Idiots/Anarchists Radicalizing Our Campuses!
Tomorrow's Intellectual! (See 1 below.)
===
Obama and Valerie must have wanted to strengthen Iran and down tick our relationship with The Saudis and threaten Israel's survival because there is no other way to explain their hell bent construct and approval of the Iran Deal. (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)
===
Nial Ferguson appeared in Beir's program last night and could not find words to praise Obama's policies and he teaches at "Hahvahd!" (See 3 below.)
===
Article in Pittsburgh paper about our son's real estate development project and his goal for Beachview. (See 4 below.)
===
Let's hear it for Ted Cruz. Not my choice but still believe it should be posted. (See 5 below.)
===
The Vet who took care of our 17year old Bichon, Hairy, called in the evening to ask how he was doing after he visited and when he was there for an overnight observation they called to up date us etc. (See 6 below.)
===
You know what I'm saying! What Black Lives Matter Really Thinks of America
===
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)One day Tyrone's mother came to school to see how he was doing. The teacher told her honestly that her son was simply a disaster, getting very low marks, and that she had never had such an unmotivated and ignorant boy in her entire teaching career.
Tyrone’s mom, shocked at the feedback, withdrew her son from school and moved out of Detroit, relocating to Cleveland.
25 years later, the teacher was diagnosed with irreversible cardiac disease. Her doctors all strongly advised her to have open heart surgery, which only one surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic could perform.
Left with no other options, the teacher decided to have the operation, which was remarkably successful.
When she opened her eyes after the surgery she saw the handsome young doctor who headed her surgical team smiling down at her. She wanted to thank him, but could not talk. Her face started to turn blue, she raised her hand, trying to tell him something, but quickly died. The doctor was shocked, wondering what went wrong so suddenly.
When the doctor turned around to leave the room, he saw Tyrone, now a janitor at the Clinic, had unplugged the life-support equipment in order to plug in his vacuum cleaner.
If you thought that Tyrone had become a heart-surgeon, there is a high likelihood that you will vote for Hillary.
===
Don’t be fooled. The Iran we have long known—hostile, expansionist, violent—is alive and well.
By Yousef Al Otaiba
Saturday marked one year since the framework agreement for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the nuclear deal with Iran—was announced. At the time, President Obama said this agreement would make “the world safer.” And perhaps it has, but only in the short term and only when it comes to Iran’s nuclear-weapons proliferation.
Sadly, behind all the talk of change, the Iran we have long known—hostile, expansionist, violent—is alive and well, and as dangerous as ever. We wish it were otherwise. In the United Arab Emirates, we are seeking ways to coexist with Iran. Perhaps no country has more to gain from normalized relations with Tehran. Reducing tensions across the less than 100-mile-wide Arabian Gulf could help restore full trade ties, energy cooperation and cultural exchanges, and start a process to resolve a 45-year territorial dispute.
Since the nuclear deal, however, Iran has only doubled down on its posturing and provocations. In October, November and again in early March, Iran conducted ballistic-missile tests in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
In December, Iran fired rockets dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, just weeks before it detained a group of American sailors. In February, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan visited Moscow for talks to purchase more than $8 billion in Russian fighter jets, planes and helicopters.
In Yemen, where peace talks now hold some real promise, Iran’s disruptive interference only grows worse. Last week, the French navy seized a large cache of weapons on its way from Iran to support the Houthis in their rebellion against the U.N.-backed legitimate Yemeni government. In late February, the Australian navy intercepted a ship off the coast of Oman with thousands of AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. And last month, a senior Iranian military official said Tehran was ready to send military “advisers” to assist the Houthis.
The interference doesn’t stop there. Since the beginning of the year, Tehran and its proxies have increased their efforts to provide armor-piercing explosive devices to Shiite cells in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A former Iranian general and close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for Iran to annex all of Bahrain. And in Syria, Iran continues to deploy Hezbollah militias and its own Iranian Revolutionary Guard to prop up Syria’s Bashar Assad.
These are all clear reminders that Iran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism—a persistent threat not only to the region but to the U.S. as well. “Death to America” has always been more than an ugly catchphrase; it has been Iranian policy. Iran has orchestrated countless terrorist attacks against Americans: from the Marine barracks in Beirut to Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. During the Afghanistan war, Iran paid Taliban fighters $1,000 for each American they killed.
In Iraq, Iran supplied the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that killed or maimed thousands of U.S. soldiers. And in recent weeks seven Iranian hackers were indicted in a U.S. federal court for a cyberattack against U.S. banks and critical infrastructure.
As Henry Kissinger once said, Iran can be either a country or a cause. Today “Iran the cause” is showing little of the same kind of pragmatism and moderation in its regional policies and behavior as it did in the nuclear talks. Last week, Mr. Khamenei insisted ballistic missiles were key to the Islamic Republic’s future. “Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors,” he said.
It is now clear that one year since the framework for the deal was agreed upon, Iran sees it as an opportunity to increase hostilities in the region. But instead of accepting this as an unfortunate reality, the international community must intensify its actions to check Iran’s strategic ambitions.
It is time to shine a bright light on Iran’s hostile acts across the region. At the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Riyadh later this month, the U.S., the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman should reach an agreement on a common mechanism to monitor, expose and curb Iran’s aggression. This should include specific measures to block its support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah units in Syria and Lebanon, and Iranian-linked terrorist cells in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
If the carrots of engagement aren’t working, we must not be afraid to bring back the sticks. Recent half measures against Iran’s violations of the ballistic-missile ban are not enough. If the aggression continues, the U.S. and the global community should make clear that Iran will face the full range of sanctions and other steps still available under U.N. resolutions and in the nuclear deal itself.
Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the region must stop. Until it does, our hope for a new Iran should not cloud the reality that the old Iran is very much still with us—as dangerous and as disruptive as ever.
Mr. Otaiba is the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the U.S.
By Judah Ari Gross Judah (Ari Gross is The Times of Israel's military correspondent.)
Israel’s air superiority keeps threats in check, but that could change amid Mideast arms race, air force chief of staff says
Brig.-Gen. Tal Kalman, chief of staff of the Israeli Air Force, discusses the changing threats against Israel during the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies' annual conference in Tel Aviv's Hilton Hotel on April 3, 2016.(The Fisher Institute)
A top Israel Air Force general warned that Israel may be losing its military edge amid a growing arms race in the Middle East, during a conference in Tel Aviv on Sunday.
Brig. Gen. Tal Kalman, chief of staff of the air force, warned that weapons flowing into the region could shift the balance of power away from Israel, hinting at growing Iranian hegemony without naming the country.
“There is the potential for the erosion of the IDF and IAF’s qualitative edge,” Kalman warned, alluding to a US commitment to make sure Israel is better equipped militarily than its neighbors.
Kalman called the air force the “dominant and central figure” in successfully defending Israel against the threats facing it, but warned that could change.
“Advanced Western and Eastern weapons have entered the equation and have been received by the countries surrounding us,” he said, referring to military equipment coming from Europe and the United States, as well as from China.
“Fighter planes, ballistic missiles and advanced surface-to-air missiles. An arms race, along with instability, created a great danger,” he said, alluding to Iran and some Islamic extremist groups, but without identifying them by name.
Since the signing of the Iran nuclear deal and the lifting of economic sanctions from the Islamic Republic, Tehran has been working to acquire military equipment, including the S-300 air defense system from Russia — something Israel has been protesting vehemently.
Despite Russia’s nominal withdrawal from Syria, the more advanced S-400 air defense system, along with other pieces of Russian military equipment, will remain in the war-torn country, according to Russian media.
While Kalman said the Iran nuclear deal did serve to delay the threat of nuclear annihilation from Tehran, he hinted that conventional war with those funded by the Islamic Republic was still an ever-present threat.
“The nuclear deal pushed back the nuclear threat, but [Iran] provides much of the resources and weapons that are given to the organizations working against the State of Israel,” Kalman said. “In my opinion, this threat will be with us for the next decade at least.”
A senior air force official quoted by Defense News last week said Russia had merely shifted its air power in Syria without withdrawing in any significant way.
The general’s comments came amid ongoing negotiations with the United States over a military aid package, with Israel reportedly requesting additional assistance from America beginning in 2018.
Israel currently receives approximately $3 billion (NIS 11.32 billion) a year from the US, but when the current aid package ends in 2017, Israel has reportedly requested that amount be increased to closer to $5 billion (NIS 18.87 billion) a year in order to maintain a qualitative military edge over its enemies.
This $5 billion a year request will reportedly be denied, US sources told Reuters news late last year. However, negotiations between Jerusalem and Washington over the aid package are ongoing.
The general, a former fighter pilot, described the Middle East as “teeming and erupting,” warning that many of the developments in the region have been “unexpected.”
“The enemy of today is the friend of tomorrow, and the friend of today is the enemy of tomorrow,” Kalman said.
The brigadier general spoke at the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies’ annual conference in Tel Aviv’s Hilton hotel on Sunday.
The F-35 jet, a fifth-generation stealth fighter recently rolled out by the US, was the center of this year’s conference.
Kalman lauded the state-of-the-art aircraft, which is slated to arrive in Israel in December 2016.
An F-35 on the tarmac on May 12, 2012 at Edwards Air Force Base in California(AP Photo/ Lockheed Martin)
“This plane is better than other planes on the market and its price is smaller than some of the other planes available,” he said.
“The cost of the plane” — approximately $100 million (NIS 377 million) per airplane — “has gone down and the maintenance of it is cheap and will become cheaper with time,” he said, responding to criticism of the platform’s high cost.
“The plane’s software, which is still being developed, is a leap forward from our current planes,” Kalman said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)It takes a network to defeat a network
By NIALL FERGUSON, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AT HARVARD AND A SENIOR FELLOW OF THE HOOVER INSTITUTION AT STANFORD.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The word of the week has been “network.” I have lost track of the number of times I have read that a terrorist network carried out last Tuesday’s lethal attacks in Brussels. The same is now being said about Sunday’s massacre in Lahore. Terrorists used to belong to “groups” and “organizations.” Increasingly, however, we say they belong to networks.This is more than a matter of semantics. We stand no chance of defeating the Islamic State if we fail to understand the significance of its being a true network. President Barack Obama declared recently that “killing the so-called caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is one of the top goals” of the final year of his presidency.The president is so proud of his achievement in authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden that he thinks he can decapitate ISIS by the same means. But the point about a network is that you cannot easily decapitate it. It is not a hierarchical structure, with an all-powerful leader at the top.Media depictions of the terrorist network responsible for the Brussels attack typically show around six people. But this, too, misrepresents the problem, because these people were part of a much larger network.The fact of the matter if that most of people who use the term “network” have no idea what it really means. So let’s begin with the six degrees of separation. You don’t know Khalid el-Bakraoui, one of the Brussels bombers. But you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows him. That is because of the remarkable way that we as a species are socially connected. Each of us is no more than six degrees of separation away from everyone else on the planet. The sociologist Stanley Milgram called this “the small-world problem.”Brussels airport and subway attacks kill at least 34; ISIS claims responsibility
Coordinated strikes Tuesday on the city’s airport and subway system left at least 34 people dead.In some ways, of course, it is not a problem at all. Our ability to connect over long distances is the reason that good ideas spread. The trouble is that networks are just as good at spreading bad ideas as good ones.Although people speak of ideas “going viral,” there is in fact a difference between, say, Ebola and Islamic extremism. Viruses spread indiscriminately, seizing every available pathway. Ideas spread only when we as individuals consciously embrace them. Still, that process can seem like an epidemic, depending as much on the structure of the social network as on the quality of the idea itself.Think of ISIS as the Facebook of Islamic extremism. When it started out in 2004, Facebook was just a bunch of nerdy Harvard undergraduates. Today it has more than 1.5 billion users. When ISIS started out in 2006, it was just a bunch of Iraqi jihadists. Today, according to data from the Pew Research Center, ISIS has a minimum of 63 million supporters — and that is based on opinion polls in just 11 countries.Only a very small minority of members of the ISIS network need to carry out acts of violence to kill a very large number of people indeed. Naively, the US government talks about “countering violent extremism.” But what makes the network so deadly is precisely the non-violent extremism of the majority of its members. Some preach jihad: they are the hubs around which clusters of support form. Some tweet jihad, with each tweet acting as a link to multiple others nodes. Non-violently, the network grows.True, some networks are vulnerable to targeted attacks on key hubs: that is true of the world wide web, for example, or the power grids in some countries. But if the network is sufficiently decentralized — and I suspect this one is — then even a hundred drone strikes against its supposed leaders would not destroy it. Indeed, they might even strengthen it by reinforcing the martyrdom mania that is central to its ideology. ISIS may turn out to be “anti-fragile” (in Nassim Taleb’s invaluable term): our attacks could make it stronger.This poses a terrifying problem for all governments, as the ISIS network, though densest in the Middle East, is now global. Yet there is a solution. During the decisive phase of the surge in Iraq, as he battled to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq — the forerunner of ISIS — General Stanley McChrystal had an epiphany: “It takes a network to defeat a network.”Consider Britain. Anyone who still thinks that it would help matters for Britain to leave the European Union has not been paying attention. Underfunded and overstretched it may be, but Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, is at least the beginning of the network Europeans need to build if they are to stand any chance of beating ISIS.Just as McChrystal broke down the silo walls of American military bureaucracy, turning Joint Special Operations Command into a war-winning force, so today the West’s intelligence and security forces need to get networked as never before.It takes a network to defeat a network. Those eight words — McChrystal’s Law — are the true lesson of Brussels and Lahore.
4)
Pittsburgh transplant sees growth potential of Beechview
April 4, 2016 12:00 AM
East Liberty became a magnet for high-tech workers and upscale renters because investors built a bunch of reasons for people to want to be there, not because of its situation in the East End.
One could argue that its proximity to Shadyside — and its own historical strength — made its location special, but East Liberty was also abutting two very troubled neighborhoods in Larimer and Garfield at a time when it was struggling against decades of decimation to get traction.
Now the biggest challenge in East Liberty is to find a rent under $700 without waiting in line until your second pair of shoes wear out.
While not all that good looking, East Liberty is hot, as most of us know. But there are 90 neighborhoods in the city, and some of them, while maybe not foxes, are quite attractive if you look at them right. Plenty of neighborhoods are well-situated and way affordable, with little crime.
“Don’t tell me we have an affordability problem in this city,” said Dan Berkowitz, managing partner of Atlas Development Co., over coffee at Brew on Broadway in Beechview recently.
“Beechview is just waiting to be unpacked,” he said of the neighborhood to which he is committing his company’s resources. “I can find a less than $1,000-a-month apartment with a 15-minute commute to Downtown. I can find a three-bedroom house with a garage for $75,000, and it is in the city.”
In. The. City. That’s how he said it.
Message: Don’t let Downtown, East Liberty, Lawrenceville and a handful of other neighborhoods own the claim “city living.”
“I see this broad commercial avenue [Broadway],” with the same potential as Murray or Penn, Mr. Berkowitz said. “I see a Carnegie Library, a senior center being renovated, a supermarket, churches, a bank and, yes, a number of retail deficiencies.”
But it is safe, generally well-kept and has significant assets in place. In the East Liberty of 1998, safety was the least of the vibes and much of its housing stock was deplorable. If East Liberty could rebound economically, why not a neighborhood that’s closer to Downtown, that’s already safe, has trolley service and a plethora of handsome, live-in-ready houses?
Mr. Berkowitz said Beechview’s location as “the first residential neighborhood outside Downtown on the transit line” has value and importance. The trolley is one reason a colleague of mine chose to live in Beechview.
Since last year, Mr. Berkowitz has been meeting the neighbors and building a vision plan with business partner Ben Samson, whose background is in architecture. They have been working with a Beechview business district consultant, Dave Brewton, and hope to develop a few commercial properties owned by the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Atlas began working from priorities laid out in a 2011 community and transportation planning study, Mr. Berkowitz said, adding that his goal is to fulfill the promise to Beechview that developer Bernardo Katz squandered by sitting on scores of properties for years before making off to Brazil with $700,000 of the URA’s money.
Beechview was a kind of kidnap victim for whom no ransom was demanded. The city, the URA and S&T Bank ended up owning Katz’s properties.
Beechview’s commercial corridor is terribly quiet except for the beeps and roars of construction on the T line along Broadway. The corridor is not appealing even without the backhoes. Sidewalk trees would help a lot. But its potential is throbbing.
Lunch traffic at the taco stand outside the IGA-Las Palmas supermarket is a great pulse point, as is a new vendor, Hey Tabouli, on the sidewalk outside Brew, which also has a great pulse.
The Katz legacy left the neighborhood badly wounded, and it will be good to see whether Beechview’s trajectory swings upward as it sheds that legacy. Mr. Berkowitz, who launched into real estate development last year, said he is sure it will.
He and his wife moved to Pittsburgh in 2006 “sight unseen” on a friend’s recommendation, he said. “It took a few days to fall in love with this city.”
They live in Squirrel Hill but are looking to buy a home in Beechview, where he envisions a vibrant retail corridor and a chance to maintain affordable housing using lessons learned from East Liberty.
“You can do a third, a third, a third here all day long,” he said, referring to the proportions of low, middle and high income home pricing. “You can do it without public subsidies. I challenge anyone to find this kind of neighborhood in any other city that’s as vibrant as Pittsburgh.”
Diana Nelson Jones: djones@post-gazette.com.
==================================================================
5) Ted Cruz for President
I haven’t said much (publicly) about the 2016 U.S. presidential race, and I probably won’t say much more about it after this article, as I want to focus on more fundamental philosophic issues. But I’d like to say a few words about why I unequivocally support Ted Cruz for president and why I think all liberty loving Americans should as well.
Although not all of Cruz’s ideas are grounded in reality (e.g., he believes rights come from “God”), and although some of them are dangerously false (e.g., he believes a fetus has rights), Cruz regards ideas as important, and he has a body of principles that guide his thinking on political matters. Chief among these is his recognition of the fact that the U.S. Constitution is, as he puts it, “the supreme law of the land” and that the job of the president is to uphold and enforce it. “I will defend the Constitution—all of it,” promises Cruz.
Of course, I and other lovers of liberty take issue with Cruz about what the Constitution means in certain areas and about how best to enforce it. But many of Cruz’s ideas in this regard are substantially if not entirely good. Here are some representative instances. (All quotations are Cruz’s own words unless otherwise noted.)
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is the lynchpin of a free society. With it, people can work peacefully to secure and maintain freedom; without it, they can’t.
Ted Cruz recognizes the fundamental importance of the right to freedom of speech, and he vows to uphold the First Amendment as a fundamental law of the land. Does he support this right fully and consistently? No. Among other inconsistencies in this area, he supports certain “anti-obscenity” laws. But Cruz’s recognition of the existence and importance of the right to freedom of speech means that when he faces questions about the matter, he will approach them with the aim of understanding how this principle applies in the given context. He will not dismiss the principle as irrelevant or question whether it exists.
All of the other viable candidates in the running for the presidency have demonstrated utter disregard for the right to freedom of speech. And, because this right is the linchpin of a free society, this difference alone disqualifies them and puts Cruz in first place.
Foreign Policy
U.S. foreign policy has been atrocious for many decades, and Americans have paid horrifically for the fact. In just the past fifteen years, Islamic jihadists have murdered thousands of Americans on U.S. soil. During that same period, many thousands more Americans have been killed or maimed abroad while following altruistically driven orders to refrain from using their full capabilities against the jihadists—whom Presidents Bush and Obama have refused even to name, let alone to eliminate.
The causes of this problem run deep into philosophy, but one of the major causes at the political level is that every administration in recent decades has embraced the wrong purpose of U.S. foreign policy.
It appears that a Cruz administration would substantially correct this deadly error.
Cruz sees the proper purpose of U.S. foreign policy as what it is: to protect the lives and rights of Americans. In his words, we need “an America first foreign policy”—a policy under which we “judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America.” Accordingly, Cruz emphatically opposes so-called “nation building” or efforts to “transform foreign countries into democratic utopias,” such as “trying to turn Iraq into Switzerland.” Instead, says Cruz, “it is the job of our military to protectthis country, to hunt down and kill jihadists who would murder us.” If and when the United States needs to use force to defend Americans from aggressors, says Cruz, “We should use overwhelming force, kill the enemy, and then get the heck out.” To which I say: Amen.
As for the rules of engagement that sacrifice U.S. soldiers on the alter of altruism, Cruz sees them asmorally wrong—and says so. As he puts it, “What we are doing to our sons and daughters, it isimmoral. We are sending them to fight with their arms tied behind their back. They cannot defend themselves, and it is wrong.”
Cruz holds that the U.S. military should be permitted to operate at full capacity and to do what needs to be done. Thus he vows to “carpet bomb” Islamic State (aka ISIS) into oblivion and to make “sand glow” if that’s what it takes to end the threat posed by jihadists and their supporters. In other words, Cruz unabashedly puts total war and nuclear weapons on the table. Needless to say, no other candidate does so.
Cruz acknowledges that the Islamic theocracy in Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism against America and, indeed, that “Iran has declared war on us.” And he promises that if he is elected president, “under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons,” adding, “if the ayatollah doesn’t understand that, we may have to help introduce him to his seventy-two virgins.”
That is how a U.S. president should speak. He should name our enemies, acknowledge that they have attacked us, mock them, and make clear that the United States has the means and the will to convert them to dust.
Cruz also promises, “If I am elected president, on the very first day in office, I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.” And he says directly to the Iranian regime: “Either you will shut down your nuclear program, or we will shut it down for you.” Again, this is how the commander in chief of the U.S military should speak. He should be authoritative, articulate, and resolute. And, of the candidates running for the presidency, only Cruz exhibits these qualities.
In regard to Israel, Cruz recognizes this tiny, productive, rights-respecting state as America’s number one ally in the war against jihadists, and he promises that, under his administration, “America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel.” Our alliance with Israel, says Cruz, is “a strategic bedrock for the United States.”
America’s security is significantly enhanced by a strong Israel. Israel has been, is, and always will be the Middle East bulwark in defense of the West. Our American-Israeli alliance is something to celebrate. . . . [My] administration will on day one recognize Jerusalem as the eternal, undivided capital of Israel; and the U.S. embassy will be moved to Israel’s capital city. [We will] support Israel’s regional qualitative military edge and make sure that, especially in light of the worsening security climate caused by Iran and ISIS, Israel has everything it needs to defend itself.
No other candidate stands unapologetically with Israel, much less calls our alliance with the Israelis something to celebrate. Once again, Cruz stands alone.
Finally, Cruz acknowledges commonsense facts such as that the United States should stop accepting refugees from “countries with a significant al-Qaeda or ISIS presence” and that we should “empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” (By “radicalized” Cruz means: likely to generate homegrown jihadists.) Of course, such ideas are not “politically correct”; rather, they are morally correct. And, of the candidates running for president, only Cruz advocates them.
Would a President Cruz follow through on all of these ideas? Maybe. Maybe not. But he has advocated these ideas and made these promises during his campaign; thus, if he is elected he will have amandate to uphold them. And, to severely understate the case, no other candidate’s positions, ideas, or promises regarding foreign policy come even remotely close to being as good as his.
In regard to foreign policy, Cruz is the clear-cut choice for this lover of liberty.
Taxing, Spending, and Shackling Americans
On the domestic front, Cruz offers a similarly rational set of ideas.
The U.S. government has violated the rights of Americans in myriad ways for many decades. Through its mind-thwarting regulations and draconian taxation the government has destroyed countless dreams, ruined countless businesses, and throttled the U.S. economy in countless ways. Cruz, of course, has no magic bullet, nor does he have all the answers. But he does have some seriously good ideas about how to begin moving America back in the direction of being a rights-respecting, productive, economic powerhouse.
Cruz aims to free Americans of a substantial number of rights-violating policies and departments. His proposals include abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and establishing a simplified tax code with a 10 percent flat tax for individuals, and a 16 percent flat tax for businesses. Granted, this proposal entails serious complications because all taxation violates rights and because replacing the existing tax code with a flat tax will disproportionately harm some individuals and businesses in the short term. But eliminating the IRS and simplifying the tax code is an unmitigatedly good goal, in that (a) it would help to clarify what the government is doing in this area and how much it is taking from whom—and (b) it would free Americans from having to spend obscene amounts of time and money preparing their taxes every year. And, of course, no other viable candidate has proposed anything of the sort.
In regard to other agencies that violate rights, ruin lives, and sap the economy, Cruz aims to eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development. Toward this end, he promises, “I will press Congress relentlessly. And I will appoint heads of each of those agencies whose central charge will be to lead the effort to wind them down.” This is huge. Eliminating the Department of Education alone would substantially improve the lives of Americans by orders of magnitude. And no other candidate in the running would even consider such a proposal, let alone make it a major part of his campaign platform.
Cruz further aims to cut at least twenty-five other federal agencies, bureaus, commissions, and programs—including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
And, of course, Cruz promises to do everything he can to encourage Congress to “repeal every single word of Obamacare.”
All of this is good—and only Cruz embraces or advocates any of it.
Calling Out Dishonest Politicians
Dishonesty in politics is not merely rampant; it is a fundamental cause of all other political problems. And Cruz is already doing something about it.
Cruz demands honesty from politicians, and he openly calls out anyone—including fellow Republicans—for lying if and when they lie. For instance, in October 2015, during hearings regarding the $80 billion budget proposal, Cruz called out those who were being dishonest about the nature and meaning of the plan in question. “We’ll spend now for a promise that ten years hence we’ll magically cut spending,” said Cruz, summarizing the deal. “Nobody in this chamber believes that. Nobody in the House of Representatives believes that. No member of the press believes that. Everyone understands this is a lie. It is an agreed-to lie by everyone.” And Cruz showed, using actual data and simple graphs, that it obviously was a lie. (See the video here.)
Such honesty and forthrightness is almost unheard of in a politician today. No wonder so many politicians dislike Cruz. He cramps their dishonest style.
The Federal Reserve, Money, and Banking
Cruz also shines on a number of subjects relating to the Federal Reserve, money, and banking. In regard to the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, for instance, Cruz acknowledges, “The Fed’s policy destabilizing our money contributed powerfully both to the bubble and collapse.” In regard to monetary policy, he calls for returning to a gold standard or, as he puts it, “keeping our money tied to a stable level of gold.” And, in regard to bank regulations, he calls for repealing the Dodd-Frank Act, which, he observes, has “killed hundreds and even thousands of small financial institutions.”
No other candidate acknowledges such facts or advocates such reforms.
Corporate Welfare and Subsidies
Cruz recognizes that the government should not be in the business of bailing out or propping up businesses—including big businesses—and he takes a principled stand on such matters.
For instance, during the Fox Business Network debate between the GOP candidates, in answer to the question “Would you bail out the big banks in a financial crisis?”—a question all the other candidates had dodged—Cruz said “Absolutely not.” When pressed and asked whether he truly would let banks the size of Bank of America fail if they were on the brink, Cruz said, “Let me be clear. I would not bail them out.”
Similarly, when Cruz was asked during a Texas Senate Republican runoff debate whether the government should have bailed out General Motors, he replied:
Of course we shouldn’t have . . . I don’t support bailouts, period. I don’t support the bailout of the auto companies. I don’t support the bailout of the banks. Government shouldn’t be in the business of spending taxpayer money to help private corporations. The role of government is to protect our rights, to protect our national security, to ensure rule of law and to stay out of the way and let entrepreneurs create jobs.
On the same principle, Cruz opposes ethanol subsidies and campaigned accordingly in Iowa—where he then won the Iowa caucus. He also opposes oil subsidies and campaigned accordingly in Texas—where he proceeded to win that primary.
Taking such stands and achieving such wins shows that being rationally principled works. And, of the candidates running for president, only Cruz does it.
Appreciation for Ayn Rand’s Ideas
Cruz is a fan of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, and his appreciation for Rand’s work is no small matter. Of course, Cruz is not an Objectivist and doesn’t pretend to be. But he sees great value in Ayn Rand’s ideas. He sees Rand’s ideas as both principled and practical. This is why he brings them up in regard to Obamacare and other real-world problems of the day. And it is why he has mentioned Rand’s work not once but twice on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
In September 2013, Senator Cruz read excerpts from Atlas Shrugged during a speech in which he called for defunding Obamacare on the grounds that the law is contrary to liberty, morality, and the American way of life. His reading from Atlas began as follows:
We’re a nation that was founded on liberty. Always defend liberty. You know you really can’t go wrong with that as a motto. In the interest of that, I’d like to share a few excerpts from one of my favorite books, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.Now let me encourage any of you who have not read Atlas Shrugged to go tomorrow, buyAtlas Shrugged, and read it. What’s interesting is in the last three years my understanding is that sales of Atlas Shrugged have exploded, because we are living in the days [anticipated by] Ayn Rand . . .
Among the excerpts Cruz then proceeded to read is the section on productivity from Galt’s speech, including this:
Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live—that productive work is the process by which man’s consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values—that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others—that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human—that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind’s full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay—that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live—that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road—that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up—that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.
Cruz also read the passage in which Dagny Taggart poses the question, “What is morality?”—and receives the answer, “Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.” After pausing to let that sink in, Cruz said:
That’s counsel that the United States Senate should listen to. That’s counsel that I would encourage every Democratic senator who feels the urge of party loyalty to [listen to] . . . I would encourage my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle: As difficult as it is to cross one’s Party leaders, I say, with perhaps a little familiarity of the consequences of so doing, that it’s survivable—and that ultimately it is liberating.
(See the video here.)
Two years later, in October 2015, Cruz again mentioned Atlas on the Senate floor, this time in connection with how the government’s massive spending in practically every sector of the economy effectively forces businessmen to lobby legislators for special favors. As he put it: “Ayn Rand wrote inAtlas Shrugged about how productive members of society, business owners, would be forced to go to parasitical politicians (although some might suggest that’s a redundant phrase) on bended knee, begging for special dispensations.”
Imagine the possibility of a U.S. president speaking from the Oval Office, “I’d like to share a few excerpts from one of my favorite books, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand . . .” and encouraging Americans, “go tomorrow, buy Atlas Shrugged, and read it.”
In other words, imagine President Ted Cruz.
There is more to like about Cruz, but the foregoing is sufficient to show that he is remarkably good in several ways.
Cruz also has significant flaws, and they are worth mentioning.
In large part because he embraces Christianity, Cruz is inconsistent in his defense of rights, and his inconsistencies here are not trivial. Among other serious negatives: He opposes a woman’s right to seek an abortion because he believes a fetus has rights as granted by God at conception. He opposes the rights of Americans to hire rights-respecting foreigners who want to work for U.S.-based companies (via his proposed immigration policy). And he claims a county clerk (Kim Davis) had a right to refuse to do the government job she was hired to do and is paid by taxpayers to do—a job that required her to issue marriage licenses for gay couples—and nevertheless to remain employed by the government.
Cruz is a Christian who takes his religion (semi) seriously. And I certainly understand why people of reason distrust a politician who believes there is “a guy in the sky” to whom we owe faith and obedience. All manner of irrational and life-throttling ideas can follow (and have followed) from that fantasy.
But Ted Cruz is not a theocrat. In the realm of politics, he recognizes that the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over his religion. As he puts it:
My faith is an integral part of who I am. I’m a Christian, and I’m not embarrassed to say that. I’m not going to hide that and treat it like something you can’t admit publicly. . . .But I also think that those in politics have an obligation not to wear their faith on their sleeve. There have been far too many politicians who run around behaving like they’re holier than thou. My attitude as a voter, when some politician stands up and says “I’m running because God told me to run” [a veiled reference to Marco Rubio], my reaction is “Great, when God tells me to vote for you we’ll be on the same page.”I’m not asking for your vote because of my personal faith. . . . I’m asking you to vote for me because I’ve spent a lifetime fighting to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights, fighting to defend the American free enterprise system. And we need a leader who will stand up every day and protect the rights of everyone, whether they’re Christians or Jews or Muslims or anyone else. The Bill of Rights protects all Americans. It protects atheists. That’s the beauty of the Bill of Rights. . . . The Constitution and the Bill of Rights [embody] a unifying principle that can bring us together across faiths, across races, across ethnicities—and we need to come together behind the unifying principles that built America.
Cruz is far from flawless. But he is by far the best viable candidate running for president today.
We don’t get to dream up a flawless candidate and make him real. We have to choose among theactual alternatives, or enter a protest vote, or choose not to vote. Those are our only alternatives.
Given the foregoing facts, Cruz is the clear-cut best choice for America.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++6)Two Patients
Two patients limp into two different doctors' offices with the same complaint: Both have trouble walking and may require hip surgery.
Patient 1 is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day, and has a time booked for surgery the following week.
Patient 2 sees his family doctor after waiting 3 weeks for an appointment, then waits 8 weeks to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another week, and finally has his surgery scheduled for 6 months from then, pending the review board's decision on his age and remaining value to society.
Why the different treatment for the two patients?
The FIRST is a Golden Retriever taken to a vet.
The SECOND is a Senior Citizen on ObamaCare.
In November, if there is no change in government, we'll all have to find a good vet.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment