute "real world events”? What is a "junk” topic and who defines such? Should "duplicate topics” be disregarded if that duplication reflects trends and popularity? Why should "insufficient sources” disqualify a story, given that great breakthroughs — in science and news — often begin with one person’s endeavors? (When the story becomes well known, or "popular,” other journalists investigate the matter and separate fact from fiction; this can’t happen if it’s suppressed in the first place.) And while no one wants hoaxes promoted, we could even wonder how often incredible but true stories are labeled hoaxes by credulous or biased curators.

And who are these people empowered to decide who is an unreal-world, junky, topic-duplicating, insufficiently-sourced, possible hoaxer? Gizmodo.com, which broke the recent Fraudbook story, tells us http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006, they are "a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the ‘trending’ module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site.” LOL, c’mon, Glenn, are you gonna let these people spit down your back and tell you it’s rainin’? While tech workers are notoriously liberal, as the statistics here show, http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-O1ZI7O6JIJV501-360IMLD2VR31GR62U8S7U61IB7 journalism majors from "Ivy League or private East Coast universities” make them look like William F. Buckley2. Fact: giving people the power to "refine” news is synonymous with human bias entering the equation.

And you cannot give young, hardcore liberal journalists from "elite” schools that power without a strong liberal bias entering the equation.

Of course, the nature of biases is that people generally aren’t aware, at least not fully, of their biases. Just consider a Guardian defense of Fraudbook. The news organ interviewed an ex-Fraudbook curator who challenged Gizmodo’s report and related, writes the paper, "that newsworthiness was determined by how often a story appeared on a list of trusted news outlets including this publication [the Guardian], the New York Times and the BBC.” Are you getting this, Glenn?

That the ex-employee and Guardian consider this exculpatory of Fraudbook tells the tale: they’re so oblivious to their own biases they consider left wing, mainstream-media news sources "unbiased” arbiters of newsworthiness. Obviously, if you use leftist entities to "refine” your algorithmic results, you’ll get Al Gore-rhythmic results.

So as Gizmodo put it, "In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.” Without a doubt. Liberal journalists censoring the news? Check. Institutional guidelines elevating supposed real-world events and disqualifying supposed junk? Check. Reliance upon other left-wing sources to determine real-world quality, junkiness and newsworthiness, creating a liberal echo chamber? Check. Fraudbook’s trending team couldn’t be more like a traditional newsroom if it tried.

So while a selling point of big social media is that it’s a democratic arena in which "the people” determine what’s seen and heard, it’s instead more like professional wrestling circa 1980: certainly fake but still claiming authenticity. Of course, Fraudbook has a right (at least under our system, as opposed to the statist one Zuckerberg is working to visit upon us) to adopt whatever policies it wishes. But how about some truth in advertising? Don’t claim to be presenting just what’s "popular.”

Beck should also note that Fraudbook has been caught censoring news time and again. As the Gatestone Institute wrote in February, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7371/facebook-freedom-of-speech "It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.” Even more damning, at a UN development summit in New York in September, Zuckerberg met with German chancellor Angela Merkel. "As they sat down,” continued Gatestone, "Chancellor Merkel's microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.”

And I’m sure Merkel would describe Zuckerberg as someone who was "humble, open, and listened intently,” which, by the way, are the precise words Beck used to describe the Fraudbook figures (including Zuck) he met with. Zuck told Merkel what she wanted to hear, which happened to be the truth; and Zuck told Beck what he wanted to hear, which happened to not be. Zuck is concerned about making money and Fraudbook’s stock price, you see.

Having said this, I doubt Zuck is fully aware of the news curators’ shenanigans. Again, people, liberals especially, are often blithely unaware of emotionally satisfying biases woven into organizations. Stories of Fraudbook censorship of conservatives are legion, however. And while it involves not censorship but an effort at undermining, I have one myself.

Aside from my pieces in American Thinker and elsewhere, I write exclusive news/commentary articles for The New American (TNA), which has both a website and hard-copy magazine. And as many sites do, TNA has Fraudbook’s "Like” button at the top of every article; it indicates how many Fraudbook users read, liked the piece and chose to click the button. Well, for more than a year and ending only about a year ago, I and members of TNA’s staff noticed a strange and consistent phenomenon: likes would accumulate on a piece and then "poof!” they’d disappear with the counter having been dialed back to zero. This happened consistently across all TNA articles; in one case, one of my pieces had 30,000 likes before they were sent to the gulag.

One might consider this a glitch, but I never observed the phenomenon at any liberal/mainstream-media site. And why does it matter? Because likes are a good metric for not just popularity but also level of readership, and people are influenced by what’s popular. Make an article’s content appear unread and unpopular and people are more likely to dismiss it as a fringe view.

I always assumed, and this accords with Gizmodo’s findings, that the like-button manipulation was the work of one or two rogue employees — who were operating in a liberal organization that would turn a blind eye to such shenanigans. Yet Beck’s thoughts are different. In a further glowing endorsement of Fraudbook, he was quoted in a Thursday Time piece as saying about his meeting with the company’s representatives, "I thought it was great. I thought they were sincere. And as I was leaving, I thought: ‘What company has done that with conservatives?’ Especially a media company.” That’s what he thought, all right. And here’s what I think: that Facebook has two faces, and one of them is seen only by big names that Zuck et al. can use for photo-ops and public-relations purposes.

And that’s likely what happened with you, Mr. Beck. You found Zuck and Company cordial — they just find you useful.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

In the wake of reports that Facebook censors conservative voices, media figure Glenn Beck met with company chairman Mark Zuckerberg and emerged from the meeting, as he put it, "convinced that Facebook is behaving appropriately and trying to do the right thing.” Nothing to see here, move along. Unfortunately, this is nonsense.

Beck admits in his article on this subject, "I am not an expert on data or AI or algorithms.” Neither am I. But the Facebook censorship in the news isn’t about artificial intelligence but human intelligence — and its biases. In fact, the focus on technology could be (I’m not implying this is the case with Beck) an effort at Machiavellian misdirection: "Watch what the machine is doing, watch the machine, so you don’t see the man behind the curtain.”

I’ll get right to the point. Fraudbook employs a group of young journalists, known as "news curators,” who are empowered to manage the algorithmic results and "refine” what qualifies for the site’s "Trending Topics” section. As company vice president of search Tom Stocky put it, the curators "audit topics surfaced algorithmically: reviewers are required to accept topics that reflect real world events, and are instructed to disregard junk or duplicate topics, hoaxes, or subjects with insufficient sources.”

So already evident is a Fraudbook deception: the Trending Topics section is supposed to reflect "popularity,” not politically correctness. Who decides what constitute "real world events”? What is a "junk” topic and who defines such? Should "duplicate topics” be disregarded if that duplication reflects trends and popularity? Why should "insufficient sources” disqualify a story, given that great breakthroughs — in science and news — often begin with one person’s endeavors? (When the story becomes well known, or "popular,” other journalists investigate the matter and separate fact from fiction; this can’t happen if it’s suppressed in the first place.) And while no one wants hoaxes promoted, we could even wonder how often incredible but true stories are labeled hoaxes by credulous or biased curators.

And who are these people empowered to decide who is an unreal-world, junky, topic-duplicating, insufficiently-sourced, possible hoaxer? Gizmodo.com, which broke the recent Fraudbook story, tells us, they are "a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the ‘trending’ module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site.” LOL, c’mon, Glenn, are you gonna let these people spit down your back and tell you it’s rainin’? While tech workers are notoriously liberal, as the statistics here show, journalism majors from "Ivy League or private East Coast universities” make them look like William F. Buckley2. Fact: giving people the power to "refine” news is synonymous with human bias entering the equation.

And you cannot give young, hardcore liberal journalists from "elite” schools that power without a strong liberal bias entering the equation.

Of course, the nature of biases is that people generally aren’t aware, at least not fully, of their biases. Just consider a Guardian defense of Fraudbook. The news organ interviewed an ex-Fraudbook curator who challenged Gizmodo’s report and related, writes the paper, "that newsworthiness was determined by how often a story appeared on a list of trusted news outlets including this publication [the Guardian], the New York Times and the BBC.” Are you getting this, Glenn?

That the ex-employee and Guardian consider this exculpatory of Fraudbook tells the tale: they’re so oblivious to their own biases they consider left wing, mainstream-media news sources "unbiased” arbiters of newsworthiness. Obviously, if you use leftist entities to "refine” your algorithmic results, you’ll get Al Gore-rhythmic results.

So as Gizmodo put it, "In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.” Without a doubt. Liberal journalists censoring the news? Check. Institutional guidelines elevating supposed real-world events and disqualifying supposed junk? Check. Reliance upon other left-wing sources to determine real-world quality, junkiness and newsworthiness, creating a liberal echo chamber? Check. Fraudbook’s trending team couldn’t be more like a traditional newsroom if it tried.

So while a selling point of big social media is that it’s a democratic arena in which "the people” determine what’s seen and heard, it’s instead more like professional wrestling circa 1980: certainly fake but still claiming authenticity. Of course, Fraudbook has a right (at least under our system, as opposed to the statist one Zuckerberg is working to visit upon us) to adopt whatever policies it wishes. But how about some truth in advertising? Don’t claim to be presenting just what’s "popular.”

Beck should also note that Fraudbook has been caught censoring news time and again. As the Gatestone Institute wrote in February, "It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.” Even more damning, at a UN development summit in New York in September, Zuckerberg met with German chancellor Angela Merkel. "As they sat down,” continued Gatestone, "Chancellor Merkel's microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.”

And I’m sure Merkel would describe Zuckerberg as someone who was "humble, open, and listened intently,” which, by the way, are the precise words Beck used to describe the Fraudbook figures (including Zuck) he met with. Zuck told Merkel what she wanted to hear, which happened to be the truth; and Zuck told Beck what he wanted to hear, which happened to not be. Zuck is concerned about making money and Fraudbook’s stock price, you see.

Having said this, I doubt Zuck is fully aware of the news curators’ shenanigans. Again, people, liberals especially, are often blithely unaware of emotionally satisfying biases woven into organizations. Stories of Fraudbook censorship of conservatives are legion, however. And while it involves not censorship but an effort at undermining, I have one myself.

Aside from my pieces in American Thinker and elsewhere, I write exclusive news/commentary articles for The New American (TNA), which has both a website and hard-copy magazine. And as many sites do, TNA has Fraudbook’s "Like” button at the top of every article; it indicates how many Fraudbook users read, liked the piece and chose to click the button. Well, for more than a year and ending only about a year ago, I and members of TNA’s staff noticed a strange and consistent phenomenon: likes would accumulate on a piece and then "poof!” they’d disappear with the counter having been dialed back to zero. This happened consistently across all TNA articles; in one case, one of my pieces had 30,000 likes before they were sent to the gulag.

One might consider this a glitch, but I never observed the phenomenon at any liberal/mainstream-media site. And why does it matter? Because likes are a good metric for not just popularity but also level of readership, and people are influenced by what’s popular. Make an article’s content appear unread and unpopular and people are more likely to dismiss it as a fringe view.

I always assumed, and this accords with Gizmodo’s findings, that the like-button manipulation was the work of one or two rogue employees — who were operating in a liberal organization that would turn a blind eye to such shenanigans. Yet Beck’s thoughts are different. In a further glowing endorsement of Fraudbook http://time.com/4342055/glenn-beck-facebook-conservatism/, he was quoted in a Thursday Time piece as saying about his meeting with the company’s representatives, "I thought it was great. I thought they were sincere. And as I was leaving, I thought: ‘What company has done that with conservatives?’ Especially a media company.” That’s what he thought, all right. And here’s what I think: that Facebook has two faces, and one of them is seen only by big names that Zuck et al. can use for photo-ops and public-relations purposes.

And that’s likely what happened with you, Mr. Beck. You found Zuck and Company cordial — they just find you useful.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2702 words, total size 18 kb.

The Left's Manipulation of Language

This from Americans for Limited Government:

By Don Todd

Ever wonder why those on the left who are opposed to personal choice on every level other than abortion refer to themselves as pro-choice? That's simple, because it sounds better that what it really is, pro-abortion. In the mass media there is no such thing as pro-abortion. Through this sleight of the rhetorical hand those opposed to the taking of an innocent human life are labeled as anti-choice.

One of the keys to leftist success is the manipulation of the language. Moral issues become social issues. The Strategic Defense Initiative became Star Wars as in science fiction. Tax raises become revenue enhancements. Although women outnumber men in America they are linked to minorities.

Had anyone ever heard of a Transgender person five years ago? Certainly we had all heard of transvestites and cross dressers. The Collins English Dictionary defines them as follows: 1. (Psychiatry) a person who seeks sexual pleasure from wearing clothes that are normally associated with the opposite sex 2. any cross-dresser. See cross-dressing.

What was once viewed as a psychological oddity has now been relabeled and turned into a movement. We now have the spectacle of the federal government by edict taking control of school restrooms and showers under the guise of equality.

The left claims it is the ideology that believes in science except when they don't. The American College of Pediatricians put out a statement in March of this year stating, "Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: 'XY' and 'XX' are genetic markers of health — not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident."

Another example of the left manipulating the language is the United States Congress banning words the left does not approve of from the United State Code and changing them to more politically correct terms. They are calling this, "modernization." House Resolution 4238 reads in part, "Office of Minority Economic Impact.—Section 211(f)(1) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7141(f)(1)) is amended by striking 'a Negro, Puerto Rican, American Indian, Eskimo, Oriental, or Aleut or is a Spanish speaking individual of Spanish descent' and inserting 'Asian American, Native Hawaiian, a Pacific Islander, African American, Hispanic, Puerto Rican, Native American, or an Alaska Native.'" The Congress is now the language police.

Also a part of the leftist language agenda is the constant calls for the renaming of streets, schools, sports teams like the Washington Redskins and anything thing else that offends their tender feelings. This gives them the opportunity to take a false moral high ground while schooling the rest of us on our moral failings for not recognizing how right they are. It also subtlety attacks western culture and history.

The irony of this coming from an ideology responsible for more human misery and death than any other political movement in history seems to escape them.

The way to fight this is not to go along with the cultural distortion of the left through the modification of the common vernacular. There is no such thing as social studies in schools. It is history. Social issues are not social issues they are moral issues. There is no pro-choice movement it is a pro-abortion movement. People are not trans-anything they either male or female. If they think otherwise they are mentally ill. If you accept the leftist language distortions you are accepting the premise of their arguments.

Don Todd is the Director of Research of Americans for Limited Government.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.

Venezuela Needs a Military Coup

Selwyn Duke

With Venezuela spinning toward chaos, it’s said that U.S. officials fear a military coup. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/14/u-s-intelligence-officials-fear-venezuelan-meltdown/?fb_comment_id=1119757994745174_1119771851410455 We ought to ask "Why?”

Democracy on the brain can be a dangerous condition. George W. Bush pursued his unwise "nation-building” policies under the assumption that, as he put it, "democracies don’t go to war with each other.” (Note: technically we’re speaking of "republics,” not democracies.) So WWI was the "war to end all wars,” and now there’s the political system to end all wars; hey, if a military solution didn’t change man’s nature, maybe a political solution will?

But it was more correct to say that democracies hadn’t yet gone to war with one another. Since Bush’s days, the representative government in Russia chose to invade Georgia and Ukraine, both of which also have representative governments. Remember, too, that we, the standard bearer for "democracy,” have launched our share of military campaigns (this isn’t to imply some weren’t justified, but it’s worth noting).

Then there was Barack Obama’s demo-folly, the so-called "Arab Spring,” which quickly devolved into the Jihadist Winter. Is Libya better off now than under Muammar Gaddafi? Was "democracy” going to give Egypt a better leader than Hosni Mubarak? Has it done so? For that matter, is Iran better off today than under the Shah?

Going back further, Woodrow Wilson asked for a declaration of war against Germany in 1917, saying the world must "be made safe for democracy.” Germany got an unstable democracy with the Weimar Republic and then descended into tyranny (as is so often the case with nations) with Hitler.

Of course, the lure of democracy is understandable; after all, having balancing powers within a nation can temper the capricious ambitions of a man. Nonetheless, democracy is sometimes just millions of people making the bad decisions slowly and inefficiently that a dictator could make with the stroke of a pen. Sometimes you’re just making the world safe for collective stupidity.

This brings us to Venezuela. It has more proven oil reserves than any other nation, eight times those of the United States. With a wiser populace — which would beget a better government — it could be as rich as Norway, which reaps the benefits of its vast natural resources. Instead, it has descended into turmoil. Power has been cut and there is little food, with a hamburger "officially” selling for $170 https://www.yahoo.com/news/venezuela-where-hamburger-officially-170-184605711.html?ref=gs and a hotel room for $6,900 a night. Not surprisingly, a Caracas mayor is reporting that people "are hunting dogs and cats in the streets, and pigeons in the plazas to eat.” The capital also has the world’s highest crime rate, with a resident victimized every 28 seconds. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/18/venezuela-food-shortages-cause-some-hunt-dogs-cats-pigeons/84547888/

The reason for this is no mystery. Venezuelans have stubbornly empowered vile, economy-rending socialist demagogues; the buffoonish Hugo Chavez was elected and then re-elected three times, which is akin to the Titanic backing up to hit the iceberg again. When Chavez was finally taken by cancer, Venezuelans decided to help their national cancer further metastasize and elected his ally, Nicolás Maduro. It just seems that some people hate the rich more than they love themselves.

Considering this brings to mind the rhetorical question asked by former Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf (I’m paraphrasing): "What good is so-called democracy if Pakistan becomes a failed state?” Venezuelans’ childish electoral decisions have led to their current plight — and they need a military coup. And, hopefully, they’d get a military leader such as Musharraf.

A coup wouldn’t be a panacea. But given the phenomenon of regression to the mean (in other words, it’s hard for Venezuela to go anywhere but up right now), there’s a decent chance they’d end up with a leader who might at least have some semblance of economic literacy. As for human rights, which ostensibly also concerns U.S. officials, it’s not as if Chavez and Maduro have respected them.

And there have been relatively good military governments. After Chilean strongman General Augusto Pinochet steered his nation toward domestic tranquility and prosperity, he agreed to a restoration of representative government and peacefully stepped down in 1990. Of course, Pinochet was not a saint, and the Left despises him because he emerged from a coup that vanquished a devout socialist, Salvador Allende. But he was wise enough to consult with famed economist Milton Friedman when devising policy, and Milton beats Marx every time.

Admittedly, one big difference between Pinochet’s ascendancy (1973) and today is that the U.S. would aid such men decades ago; we understood that a pro-American, anti-communist dictator was preferable to a democratically elected Marxist or jihadist, that a decent zookeeper is better than a democracy of two lions and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Now Western leaders are content to create democratically made sheep as long as they’re fleeced by socialist shears.

Now, advocating autocracy here can seem remarkably un-American, especially to those who see being socialist as thoroughly American. Of course, these same people cheered when our courts repeatedly violated the Constitution and trumped popular will in striking down marriage-preservation laws. The point is that most all of us reject democratic determinations we consider grossly immoral or untenable; it’s just that not all of us know what morality is. But a larger point is that autocracy is not a moral or immoral choice, but the inevitable fate of an immoral people.

Our second president, John Adams, once observed, "The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”

This applies in all times and places. Now, question: how much virtue do you see in the world today? Do the populations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Libya and Syria — all places that many insist must have "democracy” — strike you as particularly virtuous? We so often speak of "liberty” as if it emerges in a vacuum or has no prerequisites, ignoring that morality is the fertilizer of the tree of liberty and the monster of tyranny feeds on man's vice.

For example, George W. Bush once marketed his nation building by saying that all people want freedom. Yet polls informing us that large numbers of Muslims prefer Sharia law to Western civil law show that they certainly don’t want our conception of freedom. Just as significantly, however, there is a difference between wanting and acquiring.

Most everyone wants wealth, but not all possess the ability and discipline to achieve it. Everyone wants health, but some still smoke and drink heavily and dig a grave with a knife and fork. And everyone wants good government, as they conceive of it, but some still glom onto demagogues who promise bread and circuses.

So people may want freedom. All right, so does a caged beast. So does a toddler. But neither has the capacity to freely negotiate civilization without hurting himself or others. The issue is that a people may want better than what they have, but they cannot be better than what they are. A person’s early life is always one of captivity and control, with the babe safely placed behind bars in a crib, with his life micromanaged and liberty curtailed by his nanny state, the parents. As he becomes civilized and his moral compass develops, he can incrementally be given more freedom and, ultimately, enjoy the full rights of adulthood. Yet if this civilizing process — which includes insulation from corruptive influences — isn’t effected properly, the person can remain morally stunted, barbaric, in a childlike state of virtue. And then he may end up back in a crib, one with iron bars and no mother’s loving embrace.

And as it is for one individual, so it is for two, ten or enough individuals to make a group — even a nation-size group. It is then, to quote British statesman Edmund Burke, that we become those men of "intemperate minds” who "cannot be free,” those men whose "passions forge their fetters.”

And this is a cautionary tale for us. Even now we have a popular presidential contender who calls himself a "democratic socialist.” And when socialism is instituted democratically, it’s a good indication that your days of making decisions democratically may be numbered.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

With Venezuela spinning toward chaos, it’s said that U.S. officials fear a military coup. We ought to ask "Why?”

Democracy on the brain can be a dangerous condition. George W. Bush pursued his unwise "nation-building” policies under the assumption that, as he put it, "democracies don’t go to war with each other.” (Note: technically we’re speaking of "republics,” not democracies.) So WWI was the "war to end all wars,” and now there’s the political system to end all wars; hey, if a military solution didn’t change man’s nature, maybe a political solution will?

But it was more correct to say that democracies hadn’t yet gone to war with one another. Since Bush’s days, the representative government in Russia chose to invade Georgia and Ukraine, both of which also have representative governments. Remember, too, that we, the standard bearer for "democracy,” have launched our share of military campaigns (this isn’t to imply some weren’t justified, but it’s worth noting).

Then there was Barack Obama’s demo-folly, the so-called "Arab Spring,” which quickly devolved into the Jihadist Winter. Is Libya better off now than under Muammar Gaddafi? Was "democracy” going to give Egypt a better leader than Hosni Mubarak? Has it done so? For that matter, is Iran better off today than under the Shah?

Going back further, Woodrow Wilson asked for a declaration of war against Germany in 1917, saying the world must "be made safe for democracy.” Germany got an unstable democracy with the Weimar Republic and then descended into tyranny (as is so often the case with nations) with Hitler.

Of course, the lure of democracy is understandable; after all, having balancing powers within a nation can temper the capricious ambitions of a man. Nonetheless, democracy is sometimes just millions of people making the bad decisions slowly and inefficiently that a dictator could make with the stroke of a pen. Sometimes you’re just making the world safe for collective stupidity.

This brings us to Venezuela. It has more proven oil reserves than any other nation, eight times those of the United States. With a wiser populace — which would beget a better government — it could be as rich as Norway, which reaps the benefits of its vast natural resources. Instead, it has descended into turmoil. Power has been cut and there is little food, with a hamburger "officially” selling for $170 and a hotel room for $6,900 a night. Not surprisingly, a Caracas mayor is reporting that people "are hunting dogs and cats in the streets, and pigeons in the plazas to eat.” The capital also has the world’s highest crime rate, with a resident victimized every 28 seconds.

The reason for this is no mystery. Venezuelans have stubbornly empowered vile, economy-rending socialist demagogues; the buffoonish Hugo Chavez was elected and then re-elected three times, which is akin to the Titanic backing up to hit the iceberg again. When Chavez was finally taken by cancer, Venezuelans decided to help their national cancer further metastasize and elected his ally, Nicolás Maduro. It just seems that some people hate the rich more than they love themselves.

Considering this brings to mind the rhetorical question asked by former Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf (I’m paraphrasing): "What good is so-called democracy if Pakistan becomes a failed state?” Venezuelans’ childish electoral decisions have led to their current plight — and they need a military coup. And, hopefully, they’d get a military leader such as Musharraf.

A coup wouldn’t be a panacea. But given the phenomenon of regression to the mean (in other words, it’s hard for Venezuela to go anywhere but up right now), there’s a decent chance they’d end up with a leader who might at least have some semblance of economic literacy. As for human rights, which ostensibly also concerns U.S. officials, it’s not as if Chavez and Maduro have respected them.

And there have been relatively good military governments. After Chilean strongman General Augusto Pinochet steered his nation toward domestic tranquility and prosperity, he agreed to a restoration of representative government and peacefully stepped down in 1990. Of course, Pinochet was not a saint, and the Left despises him because he emerged from a coup that vanquished a devout socialist, Salvador Allende. But he was wise enough to consult with famed economist Milton Friedman when devising policy, and Milton beats Marx every time.

Admittedly, one big difference between Pinochet’s ascendancy (1973) and today is that the U.S. would aid such men decades ago; we understood that a pro-American, anti-communist dictator was preferable to a democratically elected Marxist or jihadist, that a decent zookeeper is better than a democracy of two lions and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Now Western leaders are content to create democratically made sheep as long as they’re fleeced by socialist shears.

Now, advocating autocracy here can seem remarkably un-American, especially to those who see being socialist as thoroughly American. Of course, these same people cheered when our courts repeatedly violated the Constitution and trumped popular will in striking down marriage-preservation laws. The point is that most all of us reject democratic determinations we consider grossly immoral or untenable; it’s just that not all of us know what morality is. But a larger point is that autocracy is not a moral or immoral choice, but the inevitable fate of an immoral people.

Our second president, John Adams, once observed, "The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”

This applies in all times and places. Now, question: how much virtue do you see in the world today? Do the populations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Libya and Syria — all places that many insist must have "democracy” — strike you as particularly virtuous? We so often speak of "liberty” as if it emerges in a vacuum or has no prerequisites, ignoring that morality is the fertilizer of the tree of liberty and the monster of tyranny feeds on man's vice.

For example, George W. Bush once marketed his nation building by saying that all people want freedom. Yet polls informing us that large numbers of Muslims prefer Sharia law to Western civil law show that they certainly don’t want our conception of freedom. Just as significantly, however, there is a difference between wanting and acquiring.

Most everyone wants wealth, but not all possess the ability and discipline to achieve it. Everyone wants health, but some still smoke and drink heavily and dig a grave with a knife and fork. And everyone wants good government, as they conceive of it, but some still glom onto demagogues who promise bread and circuses.

So people may want freedom. All right, so does a caged beast. So does a toddler. But neither has the capacity to freely negotiate civilization without hurting himself or others. The issue is that a people may want better than what they have, but they cannot be better than what they are. A person’s early life is always one of captivity and control, with the babe safely placed behind bars in a crib, with his life micromanaged and liberty curtailed by his nanny state, the parents. As he becomes civilized and his moral compass develops, he can incrementally be given more freedom and, ultimately, enjoy the full rights of adulthood. Yet if this civilizing process — which includes insulation from corruptive influences — isn’t effected properly, the person can remain morally stunted, barbaric, in a childlike state of virtue. And then he may end up back in a crib, one with iron bars and no mother’s loving embrace.

And as it is for one individual, so it is for two, ten or enough individuals to make a group — even a nation-size group. It is then, to quote British statesman Edmund Burke, that we become those men of "intemperate minds” who "cannot be free,” those men whose "passions forge their fetters.”

And this is a cautionary tale for us. Even now we have a popular presidential contender who calls himself a "democratic socialist.” And when socialism is instituted democratically, it’s a good indication that your days of making decisions democratically may be numbered.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2790 words, total size 18 kb.

<< Page 1 of 608 >>
129kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.135 seconds.
30 queries taking 0.0981 seconds, 189 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.