Select Page ::

Arizona and California Auto Insurance Fraud Busts – Claims Journal – Claims Journal

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

GO-PRO Video Leads to Conviction of Insurance Fraud Suspect

Robert Atlas falsely reported to GEICO that he had crashed his 2012 Corvette Stingray while exiting the I-10 freeway, on the exit ramp at Wild horse pass in Chandler Arizona. Robert was paid $61,465.11 by GEICO for the loss of his Corvette. It was later discovered that on October 10, 2015, Robert Atlas had actually raced his Corvette Stingray in a drag race at a drag racing event at Wild Horse Pass Motorsports Park. He subsequently lost control of his corvette during the race and crashed into the concrete barrier totaling his Corvette Stingray. This crash was captured on a Go-Pro video and published on YouTube. The policy does not cover damage caused to the vehicle if it was involved in drag racing. Robert was later shown the video footage and he admitted to making the false claim to GEICO Insurance.

On 1-25-17, Robert Atlas pled guilty to Insurance Fraud as a Class 6 Undesignated offense and as required by the Plea Agreement he paid the entire amount of restitution back to GEICO Insurance prior to sentencing. He was sentenced to two years supervised probation and was assessed $1,560.00 in court costs.

The case was investigated by the Arizona Department of Insurance Fraud Unit and prosecuted by the Arizona Attorney Generals Office.

The San Diego County District Attorneys Office and California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announced a major auto insurance fraud ring takedown, which was operating in San Diego County.

Nine defendants have been charged with 34 felony crimes including filing fraudulent auto insurance claims. Six defendants were arrested on January 31, and police are searching for one more. Two people received notices that they have been charged and must appear in to court.

When cheaters scam insurance companies, law abiding citizens end up footing the bill, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said. Our insurance fraud team did an excellent job collaborating with the California Department of Insurance and Highway Patrol to dismantle this crime ring.

Operation Persistent was a two-year investigation that uncovered a web of fraudsters who victimized insurance companies over several years. The ring used various schemes to file 34 false insurance claims for auto property damage. The schemes included staged collisions, non-existent collisions, using already damaged vehicles, and phony vehicle thefts.

The crimes were discovered thanks to the diligent efforts of the San Diego Automobile Insurance Fraud Task Force. The joint task force is dedicated to investigating all forms of auto insurance fraud and is supervised by the California Department of Insurance. It is made up of law enforcement officers from the Department of Insurance, the San Diego District Attorneys Office, and California Highway Patrol. The National Insurance Crime Bureau also provides support to the task force.

Insurance fraud is not a victimless crime, said Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. We all pay for these crimes when insurers pass along the losses through higher premiums.

The San Diego ring made false insurance claims totaling approximately $200,000. The defendants bilked 12 insurance companies out of about $125,000. Victim insurance companies include: Allstate, Access, GEICO, Infinity, State Farm, Rental Insurance Services, Fred Loya, Nationwide, Alliance, Farmers, Nations, and Travelers.

Insurance fraud can directly impact the lives of law-abiding people and staged collisions have taken the lives of innocent people in our state, said Jim Abele, border division chief for the California Highway Patrol. The California Highway Patrol is dedicated to reducing collisions, vehicle theft, and insurance fraud. The San Diego Automobile Insurance Fraud Task Force partnership provides a needed focus on auto-insurance crimes and enables better sharing of case information among fraud fighters.

Defendants include: Yesenia Perez, 26; Darice Orozco, 37; Oscar Vargas, 31; Jesus Diego, 31; Roberto Ramirez, 27; Abel Ramirez, 31; Maria Linares, 24; Juan Augustin, 30; and Francine Moreno, 25.

Maria Linares and Juan Augustin will be arraigned February 3, at 8:30 a.m. and Jesus Diego and Yesenia Perez will be arraigned February 7, at 1:30 p.m. All arraignments are scheduled in Department 12 of the downtown courthouse.

Abel Ramirez, Roberto Ramirez, Oscar Vargas and Darice Orozco were arraigned Wednesday and pleaded not guilty. Their next court date is February 10, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 53 of the downtown courthouse.

Arizona and California Auto Insurance Fraud Busts - Claims Journal - Claims Journal

Atlas Shrugged | Ayn Rand | Conservative Book Club

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

Several years ago, Miss Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead. Despite a generally poor press, it is said to have sold some four hundred thousand copies. Thus, it became a wonder of the book trade of a kind that publishers dream about after taxes. So Atlas Shrugged had a first printing of one hundred thousand copies. It appears to be slowly climbing the best-seller lists.

The news about this book seems to me to be that any ordinarily sensible head could not possibly take it seriously, and that, apparently, a good many do. Somebody has called it: Excruciatingly awful. I find it a remarkably silly book. It is certainly a bumptious one. Its story is preposterous. It reports the final stages of a final conflict (locale: chiefly the United States, some indefinite years hence) between the harried ranks of free enterprise and the looters. These are proponents of proscriptive taxes, government ownership, labor, etc., etc. The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality. This, she is saying in effect, is how things really are. These are the real issues, the real sides. Only your blindness keeps you from seeing it, which, happily, I have come to rescue you from.

Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive storyknown as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides to it are caricatures.

The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. Insofar as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in boardrooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian dAntonio. This electrifying youth is the worlds biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjold. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rands chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad).

So much radiant energy might seem to serve a eugenic purpose. For, in this story as in Mark Twains, all the knights marry the princessthough without benefit of clergy. Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of the heroine and three of the heroes, no childrenit suddenly strikes youever result. The possibility is never entertained. And, indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy. How could it be otherwise when she admiringly names a banker character (by what seems to me a humorless master-stroke): Midas Mulligan? You may fool some adults; you cant fool little boys and girls with such stuffnot for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily. The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left-Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies. (And neither Right nor Left, be it noted in passing, has a monopoly of such dreamers, though the horrors in their nightmares wear radically different masks and labels.)

In Atlas Shrugged, all this debased inhuman riffraff is lumped as looters. This is a fairly inspired epithet. It enables the author to skewer on one invective word everything and everybody that she fears and hates. This spares her the playguy business of performing one service that her fiction might have performed, namely: that of examining in human depth how so feeble a lot came to exist at all, let alone be powerful enough to be worth hating and fearing. Instead, she bundles them into one undifferentiated damnation.

Looters loot because they believe in Robin Hood, and have got a lot of other people believing in him, too. Robin Hood is the authors image of absolute evilrobbing the strong (and hence good) to give to the weak (and hence no good). All looters are base, envious, twisted, malignant minds, motivated wholly by greed for power, combined with the lust of the weak to tear down the strong, out of a deepseated hatred of life and secret longing for destruction and death. There happens to be a tiny (repeat: tiny) seed of truth in this. The full clinical diagnosis can be read in the pages of Friedrich Nietzsche. (Here I must break in with an aside. Miss Rand acknowledges a grudging debt to one, and only one, earlier philosopher: Aristotle. I submit that she is indebted, and much more heavily, to Nietzsche. Just as her operatic businessmen are, in fact, Nietzschean supermen, so her ulcerous leftists are Nietzsches last men, both deformed in a way to sicken the fastidious recluse of Sils Maria. And much else comes, consciously or not, from the same source.) Happily, in Atlas Shrugged (though not in life), all the Children of Darkness are utterly incompetent.

So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the books last line, that a character traces in the dir, over the desolate earth, the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the mysticism of mind and the mysticism of muscle).

That Dollar Sign is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads. More importantly, it is meant to seal the fact that mankind is ready to submit abjectly to an elite of technocrats, and their accessories, in a New Order, enlightened and instructed by Miss Rands ideas that the good life is one which has resolved personal worth into exchange value, has left no other nexus between man and man than naked selfinterest, than callous cash-payment. The author is explicit, in fact deafening, about these prerequisites. Lest you should be in any doubt after 1,168 pages, she assures you with a final stamp of the foot in a postscript:

And I mean it. But the words quoted above are those of Karl Marx. He, too, admired naked self-interest (in its time and place), and for much the same reasons as Miss Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment. The overlap is not as incongruous as it looks. Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term. It is a massive tract for the times. Its story merely serves Miss Rand to get the customers inside the tent, and as a soapbox for delivering her Message. The Message is the thing. It is, in sum, a forthright philosophic materialism. Upperclassmen might incline to sniff and say that the author has, with vast effort, contrived a simple materialist system, one, intellectually, at about the stage of the oxcart, though without mastering the principle of the wheel. Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc., etc. (This books aggressive atheism and rather unbuttoned higher morality, which chiefly outrage some readers, are, in fact, secondary ripples, and result inevitably from its underpinning premises.) Thus, Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world.

At that point, in any materialism, the main possibilities open up to Man. 1) His tragic fate becomes, without God, more tragic and much lonelier. In general, the tragedy deepens according to the degree of pessimism or stoicism with which he conducts his hopeless encounter between human questioning and the silent universe. Or, 2) Mans fate ceases to be tragic at all. Tragedy is bypassed by the pursuit of happiness. Tragedy is henceforth pointless. Henceforth mans fate, without God, is up to him, and to him alone. His happiness, in strict materialist terms, lies with his own workaday hands and ingenious brain. His happiness becomes, in Miss Rands words, the moral purpose of his fife.

Here occurs a little rub whose effects are just as observable in a free-enterprise system, which is in practice materialist (whatever else it claims or supposes itself to be), as they would be under an atheist socialism, if one were ever to deliver that material abundance that all promise. The rub is that the pursuit of happiness, as an end in itself, tends automatically, and widely, to be replaced by the pursuit of pleasure, with a consequent general softening of the fibers of will, intelligence, spirit. No doubt, Miss Rand has brooded upon that little rub. Hence in part, I presume, her insistence on man as a heroic being With productive achievement as his noblest activity. For, if Mans heroism (some will prefer to say: human dignity) no longer derives from God, or is not a function of that godless integrity which was a root of Nietzsches anguish, then Man becomes merely the most consuming of animals, with glut as the condition of his happiness and its replenishment his foremost activity. So Randian Man, at least in his ruling caste, has to be held heroic in order not to be beastly. And this, of course, suits the authors economics and the politics that must arise from them. For politics, of course, arise, though the author of Atlas Shrugged stares stonily past them, as if this book were not what, in fact, it is, essentiallya political book. And here begins mischief. Systems of philosophic materialism, so long as they merely circle outside this worlds atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts. In an age like ours, in which a highly complex technological society is everywhere in a high state of instability, such answers, however philosophic, translate quickly into political realities. And in the degree to which problems of complexity and instability are most bewildering to masses of men, a temptation sets in to let some species of Big Brother solve and supervise them.

One Big Brother is, of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her own contriving to do battle with the other. In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls productive achievement mans noblest activity, she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections. But, in sum, that is just what she means. For that is what, in reality, it works out to. And in reality, too, by contrast with fiction, this can only head into a dictatorship, however benign, living and acting beyond good and evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand believes it should be), and feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in morals, vicious (as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be). Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that the impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship.

Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitlers National Socialism and Stalins brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently?

Something of this implication is fixed in the books dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: To a gas chambergo! The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture-that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

We struggle to be just. For we cannot help feeling at least a sympathetic pain before the sheer labor, discipline, and patient craftsmanship that went to making this mountain of words. But the words keep shouting us down. In the end that tone dominates. But it should be its own antidote, warning us that anything it shouts is best taken with the usual reservations with which we might sip a patent medicine. Some may like the flavor. In any case, the brew is probably without lasting ill effects. But it is not a cure for anything. Nor would we, ordinarily, place much confidence in the diagnosis of a doctor who supposes that the Hippocratic Oath is a kind of curse.

Review from The National Review, by Whittaker Chambers

Excerpt from:

Atlas Shrugged | Ayn Rand | Conservative Book Club

5 Reasons Kevin Sorbo Should Play John Galt – Huffington Post

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

Jennifer Anju Grossman Atlas Society CEO, former Cato Institute policy director and former speechwriter for President H.W. Bush This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Kevin Sorbo, a neighbor and upright family man, has just made headlines for landing a role as a mystery villain on the hit TV series Supergirl. Sorbo will make an interesting villain, as hes known for playing heroes, most famously Hercules. But I think hed make a pretty impressive John Galt if Atlas Shrugged were ever turned into a TV mini-series. Here are five reasons why:

1) Sorbo has already played a John Galt-like character in an indie film called Alongside Night, based on a 1979 novel by Neil Schulman. Writing for HollywoodInvestigator.com, Thomas M. Sipo observes:

In the near future, the U.S. government grows ever more oppressive as it tries to avert economic collapse due to its excessive taxing, borrowing, spending, and regulation. Meanwhile, a morally principled group of anti-government cadres prepares for a freer, post-socialist America.alongside-night-movie-poster.jpg Atlas Shrugged? No, it's Alongside Night, a new indie film based on the 1979 novel of the same name.

The two films do differ on some ideological points. Atlas Shrugged promotes Ayn Rand's Objectivism, a philosophy that supports small government. Rand expressly rejected anarchism. By contrast, Alongside Night advocates Agorism, a school of anarchism founded by Samuel E. Konkin III.

2) Sorbo has got his act together. Objectivism holds that a mans life is his standard of value, and by that metric, Sorbo has a lot of virtues that have enabled him to live a productive, independent, loving, and full life.

I first met Kevin and his wife Sam through mutual friends when I worked at Dole Food Company, and they lived a stones throw from our headquarters in a sprawling house in Westlake Village, California. I ended up getting to know Sam better, and was awed by how this gorgeous, vibrant women managed to homeschool her three children while continuing her acting career and hosting a radio show. But Ill never forget the time that I my old Porsche has broken down for the umteenth time, and Kevin gave me a ride to the repair shop. Distractingly handsome, he turned all the Hollywood stereotypes on their head, with a quiet, modest presence and genuine benevolent interest in others well being.

A man of faith, Sorbo is not an Objectivist, and likely doesnt know and wouldnt care about the label anyway. But he sure does seem to live his life according to at least some Objectivist ethics, which hold: Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to manin order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.

In so doing, hes a better man, a better father, a better husband -- and clearly, a better, more professional, more disciplined actor -- than others who live their lives by whim and wishful thinking.

3) Sorbo, like Ayn Rand, believes in the primacy of the individual and the perils of government control. Check out the interview below, in which he says: Take public education, you can take post office, the IRS, everything the government puts it hand on they seem to destroy it... This country was built on individuals, never built on government, and I think our forefathers are turning over in their graves.

In an interview with The Blaze he talked about how this country fails to learn the lessons of history: I keep asking my far-left liberal friends to show me where socialism works show me where socialism has ever been successful. For this reason, he may resonate with the unique gift of Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism, which challenges collectivism on moral grounds.

4) Related, yet not quite the same: Sorbo is an individualist who has repeatedly challenged groupthink and political correctness. Hollywood screams tolerance, but theyre the least tolerant people youll ever meet in your life, he said in one interview with the Blaze. The hypocrisy just reeks in this town. Why cant we all have a point of view.

That theme -- tolerance, diversity of views, and a spirit of inquiry -- was at the core of a 2014 movie Sorbo starred in, Gods Not Dead. In it, Sorbo plays a professor who demands that each of his students sign a declaration that God is dead to pass the class. I can easily see Sorbo playing a similar villain, of a professor requiring students to sign proof of Christianity to pass class. The point is more about freedom of religion and freedom of speech, than promoting an evangelical point of view.

5) Sorbo looks the part -- right down to the coloring Ayn Rand envisioned:

he looked as if he were poured out of metal, but some dimmed, soft-lustered metal, like an aluminum-copper alloy, the color of his skin blending with the chestnut-brown of his hair, the loose strands of the hair shading from brown to gold in the sun, and his eyes completing the colors, as the one part of the casting left undimmed and harshly lustrous: his eyes were the deep, dark green of light glinting on metal.

Rands heroes combine forceful character, good looks, quiet strength and extreme masculinity. Roark, Rearden, Andrei, Leo...all these love interests were portrayed as handsome, dominant men who physically towered over their women, as the 63 Sorbo does in real life.

So what do you think? Would Sorbo make a good Galt? Who would be your pick for casting the roles in a remake of Atlas Shrugged?

Go here to see the original:

5 Reasons Kevin Sorbo Should Play John Galt - Huffington Post

Making Ayn Rand Relevant in the Era of President Trump – Huffington Post

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

When President Elect Donald Trump named Ayn Rand as his favorite writer, and The Fountainhead as his favorite book, last spring, few Objectivists took notice.

With his inauguration as the 45th President of the United States tomorrow, perhaps its time we should. Others -- critics of Rand and Trump -- arent shying away from the topic.

Ayn Rand acolyte-Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists, wrote Washington Post National Political Correspondent James Hohmann in a piece last month. At the same time, one prominent Objectivist, Onkar Ghate, called Trumps election One Small Step for Dictatorship.

Both positions are exaggerated. To be objective, lets start with perspective.

In 2009 Obamas aggressive moves on socializing medicine and raising taxes helped spark a resurgence of interest in Ayn Rand. Book sales of the 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged doubled over previous-year averages and Tea Party protesters brandished homemade signs asking Who Is John Galt? Atlas Will Shrug, and Free Markets, Not Freeloaders.

Echoing Obama, Hohmann offers the same pseudo-psychological critique levied by so many Rand bashers on the Internet: The fact that all of these men, so late in life, are such fans of works that celebrate individuals who consistently put themselves before others is therefore deeply revealing.

More deeply revealing is Hohmanns choice of language. Hohmann is a talented writer. Calling Trump and others who like Ayn Rands books acolytes -- a term used in religious ceremony, also synonymous with minions, henchmen, lackeys and underlings -- carries the weight of Hohmanns perspective with elegant economy.

He likens Rand readers to a villain from Dirty Dancing who dismisses a plea for help by flourishing a copy of The Fountainhead.

Some people count, and some people dont, says the bad guy. Adds Hohmann: In popular culture, the Rand acolytes are that guy.

If true, Hohmanns piece, outing three cabinet picks, one advisor, and Trump himself for liking Ayn Rand, is tantamount to calling them selfish jerks, in popular culture.

If that were the case, one would expect the outed acolytes to distance themselves from Ayn Rand -- a la House Speaker Paul Ryan, who cut and ran when, as Mitt Romneys running mate, he was pushed on liking Rand.

Rather than simply saying he disagreed with Rand on theology but loved her defense of free-markets, Ryan offered a blanket denouncement of the woman and her philosophy -- even though for years hed recommended the book to congressional office interns and even keynoted at The Atlas Societys 2005 celebration of Rands 100th birthday on Capitol Hill.

Ryans shameful desertion of the gal who brought him to the liberty ball may be why liberals think they can use any Rand-connection to tarnish Trump advisors and nominees.

So what does the Trump camp think of Ayn Rand?

Lets start with Trump. In an April 2016 interview with Kirsten Powers, Trump said of The Fountainhead, It relates to business beauty life and inner emotions. That book relates to everything.

This hardly makes him an acolyte, much less an Objectivist. Conflating a literary liking for Ayn Rand with status as an objectivist -- i.e. a follower of her highly developed philosophy, encompassing detailed descriptions of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics -- is one common mistake that has got to go.

Equally obvious is the fact that Trump has consistently defied and rejected labels. He is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Hes even changed his party affiliation five times. Trump, a builder of buildings, would certainly appreciate a hero who also builds buildings. Hes also a businessman, who needs to deal with facts, numbers, negotiations, deadlines, and deals. Hes had to prioritize, innovate, adapt -- and for that the market has rewarded him well.

Yet, as others have pointed out, Rand would oppose many of Trumps policies -- from restrictions on free trade to his endorsement of eminent domain takings of private property.

What of the other fellow objectivists with whom Hohmann claims Trump stacks his cabinet?

Well, the only actual self-described Objectivist mentioned in the article, John Allison, is reportedly under consideration to chair the Federal Reserve.

Former BB&T bank chair John Allison has been a major supporter of the Ayn Rand Institute. He has helped set up university chairs on the morality of capitalism, with Ayn Rands view front and center. And he served for two years as president of the libertarian Cato Institute.

As a former bank CEO, the Ayn Rand character Allison might superficially seem to most resemble is Michael Mulligan -- a wealthy banker who took Midas as his moniker when the press tried to mock him for his materialism. As with many of the scenarios which Rands fiction anticipated, Mulligan was ordered by the courts to lend money to incompetent applicants -- the real life consequences of which Allison described in his book The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure.

But unlike Mulligan -- and other heroes of Atlas Shrugged who withdrew from the world into Galts Gulch to avoid extending what Rand called the sanction of the victim -- Alison hasnt withdrawn. Hes been actively involved with his community, both locally and nationally, published books, and now seems poised to enter a new chapter of public service.

Trumps nominee for Labor Secretary, is another Ayn Rand fan. Like Hank Rearden, the fictional steel magnate and metal engineer, Andy Puzder created countless jobs as head of the CKE Restaurants which owns Hardees and Carls Jr. Like Rearden, hes also embraced innovation (like automation).

He even owns an original signed copy of The Fountainhead. As I wrote of our exchange in the Wall Street Journal, Puzder feels at peace with both his Catholicism and his admiration of Ayn Rand.

I encouraged my six children to read both Fountainhead and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, he told me over lunch in Santa Barbara last year. Each child later read Atlas Shrugged. Mr. Puzder argued that theres no contradiction between raising my children in the church, and urging them to lead the kind of lives of achievement, integrity and independence that Ayn Rand celebrated in her novels.

But what of the other so-called Rand acolytes surrounding Trump? Have Rand defenders -- or detractors -- more to fear? Try this trivia question on to find out.

My philosophy is to make money. If I can drill and make money, then thats what I want to do. Who said it, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, or Atlas Shruggeds Ellis Wyatt, of Wyatt Oil?

Its actually the former -- and perhaps future Secretary Secretary of State, the surprise and controversial pick of President Elect Donald Trump.

Tillersons main qualification as objectivist in Hohmanns accounting is having listed Atlas Shrugged as his favorite book in a 2008 feature for Scouting Magazine. While his office didnt respond to queries for elaboration, one can speculate that the oilman identified with Wyatts experience with government regulations and persecutions. He also likely admired the legendary oilman of Atlas Shrugged for reviving the economy by pioneering drilling innovations that anticipated fracking by half a century.

But unlike Wyatt, Tillerson isnt shrugging, hes slugging -- advocating for reform.

We need U.S. energy companies that have the scale and financial strength to make investments, undertake the risk and develop the new technologies, Tillerson has said.

Tillerson as an individual engages in private charity. He is a practicing Protestant and headed the Boy Scouts of America. But in these efforts, he was closer to the libertarian views of Rand than to the hot buttons of the religious right. For example, he pushed to allow gays in the Scouts and Exxon contributed to Planned Parenthood. But in his make money attitudes, hes rejecting the give back language of many CEOs who allow themselves to be guilt-tripped by the corporate social responsibility dogma and rhetoric, that the purpose of a business is to serve society in some way other than providing goods and services to eager customers.

Rep. Mike Pompeo, Trumps hopeful for CIA chief, said: One of the very first serious books I read when I was growing up was Atlas Shrugged, and it really had an impact on me.

He also penned a piece entitled We Need Capitalism, Not Cronyism. In it he makes the distinction that is at the heart of Atlas Shrugged. Pompeo has been a crusader against Congressional earmarks, that is, handouts to the politically connected -- or politically correct, witness his war on wind power tax credits, and other supposedly eco-friendly energy subsidies.

Does the all of this add up to an Ayn Rand moment?

Ray Dalio, the CEO of Bridgewater Associates, recently reflected on the coming Trump administration. Regarding economics, if you havent read Ayn Rand lately, I suggest that you do. He noted that Rands books pretty well capture the mindset. This new administration hates weak, unproductive, socialist people and policies, and it admires strong, can-do, profit makers.

An Ayn Rand moment? Half of you reading will probably ask, Who cares? The other half, I suspect, will answer, I do.

And if you do, as do I, lets break up the circular firing squad of true Rand acolytes. And here I do intend the adjective in the literal sense of the word.

Let us find more areas of agreement. Let us welcome the Rand-friendly and Rand-curious -- without purity tests and loyalty oaths. Let us prioritize, and recognize that the problem of too few ideologically consistent Objectivists is dwarfed by the problem, and opportunity, of too few people reading Ayn Rand. And let us join -- with libertarians, religionists, Trump and Hillary voters alike, to introduce more people to the literature of Ayn Rand, which has been an activator for so many to delve deeper into learning more about economic and political liberty.

Excerpt from:

Making Ayn Rand Relevant in the Era of President Trump - Huffington Post

Trump’s cabinet: No fear of the best | Valdosta Today – ValdostaToday.com

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

When men live by tradeit is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and the highest ability, so says Francisco DAnconia of Atlas Shrugged fame, Ayn Rands 1957 blockbuster.

Rands iconic classic defined the coming bureaucratic, collectivist state that would put mediocrity over achievement since the latter, who achieved by thought, hard work, and action, would accumulate more wealth than the former, who are content with less since contentment requires no ambition. In a word: state enforced egalitarianism.

That this state is here and now, courtesy of the eurosocialist Democratic Party, is irrefutable. Ayn Rand accurately prophesied that the accepted political mantra would become from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Or, as the Democrats put it, income redistribution.

And just as they no longer attempt to confuscate their agenda regarding taxing and spending, the eurosocialists have now declared open warfare on competency, achievement, and success. Theirs is a world where those with these attributes have no place in government.

One need look no further than their shamelessness currently displayed during President Trumps cabinet nominee confirmation process.

Trumps cabinet nominees are clearly men and women of the best judgment and the highest ability, as evidenced by their exceptional success in the private sector.

And the Democrats will have nothing of it. Certainly there is a place for civil inquiry and, perhaps, advised skepticism. Thats the job of the opposition party. Savaging these nominees, however, is another matter entirely. Boycotting committee hearings and votes is simply petulance.

As Harry Reid once said, This doesnt feel like America.

In 2005, for example, Barack Obamas nominees for Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton), Treasury (Timothy Geithner), Commerce (Gary Locke), and Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius), were all career politicians with little or no private enterprise experience. None of them started a business, worked in a business, or ever created aprivate sector job but they did have law degrees.

Trump's cabinet: No fear of the best | Valdosta Today - ValdostaToday.com

What does Paul Ryan stand for? – The Week – The Week Magazine

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

Our free email newsletters

Paul Ryan, who used to regularly signal his displeasure with Donald Trump, has backed the president to the hilt since the election. And so the newest meme has been born: Paul Ryan has no spine. Andy Borowitz and ClickHole have columns riffing on the Spineless Paul Ryan meme, and somebody even edited the Wikipedia invertebrate page to add the House Speaker.

It is true that Ryan does not care about the principles he claims to care about. But it's inaccurate to imagine him as merely a soulless careerist. Ryan does have serious principles. He is deeply committed to the principle of liberating the affluent from the burdens of progressive taxation. That description may sound like an arch comment to those of us who don't share Ryan's bent. But to people like Ryan, it is a moral conviction of the highest order.

Ryan has repeatedly cited the influence in his younger days of such works as Wealth and Poverty, by George Gilder; The Way the World Works, by Jude Wanniski, plus, of course, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. These books treat the struggle against progressive taxation as the fundamental project of politics. The central problem of mass-participatory politics, in this view, is its tendency to allow the masses of voters to gang up on the rich (whether through democratic or undemocratic means) and redistribute their deserved rewards to themselves. It is tempting to dismiss his fixation with the top tax rate as greed on behalf of his donors, but to adherents of this ideology there is nothing more serious.

Obviously, the defense of the right of the one percent to keep its earnings is an unpopular basis for political messaging. And so Ryan has an ecumenical view of the political message needed to sell his policies. He is happy to posture as a fanatical debt hawk if debt-hawkery is a promising vehicle to advance the goal of cutting taxes for the rich, but he will also support and even demand massively higher deficits if that is what is needed. Ryan has promoted outreach to Latinos and other socially moderate constituencies as a practical step toward expanding his party's base. Ryan continued to defend those policies before the election, when it looked probable that Trump would lose, and he would need to rebuild in the wake of the expected defeat. But he is also perfectly willing to abandon those policies if he happens to have a race-baiting Republican prepared to sign his cherished tax cuts into law.

Ryan might supplicate himself to limitless acts of corruption or misrule by Trump, but he would never stand silent if Trump attempted to implement even a tiny tax increase on the highest-earning one percent. I happen to find Ryan's belief system to be rather deranged. But it is a belief system.

Get more smart coverage of the news and politics at Daily Intelligencer, or follow New York on Facebook.

See more here:

What does Paul Ryan stand for? - The Week - The Week Magazine

Humor: School book club loses funding after asking Ayn Rand to come speak – The Aggie

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

ROMAN KRUGLOV [] / FLICKRDavis Campus Readers feel heat after inviting dead author to campus

Davis Campus Readers (DCR), a book club at UC Davis, has had its funding cut and will be forced off campus by the end of Winter Quarter after providing a platform for some questionable speech. The club asked Ayn Rand to come speak to its members, but failed to notice that the award-winning author is, in fact, dead.

The club of 40 members has asked speakers such as Ray Bradbury, Jhumpa Lahiri and Stephen King to come speak, all of whom declined due to the pointed books that have been on the clubs reading list, including former chancellor Linda Katehis upcoming memoir.

Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, is the founder of objectivism. The Atlas Society says of the belief system: There is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim [] Politically, Objectivists advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Under capitalism, a strictly limited government protects each persons rights to life, liberty, and property and forbids that anyone initiate force against anyone else.

Though UC Davis does not agree with the beliefs that Rand or objectivists follow, the school allowed for Rand to speak but neglected to mention to the clubs president that Rand is deceased.

I told them that Rand could come to the school. I disagree with them giving her a platform, but I couldnt stop them from bringing her to campus, said Bryan Lewis, director of Campus Clubs and Circles. I think, even though shes dead, that she has every right to come share her beliefs. Shame on the club for providing such a soapbox in the first place. We cant stop people from taking a stance, but we can do our best to stop the spread of such opinions.

Lewis went on to say that there was no room for such speech on campus and that, while he feels that such values exist, there is no reason for the club to bring such a controversial and divisive figure to campus.

DCR president Logan Marx claimed that the club would not be silenced and had every right to make their voices heard on campus.

While Rand has unpopular beliefs, DCR should not provide the contentious figure with a platform to spread ideas based around a highly capitalistic and self-centered society. These beliefs are obsolete and ridiculous, and they have no place in an intellectual setting. UC Davis administration elected to go straight to the source by punishing the group that provided a platform for dangerous dialogue by preventing the spread of such rhetoric. Questioning the credibility of ETHAN VICTOR? You can reach him at ejvictor@ucdavis.edu. Feel free to help with his followers-to-following ratio on Twitter @thejvictor, because it is pathetic right now.

Read this article:

Humor: School book club loses funding after asking Ayn Rand to come speak - The Aggie

No Gods, No Masters: Live the Golden Rule – Dissident Voice

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

Deep inside anyone whos capable of thinking for themself beats the heart of an anarchist. Robb Johnson, arguably the greatest political songwriter working today, wrote a line that goes Each child born, is born an anarchist. Quite so.

Anarchism is one of the many words thats routinely misused and abused by the mainstream media. If asked what an anarchist is, most people would reflect this misinformation by replying with words suggesting some sort of violent terrorist. This is the image thats been carefully crafted, polished and maintained by the media. Even highly educated people, who really should know better, routinely misuse the word anarchy to mean chaos and disorder. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. Derived from the Greek word anarkhos, meaning without chiefs, anarchism could reasonably be defined as meaning a society without leaders. It does not deny the need for society, it denies the need for leaders.

The hard proof of this can be easily found by anyone who can read. Its there in black and white in the actual words written by real anarchists people like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and Chomsky. And although he wasnt known as an anarchist, possibly because he was active before the word was in common use, the writing of Tom Paine resonates with anarchist values on almost every page. Some people even claim that Jesus Christ was an anarchist because of his allegedly pacifist teaching, but given that no one really knows what he actually taught, thats impossible to confirm. However, most words written by known anarchists express values that are the diametric opposite of the interpretation routinely used by the media.

No doubt every real anarchist has their own personalised concept of anarchism. Most of my clothing is black or black and red the widely-used colours of anarchism and much of it has a circled A, anarchisms unofficial logo: my work-clothes, I call them. I do this not to show-off that Im an anarchist, but to promote anarchism, to encourage others to wonder what the A means. When they ask me, which sometimes happens, I like to have a quick and easy explanation of anarchism to hand because few people want to know about the writing of Kropotkin, for example, in reply to a casual half-interested question. So I have a quick one-sentence line patiently waiting in the wings: No gods, no masters, live the Golden Rule. Like all slogans, its far from perfect, but I think it captures enough of the important essence of anarchism to be pretty useful.

The no gods component carries enormous significance in those two little words. They burst with confrontational iconoclasm. There have been many times in our history when uttering those words could have been a death sentence. In parts of the world today, they still could be. The notion that we should have a society where all religion has been consigned to the scrapbook of history (along with all the other dead myths and superstitions that once ruled over different people but which are now rightly known to be complete nonsense) is still a powerful, radical concept. Religion is still a dominant force in most parts of the world, and is still used as it always has been as a highly effective controlling mechanism, supplying supposedly divine approval for the criminal actions of secular rulers. Shattering the right of priests to exert this power, as the words no gods do, is an important component of anarchism. It demands liberation from control by any and all religion and dares any priest to prove it wrong if they can.

Religions are most actively practised, and widely believed, in the poorest communities. Theres a good reason for this. The people who are the most oppressed and the most likely to rebel against their oppression need to be convinced that their suffering is part of some divine plan: the more they suffer, the greater their rewards in heaven will be. As the great Joe Hill song goes, Youll get pie in the sky when you die. Often this is the easiest and most comfortable option for oppressed people, permitting them to meekly accept, instead of openly resist. Priests are, of course, the people most responsible for this particularly powerful and effective brainwashing, and with very few exceptions priests have always allowed themselves to be exploited by the super-rich and powerful to continually maintain the lie.

Confronting the lie, as most anarchists do, making people begin to ask important questions about their cherished religious beliefs, is deeply subversive. It makes people realise that the desperate lives theyre living is all there is for them; that those lives are not pre-ordained by some old guy living in the clouds who nobodys ever seen. Theyre pre-ordained by human beings who are no different to them except in their ability to wield awesome power. Confronting the lie sews the essential seeds of rebellion the vital sense of injustice, the powerful motivating force to rise up and make things right. During the Spanish Civil War, priests, allies of Francos fascism, were rightly targeted by anarchists for the essential role they played in keeping the people oppressed. I dont suggest that priests should be murdered as they were in Spain but their ideologies must be continually confronted.

No masters is arguably even more confrontational and challenging. Most societies have always been ruled by masters. Few of these people have been selected by the free choice of those they control. Historically, the masters were often warlords who attained their status through bloodshed and terror, ruthlessly crushing all opposition. The hierarchical structures of lesser masters they established below them, to rule in their name, are reflected today in almost every institution and organisation in most parts of the world hierarchies of junior masters overseen by some supreme master. Suggesting that all these people are unnecessary, should not exist at all as the words no masters clearly does suggest is obviously the same as suggesting that our whole model of society is fundamentally flawed, and the very glue that keeps the model together should be scrapped.

The last part of the slogan, live the Golden Rule, is vital. The first two parts are negative, iconoclastic and destructive, calling for the complete breakdown of everything we recognise as normal society. Live the Golden Rule is positive, constructive, and proposes how a new society should be fashioned. That one sentence is more than sufficient to replace any religion, and also suggests a basis for remodelling the hierarchical structures no one really needs.

The Golden Rule is a simple basic philosophy thats so old it appears in one form or another in almost every ancient civilisation. Repeated in the work of Kropotkin, for example, who wrote: Treat others as you would like them to treat you in similar circumstances, the Golden Rule is arguably the most positive contribution anarchism makes to society. It doesnt promise the perfect society, but its quite easy to see that if everyone lived by the maxim, the world would be an infinitely happier place than it is today. Anarchism rightly confronts and opposes just about every core principle and feature of modern society an obviously destructive position; and with its support for the Golden Rule it proposes a simple solution for replacing our existing cruel and oppressive system.

Many anarchists embrace the Golden Rule so closely that they live vegan lifestyles, in recognition of the fact that animals too should be included in interpreting the rule. Voluntarily bound by the Golden Rule, as most anarchists are, its very clear to see that far from being dangerous terrorists, as the media routinely portray them, real anarchists are peace-loving humanitarians who disdain violence against all living things. They may destroy property, when they think its necessary, but they usually go to great lengths to avoid harming any living creature.

Our societies are not plagued by war, hunger, misery and oppression because we the 99% like to live that way. e have those things because our leaders, the 1%, deliberately choose to inflict them on us. Anarchism rightly identifies two of the biggest problems society has, and which must be overcome a deep existential belief in gods and masters; and it offers the simplest almost perfect solution upon which society could and should remodel itself: the Golden Rule.

John Andrews is a writer and political activist based in England. Check out John's books: Fiction: The Road to Emily Bay; Non Fiction: The School of Kindness; The Peoples Constitution. Read other articles by John.

This article was posted on Thursday, February 2nd, 2017 at 10:02pm and is filed under Anarchism, Religion.

Read the original post:

No Gods, No Masters: Live the Golden Rule - Dissident Voice

Rev. Jeff Bobin: The Golden Rule – GoErie.com

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, Jesus outlines what it takes to experience the Kingdom ofGod.

We all know certain parts of those chapters and I want to concentrate on one verse, chapter7 verse 12, which we know so well as the Golden Rule. Do onto others as you would have them do untoyou. I like to add "if you were in their shoes."

We live in a world that looks for something to divide us or to be angry about. Jesus wanted us to learn to love one another by treating each other with respect and I believe that starts by assuming that others donot want to harm us. It starts with putting ourselves in another place and treating them as we wouldwant to be treated if we were in their shoes.

How would you treat someone in handcuffs if you saw yourself in them? If you were addicted to a drughow would you want others to treat you? When you win or lose a competition, how would you want tobe treated if you were on the other side?

In todays environment of conflict and division there is a longing in our souls to return to the Kingdom ofGod and the peace that comes with it. That can only happen if we dig deep into the Bible and allowourselves to be shaped by what it teaches us. Wouldnt the Golden Rule be a great place to start?

There is only one way for us for us to improve our culture and that is for some of us to break the cycle ofblame and anger and look for ways we can work together to fulfill the Golden Rule. We could be thestart of a change that impacts our community and the world. Will you begin to treat others as you wouldwant to be treated if you were in their place? We can make a difference!

Reflections is a column by religious leaders in the region. The Rev. Jeff Bobin is pastor of Bethany United Methodist Church, 140 Wadsworth Ave., Meadville; Littles Corners United Methodist Church, Routes 98 & 198, Saegertown; and Hamlin Chapel United Methodist Church, 16460 Route 198, Saegertown.

View post:

Rev. Jeff Bobin: The Golden Rule - GoErie.com

Let the Golden Rule be our response locally and globally – Berkeley Independent

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

Much has taken place over the last few days in our country. For those following the news we have seen demonstrations, court actions and other activists kind of activities in the light of the executive order signed by the president which affected refugees and other non-citizens, legal and illegal entering and leaving the country.

Some people have applauded the actions of the president. Most according to the polls have disagreed with the president; if not in the substance or purpose of the order, at least in the way it was carried out and the breadth of the order.

People on both sides of the aisle have reacted to the situation, with some being extremely diplomatic to the point where they actually said nothing in their statement. But politicians learn over time, if they dont already know how at first, to use the maximum number of words to say very little and sometimes to say nothing at all.

Two of our representatives joined with others to make joint statements concerning the issue of the executive order which caused such a furor and set the country in some degree of turmoil. One was very clear where he and his colleague stood. The other was so diplomatic he and his colleague said nothing really. But, others have gone to the other extreme too.

We can disagree with someone, even the president, and disagree very strongly without demonizing him. This did not take me by surprise however, because the country had practice and exposure during the last administration when the former president was called all kinds of names and made the butt of all kinds of derogatory jokes based on color and because of ideological differences.

Sometimes the chickens come home to roost. However, I cannot join the chorus that would paint our present president as the devil incarnate or anything close to that. And it has nothing to do with liking him or disliking him.

I believe in principle, not personality. My principle says that although I believe the executive order went too far, or was implemented very poorly, and as a result caused untold hardship on many lives, it is not sufficient justification to dehumanize the president.

We have more effective ways, and lawful ways, which many have pursued to address issues when we disagree with our president or government. Many used that door, and as a result, at the time of writing this article a judge had issued a nation-wide stay on the presidents order.

I trust the people collectively more than I trust the leaders collectively. And I believe the same people who voted for our leaders are the same people who will not hesitate to remove those same leaders if they cross certain boundaries.

I believe in the collective voice of the people. That doesnt mean I believe they are always right. I also believe in the individual and collective actions of the people. I believe we can make a difference even when our leaders are on the wrong track. And that is the direction this column wants to take; that we the people do the right thing, and on an individual basis reach out to others to help bring about unity, reconciliation, peace and goodwill in our communities, churches, workplace and where ever else we engage each other.

I want to appeal to us, the people to do what we know in our hearts is the right thing, and the right way to deal with others.

The golden rule has been a standard that many Christians and non-Christians have used. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, it says. In other words, we treat others the way we would like them to treat us, if we were in their position, and they were in our position.

Let us help to heal some wounds, bandage some hurts, show love where hatred has dominated, caring where there is none and sow peace where there is war and discord. Lets not just talk about love, let's show love.

Lets show that we are a welcoming, receptive people and not the kind of people many are making us to be across the world. And lets start in our neck of the woods, next door, and the places where we engage people every day.

Valentine Williams is a pastor and a former adjunct instructor at Trident Technical College. Contact him at valmyval@yahoo.com.

Excerpt from:

Let the Golden Rule be our response locally and globally - Berkeley Independent

Opinion: No room for walls in Gospel’s Golden Rule – The Catholic Register

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

Theres a lot of talk these days about building walls.

One of the most powerful politicians on the planet is obsessed with building a wall to keep out undesirables. The promise to do so was popular enough to help get him elected. And now two countries that once prided themselves on friendly relations are divided by the spectre of that great wall.

The wall, the idea of the wall and what the wall represents are deeply problematic. The wall is symbolic of grave differences of opinion between the two countries. The country that wants to build the wall wants to keep residents of the other country out. The theory is that they arent trustworthy, not good enough to mix with the residents of the suddenly isolationist nation. Help us build the wall or well slap tariffs on your exported goods to our country. What a needless, avoidable quandary.

But that is exactly what happens when individualism, misplaced superiority and intentional detachment is allowed to trump solidarity. Its not the way Pope Francis sees the world and its not an acceptable Christian view.

Is there anyone among you who would hand his son a stone when he asked for bread? Jesus asks in Matthews Gospel. Or would hand him a snake when he asked for a fish? If you, then, evil as you are, know how to give your children what is good, how much more will your Father in Heaven give good things to those who ask Him.

So always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that is the law and the prophets.

The Golden Rule message delivered by Pope Francis to North Americans and all others is straightforward. If we have sympathy and concern for ourselves, we should exhibit the same for others. If we want opportunities for ourselves, we must strive to do the same for others. When we go out of our way to maintain our own safety, we should go out of our way to keep others safe. Whatever we would do for ourselves, we ought to be comfortable doing for others.

The worries and problems of others have to be our worries and problems. If people are living in abject poverty in our countries, we cannot stand idly by. If civil wars and other conflicts leave people orphaned or in refugee situations, those living in better circumstances are obligated to lend a hand.

Pope Francis points out that it is not good enough to sustain your own family. Its equally important to look after others. It is not appropriate or Christian to build a wall around our own needs, wants and desires while shutting out the needs of others.

Thats a concept that seems to be lost on those now tasked with running the country to our south. They say their country doesnt have room for refugees displaced from war-torn Syria and would rather build a wall around their own interests. They say there are far too many unsavoury characters stealing across the border. A high wall is needed to protect their selfish interests.

They say they contribute an inordinate amount of financial resources to a 28-nation international military alliance and that others better up the ante or face the prospect of losing an influential and powerful member country. The concept of using what you have to help others seems to have been abandoned.

They say that multilateral trade deals that were negotiated to benefit all countries involved are weighted against them. They want to change the playing field, build a wall around their manufactured goods to protect against the free flow of other nations products coming into their market.

Its wrong to say that someone elses problems are theirs alone. Its wrong to say that those less fortunate than us are the authors of their own misfortune. And its wrong to say their misfortune is none of my business. Walls of selfishness do not cut it for Pope Francis and they didnt cut it for Jesus.

The message for individuals and for nations is simple. Treat others as you would have them treat you. No man and no country is an island.

Looking past the barriers that separate us from others will always trump building protective walls around ourselves.

(Campbell is a writer in Halifax, N.S.)

I’m A Liberal, And I Want Milo Yiannopoulos On My Campus – Huffington Post

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

Just last week, Breitbart News editor and public speaker Milo Yiannopoulos saw one of his speaking engagements canceled when a protest against him at UC Berkeley turned into a violent riot. Rioters broke windows and even took part in brutal beatings of Milos supporters.

I am not on the same side politically as Milo. I am a liberal because I believe in liberty. First and foremost, my most cherished liberty is freedom of speech. The entire idea of freedom of speech is predicated on the notion that one must protect not only speech which they agree with, but also speech they disagree with. That also extends to speech which *gasp* offends you.

The violent rioters at UC Berkeley are representative of a phenomenon I and other actual liberals call the regressive left. The regressive left doesnt truly stand for liberty. Instead, they stand for the idea that anyone that says anything which offends them or doesnt fit their narrative can and should be silenced.

This regressive mindset is not only wrong, it is incredibly dangerous. A healthy public debate of ideas never silences anyone who wishes to engage in an open and honest dialogue about important issues. Unlike many of his critics and the bulk of these rioters, I have actually listened to Milo speak.

When Milo is faced with a tantrum from a protester who disrupts his events, he mercilessly mocks them to no end. However, and this is crucial to my view of Yiannopoulos, when faced with a respectful challenge to his ideas, hes extremely polite and gives very well thought out answers to genuine questions from liberals.

This is what public discourse between people who disagree is supposed to look like. Its not supposed to look like the absolute temper tantrum that many regressive leftists throw at his events.

And when theyre not throwing tantrums, these regressives resort to the next most destructive thing, name-calling. Youve all heard it over the course of the past year. Conservatives are racist, sexist, islamophobic etc. Despite my progressive views and liberal credentials as a youth leader in the Democratic Party, Ive been called all of these things when I speak freely about political issues. The one thing I have not been called is the utterly hyperbolic neo-Nazi.

Milo has been called a neo-Nazi by many of his most fervent critics. He is also a half Jewish, openly gay man. I will refer to my ethnic heritage when I say that calling Milo a Nazi is incredibly insulting to the memory of my ancestors and the millions of others who suffered during the holocaust.

Milo is not an oppressor, hes a messenger. I dont agree with every aspect of his message. However, I must admit, I agree with some of it. And thats important. Its important for people from different sides of the isle to listen to one another. Thats how you find common ground and come to a consensus. Its how you change minds and strengthen your movement.

When you listen and engage in a respectful dialogue about your differences, thats called making an argument; something many liberals, the regressives, are forgetting how to do. Instead, they attempt to silence their foes by name-calling and throwing dramatic tantrums to distract from their weak debating skills.

If Milo comes to Towson, and I hope he does, dont be one of these regressive babies. Go to his event, listen, and if you disagree with something he says, ask about it during the Q&A. As a true, blue liberal Democrat who vehemently opposes President Trump, I want avid Trump supporter and right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to know that people like me exist. I want him to know that true liberals are here to debate him, not silence him.

And lastly, I want all the regressives to know that their childish antics will not be tolerated. To each and every one of you that would even think to engage in the kind of behavior that took place at UC Berkeley, or who calls their political opponents neo-Nazis in a pathetic attempt to slander them with false, ad hominem attacks which harken back to the tactics of McCarthyism. You are the shame of the progressive movement and could not be more antithetical to true liberalism.

Learn to make actual arguments or get out of the debate hall. Right now, with this country in the state that its in, we adults dont have time for your tantrums.

Read this article:

I'm A Liberal, And I Want Milo Yiannopoulos On My Campus - Huffington Post

Furious Liberal MPs turn on ‘rat’ Cory Bernardi – The Australian Financial Review

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

Malcolm Turnbull, and furious Coalition ministers and MPs, including manyconservatives, have turned on Liberal rat Cory Bernardi, accusing him of betraying Liberal voters and demanding he quit the Senate altogether.

The dissident South Australian Liberal senator has informed MrTurnbull he will quit the Liberal Party at 12.30pm Canberra time, just seven months after being re-elected for a six-year term, to form his own conservative party.

MrTurnbull has told Tuesday's party room meeting that hetoo suggested Senator Bernardi quit the Senate.

"I asked him how he could justify remaining in the Senate having been electedas a Liberal only seven months ago. He could not answer that question," the Prime Minister said.

SenatorBernardireportedly told Mr Turnbull the 2015 leadership change wasacatalystfor his defection and he warned Mr Turnbullforceswerenowrangingagainsthim.

While his defection has emboldened some conservatives who believe Mr Turnbull should pay more heed to the right-wing of the party, confirmation of his defection has united his soon-to-be former colleagues against him.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, one of the most senior conservatives in the government, lashed out, saying Senator Bernardi's actions would only split the conservative vote and facilitate the election of a Labor government.

"I think people will be angry about any defection, angry about the betrayal of the Liberal Party values," he said.

He scoffed at suggestions other MPs would follow the renegade who has been unhappy in the party for several years, under Tony Abbott and Mr Turnbull.

Financial Services Minister Kelly O'Dwyer said Senator Bernardi was on an ego trip and should have been "upfront and honest" with voters before the last election.

"They want to know that parliamentarians who are sent to Canberra are focused on their interests and focused on the broader national interest," she said.

"I think that people would feel that their trust has been violated if somebody stood for a particular political party and then left that political party, particularly so soon after an election campaign."

Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne said Senator Bernardishould quit Parliament and recontest his seat, while Treasurer Scott Morrison accused him of betraying the Liberal Party and its voters.

Trade MinisterSteven Ciobosaid Senator Bernardi had spent his whole career causing internal trouble and "had never laid a glove on the Labor Party".

"He was elected off the back of the LiberalParty, it wasn't because he was Cory Bernardi," Mr Ciobosaid, echoing calls he should quit the Senate.

At the election, Senator Bernardi received 2043 first preference votes,or 0.025 per centof a quota. The SA Liberal Party received 345,767 votes.

Education Ministerand South Australian Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham said Senator Bernardi has betrayed Liberal voters and the party and should surrender the seat.

"There is effectively a contract that all of us undertake when we offer ourselves at election. We go to that election on the ballot paper, with not just our names, but also our party affiliation attached to that and that is an enormous guide," he said.

"I don't kid myself into thinking that there are hundreds of thousands of South Australians who know and like Simon Birmingham and choose to vote just for me."

SA Liberal MP Rohan Ramsey and Queensland LNP MP Michelle Landry said Senator Bernardi should quit the Senate and give his seat to a Liberal because it was the party's Senate spot, not his.

Another SA Liberal Sean Edwards, who lost his Senate seat at the last election, was scathing.

"It would be a gross departure as to - certainly six months into a six-year term - what people would have expected," he said.

"I would prefer to see Senator Bernardi stay within the Liberal Party and do the work that all the members that preselected him in preference to members like myself (expect)," he said.

Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm said Senator Bernardi would regret his move because he would lose his seat.

Labor leader Bill Shorten cashed in on the crisis.

"A government which can't govern itself can't govern the nation. It is long overdue for the government to focus on the jobs of other Australians," he said.

"I promise Australians that we will focus on jobs, saving Medicare and of course making sure that housing is affordable for all Australians."

Go here to see the original:

Furious Liberal MPs turn on 'rat' Cory Bernardi - The Australian Financial Review

‘Rallying point’: Abbott to headline conservative Liberal fundraiser in Melbourne – The Age

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott is the headline act at a Victorian Liberals fundraising dinner, which has been described as a "rallying point" for socially conservative party members in the state.

Mr Abbott will be the guest of honour at a $65 dollar-a-head Deakin 200 Club and Victorian Business Branch fundraiser next month.

A special pre-dinner drinks event for 22 people with Mr Abbott, costing $500 a ticket is nearly sold out.

There has been concern in the Victorian branch about a push to recruit socially conservative people to the party.

Some members fear alurch too far to the right in Victoria could damage Opposition Leader Matthew Guy's chance of seizing power from Labor at next year's poll.

The event is being promoted to the more conservative elements of the Victorian branch.

It is being organised by Marcus Bastiaan who has been leading the recruitment drive which has, among others, targeted socially conservative Christian groups.

The dinner, at city Chinese restaurant Secret Kitchen, will raise money for federal Victorian marginal seats including Deakin.

"He [Abbott] is a rallying point for conservative Liberals in Victoria who are very disappointed with [Prime Minister Malcolm]Turnbull's performance and the damage he hasdone to the party's brand," one senior Liberal source said.

"The worse things are getting under Turnbull the more conservative minded people see it necessary to get re-involved in Australian politics, through the Liberal Party."

Assistant Treasurer and Deakin MP Michael Sukkar, arising conservative figure in the federal party in Victoria,is also a guest speaker.

Mr Bastiaan said they were expecting 300 people, with the money raised to go to marginal seat campaigns.

"Tony Abbott is an extremely popular figure in the Victorian division of the Liberal Party," Mr Bastiaan said.

Mr Abbott's spokesman said it was his practice to "support his colleagues when asked."

Victoria was one of the worst states for Mr Abbottduring his time as leader and his performance has been blamed, in part, for the Napthine government losing office after just one term in 2014.

The former PM regularly appears at fundraisers including an event for Menzies MP Kevin Andrews ahead of last year's federal election.

Read the original post:

'Rallying point': Abbott to headline conservative Liberal fundraiser in Melbourne - The Age

House Science Chairman Sees Liberal Cover-Up on Warming Pause – Scientific American

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

The chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee claimed yesterday he has new evidence showing that scientific research discrediting a purported pause in temperature increases was politically motivated.

John Bates, who recently retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, told the Daily Mail newspaper in England that a 2015 federal study was intended to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and was rushed to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.

Bates said his NOAA colleagues relied on unverified data to prove their hurried claims.

Opponents of climate action have frequently highlighted data that seemed to suggest global temperatures stopped rising from about 1998 to the early part of the 21st century. They say it shows the Earth is constantly in cycles of cooling and heating, and they dispute the notion that global temperatures are consistently rising as the result of human activity. It has become a frequent talking point for politicians who argue that there is no urgency to curb the use of fossil fuels.

Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who receives significant donations from the energy industry, accused federal scientists again yesterday of politically motivated fraud. He said Bates' comments were proof that the study was rigged.

The 2015 NOAA study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president's climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA's own standards for scientific study, Smith said in a statement.

He also said Bates has exposed the previous administration's efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.

The so-called hiatus was disproved by a team of NOAA climate scientists in a 2015 study that found the data set supporting a pause was inaccurate because it relied on different methods of temperature collection. A second study published last month also found that a pause never happened. It, too, highlighted data problems.

Last month, federal researchers found that 2016 was the warmest year globally on record. It broke previous records set in 2015 and 2014.

Smith in 2015 launched a congressional investigation into the work of scientists who sought to rebut inaccurate claims about temperatures being static. He frequently refers to the vast body of research about climate change as politically correct science.

Tomorrow, Smith is scheduled to hold a hearing promoting Republican efforts to make EPA great again. Critics argue it's intended to weaken scientific research that's used to justify environmental regulations

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at http://www.eenews.net.

House Science Chairman Sees Liberal Cover-Up on Warming Pause - Scientific American

Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection – Daily Caller

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

5464743

President Trump was correct in excoriating liberal activist federal judge James Robart for his grossly legally defective temporary restraining order against President Trumps temporary travel ban. Beyond excoriation Robart needs to be impeached and removed from the bench for judicial incompetence.

Robart reached far beyond his judicial authority in even supposing that the State of Washington had standing to appeal President Trumps order in the first place. Robart hinges his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, a term meaning A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf. Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.

In the case Massachusetts v. Mellon however, the Supreme Court ruled with absolute clarity that it is no part of [a States] duty or power to enforce [its citizens] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government. Its difficult to imagine a ruling that more clearly denounces and derogates both judge Robart and the State of Washington in this clearly extra-legal attempt to arrogate the power of controlling immigration to the State of Washington. If Robart didnt know about this case he was explicitly informed of it by the Department of Justice in its objection to the TRO, so he has no excuse for ignoring an on-point Supreme Court ruling.

The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable. Congress delegated certain powers to restrict immigration to the President by enacting 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), which says that when the President (any president) finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he is authorized to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Having granted this authority to the President, only Congress can revoke it and no federal court, not even the Supreme Court has the power to interfere in that presidential authority short of challenging the constitutional power of Congress to delegate certain of its plenary powers over immigration to the President.

It is simply not within the power of any state to interfere with such a presidential decision, as immigration-control advocates found during Obamas tenure in office. Obama did exactly the opposite, he ordered our Border Patrol officers NOT to deny entry to any aliens who illegally entered the United States, and when Arizona and other states challenged this policy in court on exactly the same sort of grounds of detrimental impacts to the people of Arizona caused by rampant and uncontrolled illegal immigration, Obama simply invoked the plenary federal power over immigration policy and did nothing to secure our borders.

Now that President Trump has chosen to exercise his part of Congress plenary authority over immigration liberal Democrats want to prevent him from doing so, and they found a corrupt judge to do it for them by venue-shopping.

By going to Seattle and finding a sympathetic liberal-inclined pet judge they accomplished two things: they got their TRO and they put the case into the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the largest and most liberal (and most-reversed by the Supreme Court) federal court in the United States, which reacted to a well-formed and legally-sound appeal of the TRO with a one-page ruling rejecting the appeal without any analysis of the case or the law. This was not circumstantial, it was very deliberate tactic on the part of liberal progressive Democrats.

This makes the 9th Circuit Court as much of a co-conspirator in violating the separation of powers doctrine as Robart and the State of Washington are, which is a good reason for the plan to break up the 9th Circuit Court into several smaller courts to move forward. Impeachment of 9th Circuit judges should also begin immediately.

There is no doubt whatever that review of both the TRO and the order rejecting the governments appeal, along with every other case filed against the Presidents Executive Order, will be summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court because the law could not be more clear: the states have no standing to sue Congress or the president over immigration actions because Congress power over immigration law is plenary and not subject to judicial review according to Article 1, 8, clause 4 of the Constitution.

This is nothing more than another liberal Democrat attempt to impede and inhibit President Trumps administration, but this one is entirely unlawful and they know it and therefore Democrats are stepping outside of mere procedural obstructionism and are dabbling in the realm of insurrection and treason, particularly when it comes to giving aid and comfort to radical Islamist jihadi enemies whom President Trump is trying to keep out of the country.

Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection - Daily Caller

Liberal Fake News Reportedly Growing – Yahoo News

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

President Donald Trump slammed what he called "fake news" Monday. "Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election," he tweeted.

And that's not all: Reports that he signed an executive order without really reading it was "FAKE NEWS" as well (capital letters are the president's). Finally, the New York Times, a favorite punching bag for the president's prolific Twitter account, "writes total fiction,"Trump added.

Liberal-leaning "fake news" was, in fact, on the rise, although not from the journalistic shops the president was lambasting, according to a report from the Guardian.During the election, viral fake news spread like wildfire, with an in-depth BuzzFeedanalysis finding most of it was directed at hurting Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

The five most popular fake news stories on Facebookduring the election were about Pope Francis endorsing Trump, Clinton selling weapons to the Islamic State group, an email from Clinton to ISIS, a law that could prevent Clinton from being president and an FBI agent with Clinton connections supposedly being found dead, according to the Buzzfeed analysis.

Trump has since co-opted the term "fake news" as his own, using it to attack reports he doesn't appreciate.

The Guardian piece noted the balance of fake news was beginning to shift, with false articles gaining steam about everything from the Standing Rock protest toMelania Trump selling jewelry on the White House website to stories with fake Mike Pence quotes about abortion.

Brooke Binkowski, managing editor of the debunking website Snopes, was asked bythe Atlantic if she had seen an uptick in left-leaning fake news since Trump took office.

"Of course yes!" she said.

"There has been more coming from the left," Binkowski told the Atlantic."A lot of dubious news, a lot of wishful thinking-type stuff. It's not as filthy as the stuff I saw that was purportedly coming from the rightI dont think a lot of it was actually coming from the right, I think it was coming from outside sources,like Macedonian teenagers, for examplebut there has been more from the left."

The difference in the type of fake news was also noted byClaire Wardle, research director with First Draft News, in the Guardian article. In a time when many Democrats and others on the left were gravely concerned about Trump's presidency, articles with some good news, even if it's fake, have been spreading.

"It's unsurprising to me that we're seeing a growth of disinformation on the left People want information that makes them feel better,"Wardle said to the Guardian.

See the rest here:

Liberal Fake News Reportedly Growing - Yahoo News

Conservatives reject liberal humor in Trump era: Dave Berg – USA TODAY

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

USA TODAY

Conservatives reject liberal humor in Trump era: Dave Berg
USA TODAY
Hollywood and late-night comedians just don't get it. So conservatives are making their own jokes.

and more »

View original post here:

Conservatives reject liberal humor in Trump era: Dave Berg - USA TODAY

Cotton Calls for a $26B Uptick in Planned Defense Supplemental – USNI News

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

A member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committee is calling for a $26 billion addition to this years emergency defense spending bill to rebuild readiness starting with increased flying and training times and increasing the end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps.

Most [of the immediate spending agenda] comes from the service chiefs unfunded priority lists, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), said during his remarks at AEI on Monday.

We need more of just about everything, including modernized nuclear forces. Nuclear strategy can no longer be bilateral [between Washington and Moscow] because China and North Korea, both potential adversaries, are nuclear powers.

He added he also was backing a 15 percent increase in defense spending for the upcoming fiscal year.

Our defense budget is not responsible for our national debt, he said in answer to an audience question.

I think we can find the money for the supplemental increase and for the upcoming fiscal year and not upset the Freedom Caucus deficit hawks. In part, Cotton said this would come from having a new administration and a majority in Congress both saying that each dollar increase in defense spending does not have to be matched on domestic programs.

Cotton also warned allies and partners that no alliance should be a one-way street, and they need to spend two percent of their gross domestic product on their own security, not military pensions.

Right now we have to strengthen the bilateral alliances the United States has with Japan and South Korea and work for better ties with India and countries, such as Myanmar [Burma] that dont want to be vassal states of China. We have to give them more incentives to stay with us and that includes the Philippines and Thailand, two allies who have been distancing themselves from the United States in recent months.

The United States itself and all its partners need to understand they are engaged in global geo-political competition, particularly with Russia in Eastern Europe and China in the East and South China seas.

The Big Stick is important, Cotton said, not only recalling President Theodore Roosevelt, who first used the term in 1901 as a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, but also President Ronald Reagans position on rebuilding the military and meeting the challenge from the Soviet Union when he took office in 1981.

In dealing with Moscow and Beijing, we have to negotiate with them in a position of strength.

Cotton said President Donald Trumps policy to the Russia is yet to be determined and should not be judged on a few comments he made. He cited Ambassador to the United Nations Nicki Haleys recent remarks condemning Russia on renewed fighting in eastern Ukraine as showing what the administrations policy will be.

In answer to a question, he said, We should not recognize a single inch of soil where Russian troops stand in Ukraine as belonging to Moscow. He added he doubted that Russia would have seized Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine if Kiev retained the nuclear arsenal on its soil when the Soviet Union collapsed.

As for the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin is KGB, always will be. Cotton was skeptical about working with Moscow in Syria, a country where the United States now find its allies fighting each other [Kurds fighting Turks]. He said other partners in the region are leery of involvement in the Syrian civil war. They are not going to install a [Muslim] Brotherhood or Quds Force government in Damascus to replace President Bashar al-Assad.

The Muslim Brotherhood briefly governed Egypt following the Arab Spring. The Quds Force is a special forces unit of Irans Revolutionary Guard and is operating in Syria in support of Assad

In his remarks, Cotton said Trumps America First rhetoric resonates with most of the public. He termed it plain spoken nationalism in the manner of President Andrew Jackson.

The rest is here:

Cotton Calls for a $26B Uptick in Planned Defense Supplemental - USNI News

Making the case for an RBI rate cut – Livemint

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Danzig

With the government now delivering on the anticipated direction of fiscal adjustment for FY18, the markets have now turned their attention towards the upcoming monetary policy review on 8 February. After the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) stayed pat against the consensus expectation of a 25 basis point (bps) cut in its December policy review, the rate cut expectation got immediately repositioned for the next policy review in February. With signs of prudence, rectitude and discipline displayed by the FY18 Union budget, such expectations of monetary policy easing have gained further currency.

However, if one were to extrapolate the Monetary Policy Committees (MPCs) December policy stance, then it leaves a sense of disquiet. Two factors that weighed on the policy decision in favour of status quo were:

increase in global commodity prices

tightening of global financial conditions