YouTube Video: Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Dinner Topics for Tuesday

YouTube Video: Milton Freedman, Capitalism and Freedom

From Rush Limbaugh Radio

miltonfriedman2One sound bite is two minutes of Milton Friedman schooling Phil Donahue and his audience in greed and capitalism and virtue.

RUSH:  [Obama] was quoting Reverend Wright, and he said that’s for me, man, I love that.  White folks’ greed runs a world in need.  So let’s go to 1979, ancient times for many of you.  We may as well be going back to the Roman Coliseum for this.  Nineteen seventy nine, I was 28.  Ancient times for many of you.  Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman, and they had this exchange.  And Donahue starts off wanting to know about greed and capitalism.  Here it is.  And listen to this.

DONAHUE:  When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed’s a good idea to run on?

Greed Definition

FRIEDMAN:  Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?  You think Russia doesn’t run on greed?  You think China doesn’t run on greed?  What is greed?  Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fellow who’s greedy.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.  The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus.  Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat.  Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way.  In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.  If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that.

So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

DONAHUE:  But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

Virtue Definition

FRIEDMAN:  And what does reward virtue?  Do you think the communist commissar rewards virtue?  Do you think Hitler rewards virtue?  Do you think American presidents reward virtue?  Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?  Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?  You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted.  Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us.

DONAHUE:  Well —

FRIEDMAN:  I don’t even trust you to do that.

RUSH:  Milton Friedman back in 1979 schooling Phil Donahue, and everybody else who heard that on the notions of virtue and greed and just basically upsetting Phil’s applecart.  Phil wasn’t smart enough to know it was happening. He’s still running around lamenting the accident of birth. If he’d been 30 miles south he would have grown up in poverty.  Anyway, we wanted to play that for you and recognize Milton Friedman.

miltonfriedmanMilton Friedman:  “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there will be a shortage of sand.” 

 Milton Friedman:  “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” 

Another Milton Friedman quote:  “Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.”  

Boy, isn’t that true? Pass another law.  Government comes along and creates a program.  The program is an absolute disaster.  Government says, “That’s gotta get fixed.”  Government says, “Okay, we’ll fix it.”  And it compounds itself, one error atop another. (Rush)

Another Milton Friedman quote:  “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”  

I’ll tell you, the guy was great.  He was a genius.  He lived into his late eighties.  He would have been a hundred years old this week. (Rush)

Dinner Talk

1. Who does Mr. Friedman say is greedy?

2. Do you think political self-interest is better than economic self-interest? Why or why not?

3. According to Mr. Friedman, which system fosters a stronger economy— management by government bureaucracies (socialism), or free enterprise? Why?

Advertisements

Political Cartoon: Hot Air

Political Cartoon:

Hot Air

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect  for his great cartoon

Seeing the protest balloons in Britain I think Trump would have them beat with all the hot air going after him here in America. Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

History Facts: Economy, Taxation, and Integrity

History Facts:

Economy, Taxation, and Integrity

Calvin Coolidge represents the exact opposite of Left-wing politics.. Coolidge had integrity. He deserves a lot more respect than he ever got. ~C.A. Davidson

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

key“We must have no carelessness in our dealings with public property or the expenditure of public money. Such a condition is characteristic of undeveloped people, or of a decadent generation.” ~Calvin Coolidge

Senator Selden Spencer once took a walk with Coolidge around the White House grounds. To cheer the President up, Spencer pointed to the White House and asked playfully, “Who lives there?” “Nobody,” Coolidge replied. “They just come and go.”

It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. ~Calvin Coolidge

Amity Shlaes
Author, Coolidge

calvincoolidgeCalvin Coolidge and the Moral Case for Economy

AMITY SHLAES is a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg, a director of the Four Percent Growth Project at the George W. Bush Presidential Center, and a member of the board of the Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation. She has served as a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and as a columnist for the Financial Times, and is a recipient of the Hayek Prize and the Frederic Bastiat Prize for free-market journalism. She is the author of four books, Germany: The Empire Within, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It, and Coolidge.

The following is adapted from a talk given at Hillsdale College on January 27, 2013, during a conference on “The Federal Income Tax: A Centenary Consideration,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.


WITH THE FEDERAL DEBT spiraling out of control, many Americans sense an urgent need to find a political leader who is able to say “no” to spending. Yet they fear that finding such a leader is impossible. Conservatives long for another Ronald Reagan. But is Reagan the right model? He was of course a tax cutter, reducing the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 percent. But his tax cuts—which vindicated supply-side economics by vastly increasing federal revenue—were bought partly through a bargain with Democrats who were eager to spend that revenue. Reagan was no budget cutter—indeed, the federal budget rose by over a third during his administration.

An alternative model for conservatives is Calvin Coolidge. President from 1923 to 1929, Coolidge sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was Coolidge’s penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, Coolidge was the Great Refrainer.

Enter Coolidge
Following World War I, the federal debt stood ten times higher than before the war, and it was widely understood that the debt burden would become unbearable if interest rates rose. At the same time, the top income tax rate was over 70 percent, veterans were having trouble finding work, prices had risen while wages lagged, and workers in Seattle, New York, and Boston were talking revolution and taking to the streets. The Woodrow Wilson administration had nationalized the railroads for a time at the end of the war, and had encouraged stock exchanges to shut down for a time, and Progressives were now pushing for state or even federal control of water power and electricity. The business outlook was grim, and one of the biggest underlying problems was the lack of an orderly budgeting process: Congress brought proposals to the White House willy-nilly, and they were customarily approved.

The Republican Party’s response in the 1920 election was to campaign for smaller government and for a return to what its presidential candidate, Warren Harding, dubbed “normalcy”—a curtailing of government interference in the economy to create a predictable environment in which business could confidently operate. Calvin Coolidge, a Massachusetts governor who had gained a national reputation by facing down a Boston police strike—“There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time,” he had declared—was chosen to be Harding’s running mate. And following their victory, Harding’s inaugural address set a different tone from that of the outgoing Wilson administration (and from that of the Obama administration today): “No altered system,” Harding said, “will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system.”

One of Harding’s first steps was to shepherd through Congress the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, under which the executive branch gained authority over and took responsibility for the budget, even to the point of being able to impound money after it was budgeted. This legislation also gave the executive branch a special budget bureau—the forerunner to today’s Office of Management and Budget—over which Harding named a flamboyant Brigadier General, Charles Dawes, as director. Together they proceeded to summon department staff and their bosses to semiannual meetings at Continental Hall, where Dawes cajoled and shamed them into making spending cuts. In addition, Harding pushed through a tax cut, lowering the top rate to 58 percent; and in a move toward privatization, he proposed to sell off naval petroleum reserves in Wyoming to private companies.

Unfortunately, some of the men Harding appointed to key jobs proved susceptible to favoritism or bribery, and his administration soon became embroiled in scandal. In one instance, the cause of privatization sustained damage when it became clear that secret deals had taken place in the leasing of oil reserves at Teapot Dome. Then in the summer of 1923, during a trip out West to get away from the scandals and prepare for a new presidential campaign, Harding died suddenly.

Enter Coolidge, whose personality was at first deemed a negative—his face, Alice Roosevelt Longworth said, “looked as though he had been weaned on a pickle.” But canny political leaders, including Supreme Court Justice and former President William Howard Taft, quickly came to respect the new president. Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, after visiting the White House a few times that August, noted that whereas Harding had never been alone, Coolidge often was; that whereas Harding was partial to group decisions, Coolidge made decisions himself; and most important, that whereas Harding’s customary answer was “yes,” Coolidge’s was “no.”

The former governor of Massachusetts was in his element when it came to budgeting. Within 24 hours of arriving back in Washington after Harding’s death, he met with his own budget director, Herbert Lord, and together they went on offense, announcing deepened cuts in two politically sensitive areas: spending on veterans and District of Columbia public works. In his public statements, Coolidge made clear he would have scant patience with anyone who didn’t go along: “We must have no carelessness in our dealings with public property or the expenditure of public money. Such a condition is characteristic of undeveloped people, or of a decadent generation.”

If Harding’s budget meetings had been rough, Coolidge’s were rougher. Lord first advertised a “Two Percent Club,” for executive branch staffers who managed to save two percent in their budgets. Then a “One Percent Club,” for those who had achieved two or more already. And finally a “Woodpecker Club,” for department heads who kept chipping away. Coolidge did not even find it beneath his pay grade to look at the use of pencils in the government: “I don’t know if I ever indicated to the conference that the cost of lead pencils to the government per year is about $125,000,” he instructed the press in 1926. “I am for economy, and after that I am for more economy,” he told voters.

Coolidge in Command
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” Coolidge had once advised his father. And indeed, while Harding had vetoed only six bills, Coolidge vetoed 50—including farming subsidies, even though he came from farming country. (“Farmers never had made much money,” he told a guest, and he didn’t see there was much the government could rightly do about it.) He also vetoed veterans’ pensions and government entry into the utilities sector.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon

The Purpose of Tax Cuts

In short, Coolidge didn’t favor tax cuts as a means to increase revenue or to buy off Democrats. He favored them because they took government, the people’s servant, out of the way of the people. And this sense of government as servant extended to his own office.

Senator Selden Spencer once took a walk with Coolidge around the White House grounds. To cheer the President up, Spencer pointed to the White House and asked playfully, “Who lives there?” “Nobody,” Coolidge replied. “They just come and go.”

But as unpopular as he was in Washington, Coolidge proved enormously popular with voters. In 1924, the Progressive Party ran on a platform of government ownership of public power and a return to government ownership of railroads. Many thought the Progressive Party might split the Republican vote as it had in 1912, handing the presidency to the Democrats. As it happened, Progressive candidate Robert LaFollette indeed claimed more than 16 percent of the vote.

Yet Coolidge won with an absolute majority, gaining more votes than the Progressive and the Democrat combined. And in 1928, when Coolidge decided not to run for reelection despite the urging of party leaders who looked on his reelection as a sure bet, Herbert Hoover successfully ran on a pledge to continue Coolidge’s policies.

Unfortunately, Hoover didn’t live up to his pledge. Critics often confuse Hoover’s policies with Coolidge’s and complain that the latter did not prevent the Great Depression. That is an argument I take up at length in my previous book, The Forgotten Man, and is a topic for another day. Here let me just say that the Great Depression was as great and as long in duration as it was because, as economist Benjamin Anderson put it, the government under both Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, unlike under Coolidge, chose to “play God.”

Lessons from Coolidge

Beyond the inspiration of Coolidge’s example of principle and consistency, what are the lessons of his story that are relevant to our current situation? One certainly has to do with the mechanism of budgeting: The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 provided a means for Harding and Coolidge to control the budget and the nation’s debt, and at the same time gave the people the ability to hold someone responsible. That law was gutted in the 1970s, when it became collateral damage in the anti-executive fervor following Watergate. The law that replaced it tilted budget authority back to Congress and has led to over-spending and lack of responsibility.

A second lesson concerns how we look at tax rates. When tax rates are set and judged according to how much revenue they bring in due to the Laffer Curve—which is how most of today’s tax cutters present them, thereby agreeing with tax hikers that the goal of tax policy is to increase revenue—tax policy can become a mechanism to expand government. The goals of legitimate government—American freedom and prosperity—are left by the wayside.

Thus the best case for lower taxes is the moral case—and as Coolidge well understood, a moral tax policy demands tough budgeting.

Finally, a lesson about politics. The popularity of Harding and Coolidge, and the success of their policies—especially Coolidge’s—following a long period of Progressive ascendancy, should give today’s conservatives hope. Coolidge in the 1920s, like Grover Cleveland in the previous century, distinguished government austerity from private-sector austerity, combined a policy of deficit cuts with one of tax cuts, and made a moral case for saying “no.” A political leader who does the same today is likely to find an electorate more inclined to respond “yes” than he or she expects.

Coolidge and Moral Economy, complete article

Abuse of Power Update: FBI Agents beg to Expose Corruption in Government

Abuse of Power Update:

FBI Agents beg to Expose Corruption in Government

“Sickened” FBI Agents Ready To “Come Forward And Testify” Against Comey & McCabe

FBI Agents Beg To Expose FBI Corruption?

  • · Source: TTN
  • by: TTN Staff

It is being reported that a group of FBI agents want to be subpoenaed by Congress in order to expose the problems with the once revered agency.

According to The Daily Caller:

Many agents in the FBI want Congress to subpoena them so they can reveal problems caused by former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, three people in direct contact with active field agents tell TheDC.

“There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James] Comey’s behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like [John] Brennan–who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political intelligence by the Obama administration thugs,” former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told The Daily Caller Tuesday. “They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify.”

Ahead of the release of the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general report on how the FBI handled the Clinton email investigation, TheDC spoke with DiGenova, a former Trump official who maintained contact with rank and file FBI agents and a counter-intelligence consultant who conducted an interview with an active special agent of the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO).

TheDC independently confirmed the veracity of the consultant’s position and access, and reviewed detailed transcripts of his Q&A with the special agent, who requested the arrangement due to internal dragnets and fear of vicious retribution.

This is just another black eye for the FBI. But it looks like there are agents that care about the integrity of the agency and want to fix it.
Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/report-fbi-agents-want-to-expose-the-fbi#44gG1E2H37iZSocv.99

Earth Day Facts: Earth Day Founder Murdered Girlfriend

Earth Day Facts:

Earth Day Founder Murdered Girlfriend

Earth Day: Left Celebrates Murderer’s Idea

keyoldSatan goes about deceiving the nations. ~D&C 52:14

 

Rush Limbaugh

Another Great Hero of the Left

EarthDayCriminalPIXRUSH: This is Earth Day today, too, by the way, folks.  Earth Day is April 22nd.  Does the name Ira Einhorn mean anything to you?  Ira Einhorn is the founder of Earth Day.    Ira Einhorn actually murdered his girlfriend, I believe, and sliced her up.  An American convicted murderer and former environmentalist wacko, Ira Einhorn, “beat his ex-girlfriend, Holly Maddux, to death and then stored her body in a locked trunk in his apartment for more than a year — about 18 months — before she was discovered by the police. He fled to Europe and was convicted 25 years later for her murder in 2002 and is serving a life sentence.”  He is the co-founder of Earth Day and he supports a carbon tax, just as does Thomas L. Friedman.

So another great hero of the left.  Ira Einhorn is being celebrated today by environmentalist wackos because this is Earth Day.  Bill Ayers, former domestic terrorist, homemade bombs, his weapon of choice.  Ira Einhorn, co-founder, Earth Day, convicted murderer.  Another highly respected, honored leftist icon.  By the way, again, Ira Einhorn supports a carbon tax.

Earth Day Update

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH:  What’s going on here is that they can’t get anybody’s attention.  In every public opinion poll, global warming is down at the bottom.  So they’re trying to scare people out of their pants, because that’s all they’ve got.  The lone tactic that socialists have is to scare you, and that is what they’re trying to do ’cause you’re not buying what they’re saying.  And as they get more radical and lunatic like this, I don’t know what they expect. When you tell people that we have to get rid of cow farts to save the planet, nobody is gonna go for that.  Well, not nobody.  But that’s how just out of control that they have gotten.  

So Absurd you Have to Laugh

cowsThe UN says the only way to save the planet now is by eliminating cattle.  I mean, how do you stop cow farts?  Frankly the only way to get rid of cow farts is to get rid of cows.  It’s them or us, is the way this is put in the National Journal.  This is not some kook, fringe publication.  (interruption)  No.  No.  (interruption)  No.  No, no other animal farts matter.  That’s the point.  Cow farts.

Now, the problem is cows are cattle.  You know, we get milk from cows, too, not just… (interruption)  Yeah.  I guess.  We’re supposed to go to goat milk or chicken milk.  No cheese.  Anything that you get from a cow’s gotta go.  (interruption)  To save the planet.  (interruption) Well, if we’re gonna be able to implement what the UN says we have to do to save the planet.  Let’s go to the audio sound bites.

I mean, this is also being ginned up today, folks, in addition to this propaganda with Obamacare.  This is last night, actually.  This is Brian Williams. I don’t think it was his lead, but it’s over the top.  This is what you would hear a news anchor say in a movie when the aliens land, and here he is reporting about a new report on global warming and climate change.  This is the NBC Nightly News.

WILLIAMS:  The world has never been spoken to quite this way.  We’ve never been warned like this before, all of us, about climate change. Nor have so many countries agreed quite this much on the clear and present danger it represents.  Here is the takeaway: Unless the world changes course quickly and dramatically, the fundamental systems that support human civilization are at risk!

RUSH:  Gee.  Well, it sounds like he bought it all.  I just don’t know if he really does.  Maybe he does.  I don’t know what to think. This is just so much sophistry.  This is beyond description.  It’s genuinely pathetic.  “The world has never been spoken to quite this way.  We’ve never been warned like this before, all of us, about climate change.

Irresponsible Earth Science

RUSH:  You know, this borders on irresponsible, when you get right down to it.  Here’s this guy at Columbia, “I would say, Charlie, December 15th is the last chance to keep that two degrees centigrade.”  What he means is that if we don’t drastically curtail capitalism and freedom and economic progress, ’cause that’s what these guys are talking about, that’s the danger.  The danger is productivity.  The danger is progress.  The danger is growing economies.  If we don’t stop that, Charlie, if we don’t lock in — ’cause what we’ve already done, we’ve guaranteed ourselves that by the end of the century, we’re gonna be two degrees centigrade higher.

MANN:  The Chinese government is actually having a serious discussion about instituting a carbon tax.  They recognize, the Chinese government has recognized the degradation, the damages that the emission of carbon is doing and they recognize that that has to be taken into account in any long-term, coherent, viable energy strategy.  In that sense, they’re way ahead of us because we have a US House of Representatives which has a science committee that is led by politicians who reject the notion that climate change even exists.  And we can’t have a serious discussion about policy as long as we’ve got a Congress or congressional leadership in the House that takes an anti-scientific stance when it comes to issues like climate change.  We’ve gotta move past that.

RUSH:  Have you seen a picture of Shanghai or Beijing lately?  You can’t see anything.  Smog, the pollution.  They’re not cutting back.  These countries, the ChiComs, India, they’re not going to cut back on their economic growth.  And the Third World countries want some economic growth.  They’re not gonna willingly stay poor and riding around on oxen just to keep these pointy-heads happy.

 

 

School Shooting Facts: Mass Murderers shielded by Obama Liberal Racism Policy

School Shooting Facts:

Mass Murderers shielded by Obama Liberal Racism Policy

How Obama and Holder Changed Broward County Law Enforcement for Racial Reasons

Rush Limbaugh

December 4, 2013, issue of the American Prospect magazine. Headline: “Reversing Broward County’s School-to-Prison Pipeline.”

The article is about efforts undertaken to avoid arresting students. And the article speaks to the concern that Broward County might have turned a blind eye to the behavior of Nikolas Cruz because they wanted to lower the number of student suspensions, which is a big part of Obama-Holder prison reform. So this is five-year-old story. Well, four and a half years old. It’s December of 2013.

So you see the way this works if you’re a leftist, you don’t count the crime. You look at the percentage of arrests and imprisonment, and you compare that to the population at large, and you find racial bias. And the only way you can do that is if you assume that many of these crimes being committed by minorities are not really being committed, that they’re only being charged because there’s a racial bias in the police department or the sheriff’s department. And that racial bias is indicated by the exorbitant percentage of African-Americans and minorities in jail or in prison and your belief that it wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for racism.

So you start out by claiming that law enforcement is corrupt because they’re targeting minorities who aren’t committing crimes, they’re arresting them and imprisoning them, and you want to fix it. That’s the starting point for this. They say, “Look, the black population is, what, 15% of the country, but in the prisons it’s 70%, that proves bias.” It doesn’t, unless you’re a liberal.

It’s a fascinating piece, but the primary assertion here is that in order to obtain money from the federal government and programs that were instituted by Obama and Eric Holder, local governments were rewarded with these grants if they kept school arrests down. Let’s stop the pipeline from schools to prison. Right here in this 2013 story, “Reversing Broward County’s School-to-Prison Pipeline.”

American Prospect: Reversing Broward County’s School-to-Prison Pipeline – 12.04.13

Ann Coulter: The School to Mass Murder Pipeline

School and law enforcement officials knew Cruz was a ticking time bomb. They did nothing because of a deliberate, willful, bragged-about policy to end the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other “red flags.”

Over and over again, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School reported Cruz’s terrifying behavior to school administrators, including Kelvin Greenleaf, “security specialist,” and Peter Mahmood, head of JROTC.

At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., “I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,” “Im going to watch ypu bleed,” “iam going to shoot you dead” — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.

But Cruz was never arrested. He wasn’t referred to law enforcement. He wasn’t even expelled.

Instead, Cruz was just moved around from school to school — six transfers in three years. But he was always sent back to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in order to mainstream him, so that he could get a good job someday!

The moronic idea behind the “school-to-prison pipeline” is that the only reason so many “black and brown bodies” are in prison is because they were disciplined in high school, diminishing their opportunities. End the discipline and … problem solved!

It’s like “The Wizard of Oz” in reverse. The Wizard told the Scarecrow: You don’t need an education, you just need a diploma! The school-to-prison pipeline idiocy tells students: You don’t need to behave in high school, you just need to leave with no criminal record!

Removing Consequences Encourages Bad Behavior

Of course, killjoys will say that removing the consequences of bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior.

But in this case, we have a paper trail. In the pursuit of a demented ideology, specific people agreed not to report, arrest or prosecute dangerous students like Nikolas Cruz.

These were the parties to the Nov. 5, 2013, agreement that ensured Cruz would be out on the street with full access to firearms:

Nikolas Cruz may be crazy, but the parties to that agreement are crazy, too. They decided to make high school students their guinea pigs for an experiment based on a noxious ideology.

The blood of 17 people is on their hands.

 

Critical Thinking: New York Attack, Sharia Supremacism vs. Western Civilization

Critical Thinking:

New York Attack, Sharia Supremacism vs. Western Civilization

Great American Guilt Trip (Political Correctness) Allows Sharia Law Supremacists to Destroy Our Civilization from Within

Rush Limaugh

That’s the threat. Islam in and of itself is not, but the idea of supremacy, Sharia law supremacy, that is and should be — it’s not — it should be the target of our vetting. That does pose a problem. And as they continue to migrate to America and expand their numbers, the problem gets exponentially larger at the same time. The belief in the supremacy of Sharia law is where this is all centered. That’s where all the vetting should be aimed.

I saw something yesterday on the Drudge Report, and I didn’t click the link, so I don’t know the details. But it’s either now or very soon the Muslim population in America will outnumber the Jewish population in America. It either has happened or it’s on the way to happening.

Now, the passage that I cite here in McCarthy’s book, The Grand Jihad, was written about ten years ago. And it has become only clearer in those 10 years that the jihadists are only the tip of the spear. We’re dealing with an ideological enemy whose aim — and they’re quite up front of this. They do not deny this. It is us — it is we — who refuse to hear it. Their objective is to supplant Western culture. “Come on, Rush! We had a guy who went nuts and he drove a car through eight people. This is not mass terrorism.”

That’s not the point. The point is: Where does the guy get his beliefs? Where does the guy get his ideas? Why’s he mad? Why does he want to do this to one person, eight people, 20? Why? That’s what we’re up against, and they can happen at any time because the people are here, and we’re not vetting for these kinds of people. We are purposely avoiding trying to find out whether or not the people we’re allowing into the country have any kind of supremacist notion of Islam or Sharia law.

That is his ideological enclave. But we’re debating visa and refugee policy, and instead we need to be vetting for Sharia supremacy. I know this is a minority view for a lot of people. It goes too far. It gets into an area where people are uncomfortable about it. But that is the problem. That is what we’re up against. Put simply, we are allowing people into the country who want to tear it down. We’re allowing people into the country who want to overthrow it.

We are allowing people into the country who want to supplant our way of life with theirs. We’re letting them in. Can I read to you how this was described in the Washington Examiner? “Multiple People Killed When Truck Drives Down New York City Bike Path.” Really? Is that what happened? Reminds me of the old days where the SUV was blamed for killing people or driving off the top of a parking garage. The SUV had its own personality. It could drive itself around — and whatever damage that happened, the SUV did it.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/11/01/great-american-guilt-trip-allows-sharia-law-supremacists-to-destroy-our-civilization-from-within/

Trump Tweets: End Chain Migration