Lessons For Law Enforcement

Following is a list of guidelines that emerged from the successful resolution of these cases of serial murder. While not exhaustive, it’s a start. Hopefully it will inspire both dedication and invention in current and future investigations.

1. Read widely in fields that might seem relevant but have not yet been used in law enforcement. It was a police officer not a scientist who introduced the discrimination of animal and human blood, DNA analysis, and brain fingerprinting into an investigation. This requires creative thinking and awareness of what’s available.
2. Be proactive. Detective William King kept planting items in newspapers, even years after the crime was committed, in order to bait the offender who’d kidnapped Grace Budd. Finally, his effort paid off. The Allentown police set up a sting operation, and Viktor Burakov read up on the FBI’s profiling methods, despite rebuke, to try to stop Chikatilo.
3. Become educated about psychological angles on criminal behavior, which get updated with research on a regular basis. This arena is not reserved for profilers or psychologists. Most good detectives already have a sense of criminal psychology, but psychopathic serial killers require greater savvy. No officer should believe he already knows enough from what he’s picked up on the streets.
4. Be flexible and, in particular, prepare to be wrong. In the Village Path murders in Britain, the interrogators were certain they’d nailed the man who’d killed two young girls, but they were wrong. It’s possible that their misplaced confidence influenced this suspect’s false confession. DNA analysis exonerated him and pointed to another man, but had this case happened only two years earlier, an innocent man would have gone to prison.
5. Be persistent. With cold cases, go over old ground and get a fresh perspective from others not familiar with the crime. Blind spots can trip up investigators who won’t let go. No investigation belongs to a single cop; it’s always a coordinated effort and others might contribute in surprising ways.
6. Be meticulous. Perhaps no case was more painstaking than the Pickton investigation, with all the forensic personnel sifting through piles of dirt and manure and underneath every building to locate fragments of human remains that would yield DNA.
7. Anticipate the future. Future investigations will involve cooperation among seemingly unrelated fields, especially the fields of technology and informatics.

Source: The Devil’s Dozen. How Cutting Edge Forensics Took Down 12 Notorious Serial Killers (2009) by Katherine Ramsland, Ph. D.

Good advice. The boldface highlights are mine.

19 Signs That American Families Are Being Economically Destroyed

From Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge.com:

Even as we stand at the precipice of the next great economic crisis, we continue to make the same mistakes.  In the end, all of us are going to pay a very great price for decades of incredibly foolish decisions.  Of course a tremendous amount of damage has already been done.  The numbers that I am about to share with you are staggering.  The following are 19 signs that American families are being economically destroyed…

1. The poorest 40 percent of all Americans now spend more than 50 percent of their incomes just on food and housing.
2. For those Americans that don’t own a home, 50 percent of them spend more than a third of their incomes just on rent.
3. The price of school lunches has risen to the 3 dollar mark at many public schools across the nation.
4. McDonald’s “Dollar Menu & More” now includes items that cost as much as 5 dollars.
5. The price of ground beef has doubled since 2009.
6. In 1986, child care expenses for families with employed mothers used up 6.3 percent of all income.  Today, that figure is up to 7.2 percent.
7. Incomes fell for the bottom 80 percent of all income earners in the United States during the 12 months leading up to June 2014.
8. At this point, more than 50 percent of all American workers bring home less than $30,000 a year in wages.
9. After adjusting for inflation, median household income has fallen by nearly $5,000 since 2007.
10. According to the New York Times, the “typical American household” is now worth 36 percent less than it was worth a decade ago.

[read more]

Not good at all. Thank you powers-that-be!

ISIS Wants To Attack With WMDs

From Washington Times.com (April 19):

EU and NATO officials confirmed today there is evidence that the Islamic State is plotting nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) attacks on the European continent and the United Kingdom. Jorge Berto Silva, deputy head of counterterrorism for the European Commission, said at a conference in London that ISIS is constantly evading established security measures and looking for new ways to get explosive and dangerous material into European cities, such as implanting the bombs in human bodies and using driverless cars to ram crowds. There is even evidence ISIS has obtained Iraqi short-range missiles and rockets to attack cities from outside the center.

Dr. Jamie Shea, deputy assistant secretary general for emerging security threats at Nato, reportedly added regarding NBC materials: “We know terrorists are trying to acquire these substances,” reported the Mirror. [read more]

Thank you Obama for making the world unsafer! If IS thugs wants to attack Europe then America is next on their hit list.

Rachel Carson and DDT

The most important day of the entire year is upon us — Earth Day on April 22nd. It’s a day in which environmentalists will overlook and dismiss earth’s inhabitants and literally choose to celebrate the dirt beneath our feet.

Earth Day isn’t really about picking trash in your local park or remembering to recycle your soda can. It isn’t even about hugging a tree. It has never been that innocent. Earth Day is a yearly reminder that humanity must be controlled, manipulated and even destroyed for the good of the planet.

…………………………..

In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, the book credited with igniting environmentalists in the United States. One hundred fifty thousand copies of “Silent Spring” were mailed to Book of the Month members and made their way into suburban America. With chapter titles such as “Elixirs of Death” and “Rivers of Death,” Carson successfully mixed eloquence and horror to instill fear about the popular insecticide Dichloride Diphenyl Triclorethane, better known as DDT.

DDT was considered to be a miracle powder that played an extraordinary role in winning World War II. During the Second World War, DDT was used to protect allied troops and civilians from malaria, typhus and other insect-born diseases.

…………………………….

Rachel Carson’s narrative that DDT was detrimental to both nature and human health was hungrily gobbled up by the public and government officials alike. Within eight years of its publication, Silent Spring was directly credited with the creation of the EPA.

In 1972, only ten years after Silent Spring was published, the U.S. banned DDT and other countries quickly followed suit. Once countries started falling prey to Carson’ misinformation about DDT, malaria ran rampant. The devastating insect-born disease once again ravaged South Africa and South American countries.

Robert Watts of the National Institutes of Health once remarked, “The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.”

Source: Environmentalism Part I: The EPA, Silent Spring and DDT

10 Things Leaders Should Never Do

These are behaviors that executives and business leaders should always avoid. They don't just diminish your leadership ability, your presence, your credibility, your reputation. They will come back to haunt you and, ultimately, be your undoing.

1. Kowtow to the status quo.
2. Whine.
3. Deceive.
4. Act like a dictator.
5. Make empty threats.
6. Crave power.
7. Ignore the truth.
8. Make commitments you don't intend to keep.
9. Be grandiose.
10. Do what you know is wrong.

Source: 10 Things Leaders Should Never Do from Inc.com.

Good advice not only for the private sector but for presidents and potential presidents. Obama does 2, 3, 4, and 6. Trump has to watch 2, 4, 6, and 9. When your narcisstic or egotistical 4, 6, 7, and 9 come into play.

Milton Friedman on the Great Depression

Milton Friedman at a conference of bankers:

There is hardly any view that is more widespread than the view that somehow or another the Great Depression was produced by a failure of private business. That view is held, not only by those who are in favor of greater role of government, it is held by almost everybody. I venture to suggest you that if you go to any bankers, the people who are here today at this banking conference, and if you talk to them, I’d venture to say, nine out of ten of them, if they didn’t, hadn’t heard what I’m going to say, that nine out of ten of them would say, “Well, of course, the Great Depression was a failure of private business. It was due to an overextension. Over speculation of the 1920s. Or it was due to an excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy at the expense of the poor in the 1920s. Or it was due to speculative investment abroad or whatever. But it was a failure of private business. And government had to step in in order to rescue private business from its own failure.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. …The Great Depression was not [my emphasis] produced by a failure of business. On the contrary, it was [my emphasis]produced by a failure of government and a failure of government in an area in which responsibility had been assigned to governments since the founding of this country. The Constitution of the United States, it gives Congress the power to coin money and set the value thereof. And it was in the management of this fundamental function of government that governments failed and produced the Great Depression.

Source: Milton Friedman Part IV: Unapologetic & Unafraid

Mr. Friedman got it exactly right. The reader might want to refer to my blog entry “FDR, The Great Depression and The New Deal.”

A Peek Inside the IRS and Other Tax Stuff

The Four Protocols:

1. Find where they [the taxpayers] are.
2. Track what they do.
3. Learn what they have.
4. Execute what they fear.

The three Cs in ‘collection’:

• Cause- What did the TP [taxpayer] do—or not do—to fall behind or not file?
• Cure- What can the TP do—or not do—to bring the taxpayer back into compliance?
• Compliance- Is the TP current? If it’s a business, are the owners current? Is every entity they have an interest in current? Check everything, across the board.

Nine simple rules for not getting yourself killed [by a TP]:

1. Treat all taxpayers fairly and courteous.
2. Do not personalize collection efforts.
3. Listen carefully.
4. Do not threaten, scold, or patronize.
5. Recognize your own attitudes and eliminate those that are counterproductive.
6. Treat taxpayers as you would want to be treated.
7. Know where the exits are.
8. Avoid getting trapped.
9. Use force only sufficient to disengage.

Source: Confessions of a Tax Collector. One Man’s Tour of Duty Inside the IRS (2004) by Richard Yancey.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights:

1. The Right to Be Informed.
2. The Right to Quality Service.
3. The Right to Pay No More than the Correct Amount of Tax.
4. The Right to Challenge the IRS’s Position and Be Heard.
5. The Right to Appeal an IRS Decision in an Independent Forum
6. The Right to Finality.
7. The Right to Privacy.
8. The Right to Confidentiality.
9. The Right to Retain Representation.
10. The Right to a Fair and Just Tax System.

No taxation without respiration. –  Senator George Allen

Consider this, for starters. Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which has defined the character of the nation, is all of 268 words. The Declaration of Independence runs about 1,300 words. The Constitution, which has served us for more than two centuries, comes to some 5,000 words. The Holy Bible has 773,000 words. The federal income tax code and all of its attendant rules and regulations: 9 million words and rising.  -- Steve Forbes

Taxation with representation ain't so hot either. - Gerald Barzan

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. – Calvin Coolidge

The people suffer from famine because of the multitude of taxes consumed by their superiors. It is through this that they suffer famine. - Lao-Tzu

Capital punishment is when Washington comes up with a new tax. - Van Panopoulos

Here’s a summary of the history of the tax rate:

• 1862-1863: The start of the national income tax. Two tier system. Upper tax rate 5%.
• 1864-1866: Three tier system. Upper tax rate 10%.  Tax rate still not too bad.
• 1867-1869: One tier system. Upper tax rate 5%. By one tier I mean if the income is over a certain amount the taxpayer pays a certain rate. Otherwise the taxpayer pays nothing.  Even better yet.
• 1870-1872: One tier system. Upper tax rate 2.5%. Nice.
• 1873-1893, 1895-1912. No national income tax. This is called the good old days. How did America ever survive? You mean the world for the average American didn’t stop?
• 1894: One tier system. Upper tax rate: 2%.
• 1913-1915: Seven tier system! Upper tax rate: 7%.
• 1916: 14 tier system!! WTF? Upper tax rate: 15%.
• 1917: 21 tier system!!! Upper tax rate: 67%!
• 1918-1921: 56 tier system!!!!  Upper tax rates: 77% and73%

I would go on but you get the idea. The tier system went somewhat down then in 1932 it went to 55. The highest tax rate overall was 94% in 1944. It wasn’t until 1987 the tier system went back to a smaller five tier system with the upper tax rate at 38.5%. The next year the the tax code was a two tier system with upper tax rate set at 28%. The two tier system only lasted until 1991. The upper tax rate went up too. Everyone paid the same rates regardless of marriage status until 1949 where single and head of household paid the same rates as married filing separately. Married filling jointly incomes was split to compare against the brackets. In 1971, every marriage status had different brackets.

It’s interesting to note that througout America’s tax code history there never has been one single flat rate for everyone regardless of income. Probably because if everyone pays the same rate it would be harder for Washington to raise the rate too high otherwise the poor would feel the effect.

I believe the reason the progressive tax system got created is because the progressives believed the more you earn, the more you should be taxed. In other words, they think they were following a law of economics that says “if a seller thinks a buyer has a lot of money to spend then he will raise the price of his product or service.” This is an actual economic law. The problem is when you apply this law to taxing someone they don’t have a choice. They have to pay the tax rate. Or got to jail. Unlike the free-market system where the buyer can choose to pay the price or go on to another seller. But the progs don’t care. They think the rich has an endless supply of money or they hoard all the money.

Glenn Beck series “History of Taxation”:

• Taxes Part I: How Income Tax Began
• Taxes Part II: What Is a ‘Fair’ Income Tax Rate?
• Taxes Part III: The Reagan Years
• Taxes Part IV: The 2016 Candidates

A Tax on Income Attacks Life Itself

9 Charts You Need to See for Tax Day

Some news:

Daily Signal.com (Mar. 18): H&R block Wants to Make It Harder for You to File Taxes. Can you say chrony capitalist?

Five Indispensible Principles of Market Freedom

FEE.org article by Jeffrey Tucker:

Some people like to distinguish between capitalism and crony capitalism. For example, many American retailers these days are hoping for an increase in tariffs and import quotas in a way that will protect their products against foreign competition. That is, they want to use government power to guarantee their profits. It seems to me that this is better described as pure cronyism. Leave the capitalism part out of it.

If a term elucidates an idea with accuracy, great. If it causes confusion, change it. Language is constantly evolving. No particular arrangement of letters embeds an immutable meaning. And what is at stake in this debate about market freedom (or capitalism or laissez faire or the free market) is of profound importance. 

It’s the substance, not the words, we should care about.

Here are five core elements to this idea of market freedom, or whatever you want to call it. It is my short summary of the classical liberal vision of the free society and its functioning, which isn’t just about economics, but the whole of life itself. Call it capitalism if you want to.

I. Volition. Markets are about human choice at every level of society. These choices extend to every sector and every individual. You can choose your work. No one can force you into labor. At the same time, you can’t impose yourself on any employer. No one can force you to buy anything, but neither can you force someone to sell to you. Choice means agreement between all those parties to the exchange.

…………………………..

II. Ownership. In a world of infinite abundance, there would be no need for ownership. But as long as we live in the material world, there will be potential conflicts over scarce resources. These conflicts can be resolved through fighting over things or through the recognition of property rights. If we prefer peace over war, volition over violence, productivity over poverty, all scarce resources -- without exception -- need private owners.

……………………………….

III. Cooperation. Volition and ownership grant the right to anyone to live in a state of pure autarky. On the other hand, that won’t get you very far. You will be poor, and your life will be short. People need people to obtain a better life. We trade to our mutual betterment. We cooperate in work. We develop every form of association with each other: commercial, familial, fraternal, and religious. The lives of all of us are improved by our capacity to cooperate in some form with other people.

………………………………………

IV. Learning. No one is born into this world knowing much of anything. We learn from our parents and teachers, but more importantly, we learn from the infinite bits of information that come to us every instant of the day all throughout our lives. We observe success and failure in others, and we are free to accept or reject these lessons as we see fit. In a free society, we are free to emulate others, accumulate and apply wisdom, read and absorb ideas, and extract information from any source to adapt for our own uses.

…………………………………

V. Competition. When people think of capitalism, competition is perhaps the first idea that comes to mind. But the idea is widely misunderstood. It doesn’t mean that there must be several suppliers of every good or service, or that there must be a certain number of producers of anything. It means only that there should be no legal (coercive) limits on the ways in which we are permitted to serve each other. And there really are infinite ways in which this can take place.  [read more]

Good article. One principle could be added: Ethics. A business shouldn’t lie about its product or service or even lie about its competitors product or service. It’s all about reputation. If a business loses that, it loses everything especially its customers. It shouldn’t also bribe government to gain an advantage over its competitors especially small business competitors that don’t have the resources to bribe the ruling class. This crony capitalism is what gives capitalism a bad name.

The Conservatism of Lord Acton

Lord Acton’s ideas fits pretty well with Russell Kirk’s principles of conservatism:

• Liberty becomes a question of morals more than of politics. [Principle 1]
• Inequality: the Basis of society. We combined and put things in common to protect the weak against the strong. [Principle 2]
• By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes is his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion. [Principle 3]
• Property, not conscience, is the basis of liberty. For the defence of conscience need not arise. Property is always exposed to interference. It is the constant object of policy. [Principle 4]
• Federalism is the best curb on democracy. [It] assigns limited powers to the central government. Thereby all power is limited. It excludes absolute power of the majority. [Principle 5]
• Universal History is ... not a burden on the memory but an illumination of the soul. [Principle 6]
• Progress, the religion of those who have none. [Principle 10]

Sources: Lord Acton Quote Archive and Notable quotations.

The Essence of Conservatism

What follows is what American conversative philosopher Russell Kirk thought through his studies was the essence of conservatism:

1. Men and nations are governed by moral laws; and those laws have their origin in a wisdom that is more than human--in divine justice.
2. Power is full of danger; therefore the good state is one in which power is checked and balanced, restricted by sound constitutions and customs.
3. Men and women are not perfectible, conservatives know; and neither are political institutions.
4. Variety and diversity are the characteristics of a high civilization.
5. Property and freedom are inseparably connected; economic leveling is not economic progress.
6. Modern society urgently needs true community: and true community is a world away from collectivism.
7. Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own--to the things best suited to their own nature, to the rewards of their ability and integrity, to their property and their personality.
8. The past is a great storehouse of wisdom;
9. In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image.
10. Change and reform, conservatives are convinced, are not identical: moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial;

[read more]

I grouped these principles based on similarity. Principles 1 through 3 are what you could call moral/religious/traditional principles. Principles 4 through 7 are principles that most libertarians would agree on. They might agree on principle three but not know why (for the reason see below).

Principle three is connected to principle two and the reason for principle one. Since mankind is not perfect (dare I say fallen from grace?) mankind can be corrupted. And a imperfect person in power without morals (principle one) is dangerous. There are no restrictions on his/her behavior. As Lord Acton* once said “power corrupts.” There was a study (2012) published  in the Journal of Applied Psychology that linked a persons sense of “moral identity” to his/her ethical behavior. The higher a person’s sense of moral identity the more ethical a person would be. It doesn’t have to be moral imperfection that principle three is talking about. There is also mental imperfection. Such as prejudices, biases, memory errors, false memory syndrome, etc. Just pick up a psychological textbook to see how the mind is imperfect.

Principle four is just about individual differences. When people are the same you have boring uniformity—no complexity in civilization. But when people are their noblest natures—motivated, knowledgable, curious, creative, passionate, free—then you have the highest civilization. Also, with individual differences comes different perspectives, different opinions, and different ideas. That’s how knowledge grows. Nobody (not even gov’ts) knows everything. Brian Arthur, Steven N. Durlauf, and David A. Lane describe seven features (like dispersed interaction, no global controller, and ongoing adaptation) of complex systems that deserve greater attention in economics (and possible in other social systems).  Principle seven and principle four are linked together because without justice you don’t have a high civilization.

Principle eight is about learning from elders and ancestors past mistakes and even their successes. That way you don’t learn them anew. The tried and true so to speak.

Change can be bad because of principle three. Also, change can be bad because people don’t foresee what economists call “externalities.” Externalities, or stage two thinking, are events that happen later on in time when a change is made unknown to the changer usually the ruling class. On this principle, it is best to follow the loving resistance fighter principles: “be at least, suspicious of the idea of progress, and who do not confuse information with understanding” and “admire technological ingenuity but do not think it represents the highest possible form of human achievement.” Quiet a few of the other resistance fighter principles are conservative principles.

Reagan conservative believes in most if not all of these principles. For example, Reagan believed in the Founders wisdom and vision (principle 8). In his book, America the Strong: Conservative Ideas to Spark the Next Generation (2015), William J. Bennett defined a conservative as FLINT (Free enterprise, Limited government, Individual liberty, National defense, and Traditional values). These are basically the same principles above. Free enterprise is basically the 5th principle.

The Founders basically followed the above principles.

For example here is John Adams who Russell Kirk calls a conservative in Adams own words:

• We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
• The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, and both should be checks upon that. [Principle 2]
• Mankind pay no Attention to Reason— They are led blindfold by Names, and Signs. [Principle 3]
• [A]ll are subject by nature to equal laws of morality, and in society have a right to equal laws for their government, yet no two men are perfectly equal in person, property, understanding, activity, and virtue, or ever can be made so by any power less than that which created them . . . [Principle 4]
• Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. [This is obviously principle 5]
• To be good, and to do good, is all we have to do. [Principle 6]
• We hold that each man is the best judge of his own interest. [Principle 7]
• Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction that, after the most industrious and impartial researchers, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions or systems of education more fit in general to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors. [Principle 8]

Then there is Thomas Jefferson:

• God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction inthe minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my countrywhen I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever. [Principle 1]
• The concentrating [of powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. [Principle 2]
• Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. [Principle 3]
• The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management. [Principle 5]
• Who then can so softly bind up the wound of another as he who has felt the same wound himself.  [Principle 6]
• A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement. [Principle 7]
• History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. [Principle 8]

Here is what George Washington said:

• Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensible supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. [Principle 1]
• Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. [Principle 2]
• We must take human nature as we find it, perfection falls not to the share of mortals. [Principle 3]
• The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whetherAmericans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; [Principle 5]
• Let your heart feel for the afflictions and distresses of every one, and let your hand give in proportion to your purse; remembering always the estimation of the widow's mite, but, that it is not every one who asketh that deserveth charity; all, however, are worthy of the inquiry, or the deserving may suffer. [Principle 6]
• At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation; and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own. [Principle 7]
• Personal library of George Washington. [Principle 8]
• Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind! [Principle 9]

And finally inventor and scientist Benjamin Franklin:

• The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth:'that God governs in the affairs of men.' And if a sparrow cannot fall tothe ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
• In reality there is perhaps no one of our natural Passions so hard to subdue as Pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will now and then peek out and show itself. [Principle 3]
• All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: [Principle 5]
• Franklin brought together a group of 30 men in 1736 to form the Union Fire Company to prevent massive fires in Philadelphia. [Principle 6]
• ... as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed:… [Principle 8]
• [I]t is a common ... as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own. [Principle 9]

This is just a sampling of the Founding Fathers. If I would have done all the Founding Fathers even the one who signed the Declaration that would be a book itself.

 

*He also said this about the Left: “A liberal is only a bundle of prejudices until he has mastered, has understood, experienced the philosophy of Conservatism.”

10 Things Communist Countries Totally Do Better Than Capitalist Countries

A commentary from Mary Ramirez on The Blaze.com:

Communism gets a tough rap. Stalin, Mao, Castro—not exactly on history’s nice list. But what if history’s got it wrong?

After all, it’s an impressive list of accomplishments:

1. They know how to get really creative with food. Nina Karpenko and her fellow Ukrainians enjoyed such delicacies [cornmeal, wheat chaff, dried nettle leaves, weeds, and mixed with water and a little salt] while learning valuable lessons from their leaders in the communist Soviet Union; lessons like, “it’s probably not a good idea to resist Joseph Stalin’s polite request that everyone move into a collective farming model, or he’ll have to correct your ways with a forced famine or ‘Holodomor.’”
2. The population never gets out of control. [Communism] and its responsibility for nearly 100 million deaths worldwide certainly seems to do the trick.
3. Everyone’s educated. …if you hold out and attend another “kind” of school, they’ll make sure you quickly see the error of your ways.
4. There’s a place to live for everyone. Nothing says uniformity like city block after city block of the same kind of building with the same paper thin walls, unreliable heat and less than 55 square feet of living space per person.
5. There’s always something entertaining to watch/look at/listen to. And especially when you don’t have to deal with scads of unnecessary search results that the Chinese government happily filters out for you, you can surf the internet far more easily.
6. They’ve got criminal justice down to a well-oiled machine. From 300 unruly Cuban protestors getting in the way of an American president’s visit, to pro-democracy agitators in China—you can be sure this public nuisance is handily whisked away.
7. Religion’s so complicated—they make it simple. Still, there are plenty of people who still cling to the archaic trappings of “god.” Not to worry; communism has generally been able to handle it quite well. From intimidation to arrests; from torture to extermination—there’s always a way to deal with the holdouts.
8. They’ve done tons for the environment. …what other system could so wonderfully deal with the waste issues in East Germany, where “42 percent of moving water and 24 percent of still waters were so polluted [at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall] that they could not be used to process drinking water”?
9. Their people are so selfless. The beauty of communism is that it totally rids a person of the need to strive towards unachievable greatness.
10. They’ve failed more than capitalist countries ever POSSIBLY could.

Satire aside, the reality is that this is serious stuff—especially as growing numbers of Americans look favorably on all kinds of collectivism. So let me be very clear:

Communism has never worked.

………….

And socialism? Just communism’s less violent, slightly more palatable cousin.

…………..

So by all means, Mr. President, let’s do choose what works.

I believe it’s pronounced “ca-pit-al-ism.”  [read more]

Good article by Miss Ramirez. She could have added a 11th thing: Everyone has a job. According to the 1977 Soviet Constitution Chapter 7 Article 40 which says:  

Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance with the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession, type of job and work in accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education, with due account of the needs of society.

Sounds great? Right? Think again. The State tells you where to work and what your job is going to be. Probably what your hours are. Definitely what your wages are. The article says you have the right to choose your profession but then it adds a caveat—“with due account of the needs of society.” That’s what Karl Marx meant by “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” Your passions, wants and happiness is not important. Just your abilities. If you don’t like or hate your job, too bad. You can’t quit unless you get permission from the State. All the Soviet Union cared about and other communist countries care about is full employment. Period. It makes them look good. But cheer up. The Soviet Union had a mininum wage and you had a right to rest and leisure. Oh, wait. The leisure time was determined by the collective farms.

“Democratic Socialism” Is a Contradiction in Terms

Written by Sandy Ikeda on FEE.org:

Why are so many young Americans suddenly calling themselves democratic socialists? I think many of them simply want to distinguish themselves from socialists who might have supported dictatorial regimes such as the former USSR and Maoist China, or who today might support North Korea. They want to signal that for them, political liberty is just as important as, say, economic justice.

But are the concepts of democracy and socialism even compatible?

No. While socialism’s goals may be lofty, its means are inherently at odds with democracy. In the end, “democratic socialism” makes no more sense than “voluntary slavery.”

Democracy

……………………

But I think most of us can agree that the ordinary meaning of democracy is at least tied to the concepts of political self-determination and freedom of expression. In this way, people tend to think of democracy as a shield against others more powerful than themselves.

Socialism

………………………

Or, you can think of socialism as a form of collectivism that uses a particular set of means — political control over the means of labor, capital, and land — to implement a large-scale economic plan that directs people to do things they might not have chosen. In its use of collectivist means, this kind of socialism has much in common with fascism, even if the two differ strongly in the ends they seek to achieve.

Democratic Socialism

What happens when you try to combine democracy with socialism?

Let’s say a socialist government has to choose between only two ends: greater income equality or greater racial justice. Even in this simple, two-alternative case, it has to define clearly what equality and justice mean in terms that everyone can agree on. What counts as income? What constitutes racial justice? What constitutes more equal income or justice? At what point has equality been achieved or justice served: perfect equality or perfect justice? If less than perfection, how much less?

………………………………………………..

How much individual self-expression, how much self-determination can a central authority tolerate, democratic or not, when it seeks to impose an overarching economic plan? Planning on this scale requires the suppression of the petty plans and personal aspirations of mere individuals, and the submission of personal values to those of the collective.

Tocqueville said it well:

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

The system may grind along this way for a while, but the temptation to abandon true democracy — by transferring decision-making authority to smaller groups of experts in each field, for example — becomes harder and harder to resist. In such circumstances, making swift, effective decisions becomes more desirable and less possible. The lofty goals of theoretical socialism — the international brotherhood of workers and global economic justice — tend to be swept aside by local concerns of hunger and security, opening the door to (nonproletarian) dictatorship. [read more]

Tocqueville has it exactly right. What eventually happens is that democratic socialism becomes just socialism just like national socialism became just socialism. Actually, Nazism had a lot in common with Communism. Remember Hitler broke off the pack with the Soviet Union—not the other way around.  Everyone should read this article especially the Bernie Sanders groupies because they are the ones who don’t understand what socialism is.

Defeating Fundamentalistic Islam

From The Blaze.com (Mar. 23):

If the United States and its allies want to defeat radical Islamic terror and stop its growing threat worldwide, one former Islamic extremist says the way to accomplish that is by challenging extremists both ideologically and militarily.

Speaking on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning, Maajid Nawaz — who lived with world-renowned Islamists and jihadis in Egypt from 2002-2006 — reminded the show’s hosts that Tuesday’s attack in Brussels was actually the eighth attack by radical Islamic terrorists in March.

“What we’re witnessing, actually on a global level, is something unprecedented. I call it the ‘global jihadist insurgency,’” Nawaz said. “And it’s, in fact, an ideological struggle as well as a military struggle.”

…………….

When asked what the solution to the problem of radical Islamic terror is, Nawaz explained that first the problem must be identified then it needs to be challenged both ideologically and then militarily. However, according to Nawaz, President Barack Obama’s policy against radical Islamic terrorist groups isn’t correctly addressing the problem.  [read more]

Make sense to me. Wikapedia entry for him says “As a solution, Nawaz suggests building of global youth-led democratic movements that are above politics, and that build demand for democracy at the civilisational level.” He also says in that same article that the ideas, narratives, symbols and leaders of the Jihad movement need to be substituted with better ones. (Actually, the same argument can be applied to the Leftist movement too. But I digress.)

First, America has to define the problem as being Islamic. You don’t see Buddhists or Hindus blowing up people. Then you deal with challenging the extremism. Glenn Beck thinks we shouldn’t call these thugs belonging to “radical Islam” but to “traditional Islam.” He says Martin Luther in his day was called a radical Christian. True. Then there is Jesus. The Pharisees probably classified Jesus as a radical.  I remember watching the Lincoln movie in 2012 where the Democrats in the U.S. senate called the Republicans “radicals” because the Republicans were against slavery. Funny how things change. Beck has a point though. But instead of calling the Islamists “tradionalists” call them “fundamentalists.” That’s a more accurate term to use. In my readings of Islam I learned that traditional Islam is basically Sufism- a more mystical kind of Islam. The fundamentalists don’t care much for these Muslims either.

I suppose you could try to convert a muslim to a Christian by saying if the Quran is true, then Islam is false (I don’t know if this is what Nawaz meant by “challenging”) because the Quran says to trust the Gospels, but the four Gospels contradict the Quran.* The problem with this idea is that it is provocative and might get you killed especially if the Muslim you are talking to is a fundamentalist. Maybe a better idea is to talk a Muslim into being a traditionalist or a modern or Western muslim than a fundamentalist. At least he won’t be blowing himself up. That ideological shift would be easier than converting him to a Christian. Although, he or she would be more peaceful if he was a Christian I would think.

 

*Or you could tell the Muslim that Jesus received his instructions directly from God. Muhammed only through an archangel who was supposedly Gabriel. Who knows where the angel was actually from. Muhammed assumed it was Gabriel.