Let's Take the 'Crony' Out of 'Crony Capitalism'
By John Stossel (Archive) · Wednesday, January 13, 2010

When Judge Richard Posner, the prolific conservative intellectual, released his book "A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent Into Depression" last year, you might have thought the final verdict was in: Capitalism caused the economic downturn and high unemployment.

That this verdict was pronounced by someone like Posner, who is associated with the University of Chicago and the free-market law and economics movement, gave moral support to all the politicians who were intent on exploiting the recession (as they exploit all crises) to increase government control of the economy.

But what exactly is this "capitalism" that is blamed?

The word "capitalism" is used in two contradictory ways. Sometimes it's used to mean the free market, or laissez faire. Other times it's used to mean today's government-guided economy. Logically, "capitalism" can't be both things. Either markets are free or government controls them. We can't have it both ways.

The truth is that we don't have a free market -- government regulation and management are pervasive -- so it's misleading to say that "capitalism" caused today's problems. The free market is innocent.

But it's fair to say that crony capitalism created the economic mess.

Crony capitalism, by the way, will be the subject of my TV show this week on the Fox Business Network (Thursday at 8 p.m. Eastern; Friday at 10).

What is crony capitalism? It's the economic system in which the marketplace is substantially shaped by a cozy relationship among government, big business and big labor. Under crony capitalism, government bestows a variety of privileges that are simply unattainable in the free market, including import restrictions, bailouts, subsidies and loan guarantees.

Crony capitalism is as old as the republic itself. Congress' first act in 1789 -- on July 4, no less! -- was a tariff on foreign goods to protect influential domestic business interests.

We don't have to look far to see how crony-dominated American capitalism is today. The politically connected tire and steel industries get government relief from a "surge" of imports from China. (Who cares if American consumers want to pay less for Chinese steel and tires?) Crony capitalism, better know as government bailouts, saved General Motors and Chrysler from extinction, with Barack Obama cronies the United Auto Workers getting preferential treatment over other creditors and generous stock holdings (especially outrageous considering that the union helped bankrupt the companies in the first place with fat pensions and wasteful work rules). Banks and insurance companies (like AIG) are bailed out because they are deemed too big to fail. Favored farmers get crop subsidies.

If free-market capitalism is a private profit-and-loss system, crony capitalism is a private-profit and public-loss system. Companies keep their profits when they succeed but use government to stick the taxpayer with the losses when they fail. Nice work if you can get it.

The role that regulation plays in crony capitalism is unappreciated. Critics of business assume that regulation is how government tames corporations. But historically, regulation has been how one set of businesses (usually bigger, well-connected ones) gains advantages over others. Timothy Carney's book about this, "The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money," explains why Phillip Morris joined the "war on tobacco," General Motors pushed for clean-air legislation and Archer Daniels Midland likes ethanol subsidies.

As economist Bruce Yandle writes, "(I)ndustry support of regulation is not rare at all; indeed, it is the norm."

If you wonder why, ask yourself: Which are more likely to be hampered by vigorous regulatory standards: entrenched corporations with their overstaffed legal and accounting departments or small startups trying to get off the ground? Regulation can kill competition -- and incumbents like it that way.

When will Michael Moore figure this out? His last movie attacked what he calls capitalism, but his own work shows that it's not the free market that causes the ills he abhors. Had he called the movie "Crony Capitalism: A Love Story," he would have been on firmer ground.

It's time we acknowledged the difference between the free market, which is based on freedom and competition, and crony capitalism, which is based on privilege. Adam Smith knew the difference -- and chose the free-market.

What's taking us so long?

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2006, AND THEREAFTER
THE POVERTY HYPE

Click here to Print |

Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts.

Dr. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer.

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991. Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 -- 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge. Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only seven percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2006, AND THEREAFTER
THE POVERTY HYPE

Click here to Print |

Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts.

Dr. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer.

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991. Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 -- 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge. Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only seven percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers

"Only under Capitalism,
We hear a lot about "racism" and how it holds certain people back. Racism can't hold anyone back in a Capitalist economy. In the 1960's many black actors faced racism on the entertainment market. Black actor Duane Jones famous for his lead role in "The Night of the Living Dead" beat the odds however. Suprisingly his role in the movie was originally going to be given to a white male truck driver. But when Duane Jones auditioned for the role, his work ethic proved to be better than any of the actors George Romero could find for the part. Effort pays off under Capitalism....even when the odds are against you!!"

--Capitalism's Truths

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter."-Ayn Rand

Visible Outputs Invisible Input
How about a mini-Williams autobiography? From exceedingly humble beginnings, I am now in the top one percent of income-earners. How did that come about? Did someone see me walking around North Philadelphia and say, "Williams, I'm going to make you well off."? That would have been nice, but it didn't happen that way.

In 1960, stationed in Korea, 24 years old, it dawned on me that if I didn't get started soon, I'd never get anywhere. My wife and I agreed that when my army tour was over, and we saved $700, we'd move to California and I'd go to college. Discharged on July 2, 1961; I got my job back with Yellow Cab. After Thanksgiving with Mom, we were on the road to California in my 1951 Mercury towing our worldly possessions in a 4' x 6' trailer.

Connie landed a $65 a week job; I started California State College that February. My wife's meager earnings meant powdered milk, "checks & dirties" eggs, butter was out of the question except for holidays. Shopping was an excursion that might include seven stores in one evening, purchasing only those items on sale. Ten and a half years later, going to school year round, including summers, I was awarded a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.

Our story of sacrifice and hard work is a story millions of Americans can tell. The story's point is quite different. People can easily see the fruits of others' efforts (big houses, fancy cars and money) but they usually don't see the effort that produced these fruits. As a result they conclude that it's not fair for some people to have much more than others. Envy sets in. They fall easy prey to demagogues and charlatans who convince them there's something unjust when some earn higher income than others. Justice requires that Congress step in to take away "ill-gotten" gains and return them to their "rightful" owners.

It's understandable that people see things this way. The results of hard work, sacrifice and risk-taking are visible. The actual hard work, sacrifice and risk-taking are not visible. They might conclude, "I'm a decent, hardworking guy just like Bill Gates, Sam Walton or Fred Smith. For them to have all that money, they must have done something non-kosher."

The fact of business is there are only a few wealthy or well-off people who're where they are because of inheritance or pure luck. Most high-income people achieve that status through hard work, sacrifice and risk-taking. In fact, if you survey Fortune 500's periodic listing of America's wealthiest men, it's not old money like the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers and Morgans. It's mostly first generation rich people like the Fred Smiths, Bill Gates and the late Sam Walton. For the most party, they are people who had modest starts but a vision of how to please their fellow man.

Instead of being held up to ridicule and scorn, these people ought to be America's heroes. Fred Smith, who produced a way to guarantee next day mail delivery to most any place on the globe, shouldn't be portrayed as the enemy of the common man. Sam Walton, who beat his competitors' prices shouldn't be put in the scorn category. If there are any who should be held up to scorn and ridicule, it's societal parasites - people who forcibly take from others giving nothing in return. That category includes thieves, robbers and con artists. It also includes otherwise honest people who use Congress to do the looting for them e.g., welfare recipients, and corporate CEOs of companies like Archer Daniel Midlands, Gallo and McDonalds.

Walter E. Williams
December 30, 1996

Thou Shalt Not Covet
As a Sunday school kid, I never quite understood the significance of the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." It was easy to understand why you shouldn't covet your neighbor's wife. After all that could lead to adultery but what's wrong about being jealous about your neighbor's other possessions? Liberals have helped me see the light: jealousy is a precursor to evil. It causes otherwise decent people to fall easy prey to scummy charlatans.

Look at the debate surrounding the Republican proposed tax cuts. Liberals protest it isn't fair to cut taxes of those earning over $200,000. Liberals make the incredibly thoughtless argument that since the wealthy have benefitted the most from society they also owe the most. Higher taxes are a way to make them "give something back." Liberals' agenda is to make us jealous and make us think that one person has more because another has less so they can succeed in their redistributionist agenda.

But how do people earn money in a free society? Let's take the extreme example of billionaire Bill Gates, founder of Micro-Soft. There is no evidence that Gates enslaved or robbed anyone. There's a lot of evidence that millions of common people like you and me voluntarily gave him money for software programs that make life easier and more pleasurable like Windows, DOS and other products. Gates served us well and he's rich because millions upon millions of independent decision makers agreed his products were superior to the next best alternative.

Liberals make the nonsense argument that people like Gates owe society something. If anything society benefitted far more from Gate's activities than Gates himself. That's nearly always the case. People who invented products like MRI's, miracle drugs, and laser machines or services like overnight mail, e-mail, and hotels benefitted society much more than anything they themselves might have received. Just ask yourself: who received the greatest benefit from the antibiotic that may have saved your loved one's life - the inventor who got profits from sale of the medicine to you or was it you and your loved one?

How appropriate is it to hold people, who serve us so well, up to scorn, abuse and ridicule? We might also ask: how appropriate is it for us to make social mascots out of society's leeches, vermin and parasites? How much sense does it make to confiscate the wealth of those who serve us and reward those who seek to live off and prey on others?

Liberals are about the control. Jealousy is their powerful instrument for the politics of envy. By getting us to covet that which belongs to our neighbor, we in turn give them the power to confiscate what are perceived as illgotten gains of others and pass it around. In the process we all wind up being less free, less prosperous, less moral and become a nation of thieves engaged in the futile attempt to live at each other's expense.

You'd think at least the church would be in the forefront in preaching against envy. But one of the greatest successes of liberals is their co-optation of America's church leaders into their evil agenda. Today's church leaders, along with members of Congress, have forgotten God's commandment against coveting and probably interpret the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" as God really meaning "Thou shalt not steal, unless there's a majority vote."

Walter E. Williams
April 25, 1995

Rights Versus Wishes
Congress' budget debate would be much more honest, and perhaps more fruitful, if we clean up some of our thinking about what is a right and what isn't. People say they have rights to medical care, decent housing and food even if they can't pay for it. If these goodies aren't forthcoming, somehow their rights have been violated. Let's discuss rights.

Imagine that I meet an attractive young lady. I ask her to marry me. Suppose she says no, have my rights been violated? Or, suppose I ask to live in your house, and you say no, have you violated my rights to decent housing? Finally, suppose I ask you for a job, and you say, "No! I refuse to hire you because you're too tall, and I don't like tall people." Have you violated my rights? In any meaningful sense, of the term rights, none of these acts constitutes a violation of my rights.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, exist simultaneously among people. The exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another and imposes no obligations on others except those of non-interference. If I ask for a job, a person is no more obliged to enter into a work contract with me than they would be obliged to enter a marriage contract with me. By contrast if you and I enter into a work contract, or if a young lady agrees to marry me, and a third party initiates force to prevent the transaction, my rights have been violated.

To say people have rights to housing, medical care, and jobs is an absurd concept. Those "rights" can be realized only by governmental imposition of burdens on others. For government to guarantee a "right" to housing, it must diminish someone else's rights to their earnings. This modern vision of rights, if applied to my right to speech, worship and travel, would require government to force (tax) others to provide me with an auditorium, church and airfare.

If, instead, we called these new-fangled rights wishes, I'd be in agreement with most other Americans. I also wish everyone had decent housing, nutritious meals and good medical care. However, if we called them wishes, there'd be cognitive dissonance problems among people making the pretense of morality. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to make someone else's wish come true. If I simply had a wish for a five bedroom house, and Congress told its agents at the IRS to take other people's money to make my wish come true, you wouldn't think much of Congress. Americans find it easier to live with their conscious, and find congressional initiation of force against others more palatable, if it were said I have a "right" to a five bedroom house. After all it's Congress' job to protect rights.

We can compare rights versus wishes another way. Suppose someone initiated force to prevent another from speaking and Williams privately stepped in to protect that person's right to speak. Would I be declared a hero or villain? Then suppose I saw a homeless person and did privately exactly what government does - initiate force to take someone's money to guarantee that homeless person's "right" to housing. What would you call me? In the first case, most would probably call me a hero and in the second I'd rightfully be called a despicable thief.

Separating wishes from rights has great relevance to today's federal budget debate. After all Congress' making wishes come true constitute two-thirds of federal spending. The nation's problem is there's not a single member of Congress who has the courage to point out that the moral route to a balanced budget is for Congress to protect rights not guarantee wishes.

Walter E. Williams
June 1, 1995
Return to Articles Page

Hey Progressives,

Who poses more harm to society...a greedy businessman trying to win over customers by "trading" for what his fellow man may need or want like a pair of new cleats (Nike) to help a young baseball player run down fly balls in the outfield...a new software (TurboTax) developed to help mom and dad figure out our ridiculous tax codes so the IRS doesn't come a knocking.... OR, a greedy politician trying to win over constituents by "giving" or "sharing" things that he or she neither created or developed or even earned? Alright sure, there are always Bernie Madoffs and Michael Milkens out there giving capitalism a bad rap, but I've yet to read in history where one "capitalist" brought down whole economies like politicians have done throughout history. "

A better question for progressives is simply this: What would the world look like today if there wasn't such a thing as "capitalism" and "socialism" was the only economic system known and practiced? When I think of such, I am reminded of the pictures my high school economics teacher showed of East and West Berlin while comparing and contrasting economic systems. One of my classmates asked our teacher, "why did the East Germans feel they needed to build a wall completely around the western part of the city? Why were they so afraid of the West Germans"? I remember my economics teacher chuckling a bit as he began to give the answers to my classmate's questions.

...Like my economics teacher then, today I can only "chuckle" and shake my head as I hear people like Senator Sanders ramble on about how things will be better if we (Government) take "voluntary exchange" out of the equation for health care and start "compelling exchange" between producer and consumer. Perhaps Senator Sanders should have spent more time studying history and economics while in school....he should know what he is advocating is a recipe for disaster.

For you pundits out there, please give historical or emperical data to prove I'm wrong, please!

Utopia versus freedom

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice."


If we can be so easily stampeded by rhetoric that neither the public nor the Congress can be bothered to read, much less analyze, bills making massive changes in medical care, then do not be surprised when life and death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands — and out of the hands of your doctor — and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.


Let's go back to square one. The universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to "solve" our "problem."


If we are, then there will be a never ending series of "solutions," each causing new problems calling for still more "solutions." That way lies a never-ending quest, costing ever increasing amounts of the taxpayers' money and — more important — ever greater losses of your freedom to live your own life as you see fit, rather than as presumptuous elites dictate.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.


Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said, "It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated" and "I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes."


But today's crusading zealots are not about to tolerate evils or infirmities. If insurance companies are not behaving the way some people think they should, then their answer is to set up a government bureaucracy to either control insurance companies or replace them.


If doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies charge more than some people feel like paying, then the answer is price control. The actual track record of politicians, government bureaucracies, or price control is of no interest to those who think this way.


Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.


If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about — the high cost of a major medical expense — the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.


Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.


But politicians in the business of distributing largesse — especially with somebody else's money — cannot resist the temptation to pass laws adding things to insurance coverage. Many of those who are pushing for more government involvement in medical care are already talking about extending insurance coverage to "mental health" — which is to say, giving shrinks and hypochondriacs a blank check drawn on the federal treasury.


There are still some voices of sanity today, echoing what Edmund Burke said long ago. "The study of human institutions is always a search for the most tolerable imperfections," according to Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago. If you cannot tolerate imperfections, be prepared to kiss your freedom goodbye.

"The power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbour and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less that which the smallest functionaire possess who wield the coercive power of the state, and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am able to be allowed to live or work."

F. A. Hayek

Burke and Obama

By Thomas Sowell







http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The other day I sought a respite from current events by re-reading some of the writings of 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. But it was not nearly as big an escape as I had thought it would be.


When Burke wrote of his apprehension about "new power in new persons," I could not help think of the new powers that have been created by which a new President of the United States — a man with zero experience in business — can fire the head of General Motors and tell banks how to run their businesses.


Not only is Barack Obama new to the presidency, he is new to running any organization. One of Burke's fears was that "we may place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never been tried."


Neither eloquence nor zeal was a substitute for experience, according to Burke. He said, "eloquence may exist without a proportionate degree of wisdom." As for zeal, Burke said: "It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion."

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



The Obama administration's going back and forth on the question whether American intelligence agents who forced information out of captured terrorist leaders will be subjected to legal jeopardy, even though they were told at the time that what they were doing was not only legal but a service to the nation, came to mind when reading Burke's warning about the dangers of continuing to change the rules and values by which people lived.


Burke asked how we could expect a sense of honor to exist when "no man could know what would be the test of honour in a nation, continually varying the standard of its coin?"


The current drive to take from "the rich" for the benefit of others came to mind when reading Burke's warning against creating a situation where "any one description of citizens should be brought to regard any of the others as their proper prey."


He also warned that "those who attempt to level, never equalise." What they end up doing is concentrating power in their own hands— and Burke saw such new powers as dangerous, even if they were used only sparingly at first.


He said, "the true danger is, when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients and by parts." He also said: "It is by lying dormant a long time, or being at first very rarely exercised, that arbitrary power steals upon a people."


People who don't like "the rich" or "big business" or the banks may be happy that President Obama is sticking it to them. But such arbitrary powers can be turned on anybody. As Robert Burns said: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." There was a lot of wisdom in the 18th century.


The Constitution of the United States set out to limit the powers of the federal government but judges have greatly eroded those limitations over the years and the dispensing of bailout money has allowed the Obama administration to exercise powers that the Constitution never gave them.


Edmund Burke understood that, no matter what form of government you had, in the end the character of those who wielded the powers of government was crucial. He said: "Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state."


He also said, "of all things, we ought to be the most concerned who and what sort of men they are that hold the trust of everything that is dear to us." He feared particularly the kind of man "whose whole importance has begun with his office, and is sure to end with it"— the kind of man "who before he comes into power has no friends, or who coming into power is obliged to desert his friends." Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and others came to mind.


The biggest challenge to America — and to the world — today is the danger of Iran with nuclear weapons. President Obama is acting as if this is something he can finesse with talks or deals. Worse yet, he may think it is something we can live with.


Burke had something to say about things like that as well: "There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief." Acting — not talking.

The Great Escape

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Many of the issues of our times are hard to understand without understanding the vision of the world that they are part of. Whether the particular issue is education, economics or medical care, the preferred explanation tends to be an external explanation— that is, something outside the control of the individuals directly involved.


Education is usually discussed in terms of the money spent on it, the teaching methods used, class sizes or the way the whole system is organized. Students are discussed largely as passive recipients of good or bad education.


But education is not something that can be given to anybody. It is something that students either acquire or fail to acquire. Personal responsibility may be ignored or downplayed in this "non-judgmental" age, but it remains a major factor nevertheless.


After many students go through a dozen years in the public schools, at a total cost of $100,000 or more per student— and emerge semi-literate and with little understanding of the society in which they live, much less the larger world and its history— most discussions of what is wrong leave out the fact that many such students may have chosen to use school as a place to fool around, act up, organize gangs or even peddle drugs.


The great escape of our times is escape from personal responsibility for the consequences of one's own behavior. Differences in infant mortality rates provoke pious editorials on a need for more prenatal care to be provided by the government for those unable to afford it. In other words, the explanation is automatically assumed to be external to the mothers involved and the solution is assumed to be something that "we" can do for "them."

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



While it is true that black mothers get less prenatal care than white mothers and have higher infant mortality rates, it is also true that women of Mexican ancestry also get less prenatal care than white women and yet have lower infant mortality rates than white women. But, once people with the prevailing social vision see the first set of facts, they seldom look for any other facts that might go against the explanation that fits their vision of the world.


No small part of the current confusion between "health care" and medical care comes from failing to recognize that Americans can have the best medical care in the world without having the best health or longevity because so many people choose to live in ways that shorten their lives.


There can be grave practical consequences of a dogmatic insistence on external explanations that allow individuals to escape personal responsibility. Americans can end up ruining the best medical care in the world in the vain hope that a government takeover will give us better health.


Economic issues are approached in the same way. People with low incomes are seen as a problem for other people to solve. Studies which follow the same individuals over time show that the vast majority of working people who are in the bottom 20 percent of income earners at a given time end up rising out of that bracket.


Many are simply beginners who get beginners' wages but whose pay rises as they acquire more skills and experience. Yet there is a small minority of workers who do not rise and a large number of people who seldom work and who— surprise!— have low incomes as a result.


Seldom is there any thought that people who choose to waste years of their own time (and the taxpayers' money) in school need to change their own behavior— or to visibly suffer the consequences, so that their fate can be a warning to others coming after them, not to make that same mistake.


It is not just the "non-judgmental" ideology of the intelligentsia but also the self-interest of politicians that leads to so much downplaying of personal responsibility in favor of external explanations and external programs to "solve" the "problem."


On these and other issues, government programs are far less likely to solve the country's problems than to solve the politicians' problem of getting the votes of those whose think the answer to every problem is for the government to "do something."

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?"....Thomas Sowell Random Thoughts 12/1/09

"Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Think things, not words." In words, many see a need for "social justice" to override "the dictates of the market." In reality, what is called "the market" consists of human beings making their own choices at their own cost. What is called "social justice" is government imposition of the notions of third parties, who pay no price for being wrong.


Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Muammar Qaddafi and Vladimir Putin have all praised Barack Obama. When enemies of freedom and democracy praise your president, what are you to think? When you add to this Barack Obama's many previous years of associations and alliances with people who hate America — Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, etc. — at what point do you stop denying the obvious and start to connect the dots? "......Thomas Sowell Random Thoughts 10/7/09

Conzar,

Sorry I'm late in responding to your last post. I forgot I had left my "free market/capitalism propoganda" here on this "socialist/command economy propoganda" unfiltered segment by Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders.

The only thing I see insane is your attack on the very economic system that is entirely based on "freedom". What is even more insane is your inference that an economic system based on "money" is what causes poverty, war, and crime in our world. If you didn't just make that up as your own hypothesis, could you please pass on to me your source for such a ridiculous statement. I would very much enjoy doing some "very light reading" as I enjoy laying by the pool that came with the house I purchased with "money" from my "hard earned" work I do from 8 to 5 every Monday thru Friday.

People survive today by either "trading" or "sharing" for those things that they need or want. You sound like a "sharing" type of guy...which explains why you like Bernie Sanders. I'm afraid to tell you buddy the "sharing" societies are doomed for failure. If you knew your history you already know this of course. The United States is doomed for "failure" if we continue to evolve into a more "sharing" society and away from our "trading" roots. It is a fact....not propoganda. The articles I posted from Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are writings from learned men who echo the thoughts and ideals of those great and enlightened men who dreamed of a new "Nation" where man was free and where government was limited. The destruction of those ideals by our politicians today is what is insane to me. I want what you want....a world where people prosper and live free from crime and war. Capitalism and free markets are the very answer to your wishes. Capitalist countries and free markets are where you see the least amount of poverty, the least amount of crime, and obviously free from war. See continent of Africa if you need a comparison. Please read the article by Walter Williams I'm attaching below...God Bless you...and God Bless America

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009



Elites and Tyrants



Rep. Diane Watson said, in praising Cuba's health care system, "You can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." W.E.B. Dubois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, "Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. ... But also -- and this was the highest proof of his greatness -- he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate." Walter Duranty called Stalin "the greatest living statesman . . . a quiet, unobtrusive man." George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin.

John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao's China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Gunther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor admired Mao Tsetung and declared ecstatically that "the men and women pioneers of Yenan are truly new humans in spirit, thought and action," and that Yenan itself constituted "a brand new well integrated society, that has never been seen before anywhere." Michel Oksenberg, President Carter's China expert, complained that "America (is) doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values," and urged us to "borrow ideas and solutions" from China.

Even Harvard's late Professor John K. Fairbank, by no means the worst tyrant worshipper, believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, "Americans may find in China's collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one's neighbor that has a lesson for us all." Keep in mind that estimates of the number of Chinese deaths during China's Cultural Revolution range from 2 to 7 million people. Mao Tsetung was admired by many academics and leftists across our country. Just think back to the campus demonstrations of the '60s and '70s when campus radicals, often accompanied by their professors, marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving Mao's little red book, "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung." Forty years later some of these campus radicals are tenured professors and administrators at today's universities and colleges, as well as schoolteachers and principals indoctrinating our youth.

The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii's Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, "Death by Government." Statistics are provided at his website: (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html). The Nazis murdered 20 million of their own people and those in nations they captured. Between 1917 and 1987, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.

Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from Nazism. However, there's little or no distinction between Nazism and socialism. Even the word Nazi is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. The origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the '20s, '30s and '40s. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, like many of today's Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for Hitler to take over.

Few Americans have the stomach or ruthlessness to do what is necessary to make their governmental wishes come true. They are willing to abandon constitutional principles and rule of law so that the nation's elite, who believe they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, can have the tools to implement "social justice." Those tools are massive centralized government power. It just turns out last century's notables in acquiring powerful central government, in the name of social justice, were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, but the struggle for social justice isn't over yet, and other suitors of this dubious distinction are waiting in the wings.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

@Roscoe82 thanks for the free market capitalism propaganda. However, the reality is that those with the majority of money control the majority of resources. In a free market capitalism system, you are only as free as your purchasing power. In a free market capitalism system, people that cannot afford food will starve just like in the "normal" capitalism system we have globally in place today.

Poverty, War, and Crime all will exist in any monetary system. Advocacy of any system that utilises a monetary system is insane.

Talking Points vs. Realty

By Thomas Sowell

















http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In a swindle that would make Bernie Madoff look like an amateur, Barack Obama has gotten a substantial segment of the population to believe that he can add millions of people to the government-insured rolls without increasing the already record-breaking federal deficit.


Those who think in terms of talking points, instead of realities, can point to the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has concurred with budget numbers that the Obama administration has presented.


Anyone who is so old-fashioned as to stop and think, instead of being swept along by rhetoric, can understand that a budget — any budget — is not a record of hard facts but a projection of future financial plans. A budget tells us what will happen if everything works out according to plan.


The Congressional Budget Office can only deal with the numbers that Congress supplies. Those numbers may well be consistent with each other, even if they are wholly inconsistent with anything that is likely to happen in the real world.


The Obama health care plan can be financed without increasing the federal deficit — if the administration takes hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. But Medicare itself does not have enough money to pay its own way over time.


However money is juggled in the short run, the government's financial liabilities are increased by adding this huge new entitlement of government-provided insurance. The fact that these new financial liabilities can be kept out of the official federal deficit projection, by claiming that they will be paid for with money taken from Medicare, changes nothing in the real world.


I can say that I can afford to buy a Rolls Royce, without going into debt, by using my inheritance from a rich uncle. But, in the real world, the question would arise immediately whether I in fact have a rich uncle, not to mention whether this hypothetical rich uncle would be likely to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.




In politics, however, you can say all sorts of things that have no relationship with reality. If you have a mainstream media that sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil — when it comes to Barack Obama — you can say that you will pay for a vast expansion of government-provided insurance by taking money from the Medicare budget and using other gimmicks.


Whether this administration, or any future administration, will in fact take enough money from Medicare to pay for this new massive entitlement is a question that only the future can answer, regardless of what today's budget projection says.


On paper, you can treat Medicare like the hypothetical rich uncle who is going to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce. But only on paper. In real life, you can't get blood from a turnip, and you can't keep on getting money from a Medicare program that is itself running out of money.


An even more transparent gimmick is collecting money for the new Obama health care program for the first ten years but delaying the payments of its benefits for four years. By collecting money for 10 years and spending it for only 6 years, you can make the program look self-supporting, but only on paper and only in the short run.


This is a game you can play just once, during the first decade. After that, you are going to be collecting money for 10 years and paying out money for 10 years. That is when you discover that your uncle doesn't have enough money to support himself, much less leave you an inheritance to pay for a Rolls Royce.


But a postponed revelation is not part of the official federal deficit today. And that provides a talking point, in order to soothe people who take talking points seriously.


Fraud has been at the heart of this medical care takeover plan from day one. The succession of wholly arbitrary deadlines for rushing this massive legislation through, before anyone has time to read it all, serves no other purpose than to keep its specifics from being scrutinized — or even recognized — before it becomes a fait accompli and "the law of the land."


Would you buy a used car under these conditions, even if it was a Rolls Royce?




Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on JWR contributor Thomas Sowell's column by clicking here.









Thomas Sowell Archives









© 2006, Creators Syndicate

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010



Who Poses the Greater Threat?



Bill Gates is the world's richest person, but what kind of power does he have over you? Can he force your kid to go to a school you do not want him to attend? Can he deny you the right to braid hair in your home for a living? It turns out that a local politician, who might deny us the right to earn a living and dictates which school our kid attends, has far greater power over our lives than any rich person. Rich people can gain power over us, but to do so, they must get permission from our elected representatives at the federal, state or local levels. For example, I might wish to purchase sugar from a Caribbean producer, but America's sugar lobby pays congressmen hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to impose sugar import tariffs and quotas, forcing me and every other American to purchase their more expensive sugar.

Politicians love pitting us against the rich. All by themselves, the rich have absolutely no power over us. To rip us off, they need the might of Congress to rig the economic game. It's a slick political sleight-of-hand where politicians and their allies amongst the intellectuals, talking heads and the news media get us caught up in the politics of envy as part of their agenda for greater control over our lives.

The sugar lobby is just one example among thousands. Just ask yourself: Who were the major recipients of the billions of taxpayer bailout dollars, the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)? The top recipients of TARP handouts included companies such as Citibank, AIG, Goldman Sachs and General Motors. Their top management are paid tens of millions dollars to run companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy, were it not for billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Politicians preach the politics of envy whilst reaching into the ordinary man's pockets, through the IRS, and handing it over to their favorite rich people and others who make large contributions to their election efforts.

The bottom line is that it is politicians first and their supporters amongst intellectuals who pose the greatest threat to liberty. Dr. Thomas Sowell amply demonstrates this in his brand-new book, "Intellectuals and Society," in which he points out that: "Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies ... Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators each ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them."

While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision. Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They are pro-control and coercion, by the state. These Americans who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others. A tyrant's primary agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Markets imply voluntary exchange and tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning and regulation, which is little more than the forcible superseding of other people's plans by the powerful elite.

We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine's warning that "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2009 AND THEREAFTER



Prosperity Lost



Ask the average person which is the correct answer to the following question: Which president gave the biggest tax cuts for the rich -- Reagan or Bush? I would bet the rent money that you would not get the correct response, which is: Presidents have no taxing authority. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." I know that many politicians and news media people read my column. How do we characterize them if they continue to speak of presidents cutting or raising taxes?

Another tax question: If there's an imposition of a property tax on your land, who pays the tax? I guarantee you that land does not pay taxes; only people pay taxes. That means a tax on your land is a tax on you. You say, "Williams, that's pretty elementary, isn't it?" But what do you say to a politician or news media people who propose increasing corporate taxes as means to get rich corporations to pay their rightful share of government? They should be told that they speak nonsense because corporations, like land, do not pay taxes; only people pay taxes.

If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if it is to survive, it must raise the price of its product, or lower dividends or lay off workers. In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of any tax levied on the corporation. An important subject area in economics called tax incidence says that the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden can be shifted to another party. That's precisely what corporations do and as such they are merely government tax collectors.

Here's another tax question: Which worker receives the higher pay: a worker on a road construction project moving dirt with a shovel or a worker moving dirt atop a giant earthmover? If you said the guy on the earthmover, go to the head of the class. But why? It's not because he's unionized or that employers just love earthmover operators. It's because having more capital (tools) makes him more productive and therefore earn higher wages.

It's not rocket science to conclude that whatever lowers the cost of capital formation enables workers to have more capital to work with and enjoy higher wages. Policies that raise the cost of capital formation such as capital gains taxes, low depreciation allowances and high corporate income taxes, and thereby reducing capital formation, serves neither the interests of workers, investors nor consumers.

Taxes also reduce transactions. I need my computer repaired. You and I agree that the job is worth $200. Suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you would net only $140 and might refuse the job. You might suggest that if I were willing to pay you $285 you would do the job because at that price your after-tax earnings will be $200 -- what doing the job is worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it, or would we and society be better off if you and I agreed to the repair job but did not tell anybody? I'd say yes, but we'd be criminals.

You might wonder how congressmen can get away with taxes and other measures that reduce our prosperity potential. Part of the answer is the anti-business climate promoted in academia and the news media. The more important reason is that prosperity foregone is invisible. In other words, we can never tell how much richer we would have been without today's level of congressional interference in our lives and therefore don't fight it as much as we should.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

I enjoy your show. I think this country needs to rethink our economic and political systems. It seems corrupt and archaic. I would love for the new politicians to come up with new and fresh ideas to help us to move forward. It just seems like the same old policies that are put in place don't work in this global digital age.

Bernie,
You do a disservice to the cowboy. These outfits are thieves and banksters. Cowboys do something these outfits are stealing from you and me and ruining America and the world.

Amen! Unfortunately I have found it easier to just quit working altogether just so I can get medical insurance. How sad is that?

READ FREE LUNCH- BY DAVID CAY JOHNSTON ; AND AMERICA: WHO REALLY PAYS THE TAXES BUY JAMES B. STEELE

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism



During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.



The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.



A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."



"There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard."


http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism



During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.



The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.



A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."



"There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard."


http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism



During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.



The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.



A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."



"There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard."


http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

WTF! IS THIS SOME BACK DOOR INTELLEGENT DESIGN FRONT. LETS STAY ON TOPIC HERE.

Survival of the fittest has been flagrantly misintepreted. Evolution is better understood as survival of the best fit, pointing to the species that survives best in its environment. This is evident in all the different species in the world surviving by playing their part in their own little niche. Humans have disrupted this process by seeing themselves as separate from the ecosystem, as dominant of it. This is the mindset we must return to. For those who call this regressive, note that it will be a 'higher return', that is, we will still be moving forward, with innovation and our continual search for the new, but it will be from a place within the world, not upon it.

I would rather call it parasitic and speculating capitalism that inflate the value of existing assets with out instead of producing new investments.

What would Jesus Do? If he cared at all about the future of his country he would immediately enforce the laws that are on the books. That means arrest and deport. Enough with giving these crimminals an education for their child, food stamps so that they can eat on my tax dollars, when I don't have the money to feed myself. What would Jesus do? He would see to it that those who did all the right things to be welcomed to this country weren't having their chance at getting a job that paid a living wage taken away from them because some crimminal is in this country illegaly driving down the wages that the legal alien should be paid for labor. That our kids could go to school in class rooms that have a reasonable number of students. The teacher would teach in one language, english so that the students weren't being cheated out of learning time because their teacher is trying to communicate with the child of the crimminal alien. Yes it sounds terrible, but Jesus would look at what benefits the whole community that are living here legally rather then cheating them of the standard of living they are working for because of politicians that want to cater to a group of crimminals and when they do it hurts the whole community/country.

WWJD... WELL, HE WOULD HELP THE SICK, POOR, HELPLESS AND ADMONISH THE WEALTHY FOR NOT CONTRIBUTING ENOUGH. HE WAS NOT SO LITIGIOUS AS YOU CLAIM. ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE READING THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE?

What would the "Spaghetti monster" do? What would "Super Man" do?
Who cares what any fictitious characters would do?
You talk about your tax dollars being spent on x,y, and z; however, the real crime is that the government steals your money. They call it a "nice" word like taxes, but in reality, its theft.

I agree 100% they've been stealing my money since I was 11. I don't have a problem paying a fair amount of taxes, what the stealing is in my mind is the wasteful manor in which this government uses mine and your's money.

There is no such thing as a "fair amount of taxes" if you are forced to pay it.
No service should ever be rendered at the barrel of a gun!

Senator perhaps you would like to explain to all of us why you voted yes to the Vitter amendment which allows the continuation of federal funds being distributed to sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. How are we as a nation ever going to control the illegal alien problem we have, if you politicians continue to make it nearly impossible for law enforcement to ask someone who commits a crime whether they are in the country legally. Your vote is misguided sir as is the rest of the democrats that tabled the amendment.

I didn't know about the Vitter Amendment. Which basically allows for us to treat illegal aliens as human beings and Gods creatures. WHAT WOULD JESUS DO about illegal aliens?
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

THUS SAYETH THE SCRIPTURES???????????? ( below ) :


1) Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 22:21 (NIV)

2) Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 23:9 (NIV)

3) When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him.
Leviticus 19:33 (NIV)

4) The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34 (NIV)

5) And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien.
Deuteronomy 1:16 (NIV)

6) And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19 (NIV)

7) You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.
Ezekiel 47:22 (NIV)

8) In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance," declares the Sovereign LORD.
Ezekiel 47:23 (NIV)

9) For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
Matthew 25:35 (NIV)

10) When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
Matthew 25:38 (NIV)

11) Matthew 25, 41-45: "Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a STRANGER and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a STRANGER or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45 Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' "

Quoting from a fictitious book does not help your case.

I do believe the bible is Holy. But that is irrelevant to my point. My point is that socalled
"conservatives" eschew the spirit -Christ favors the poor and downtrodden- of a text which they deem holy. I am a conservative catholic republican, furthermore I am saddened when my fellow republicans take a decidedly calvinist interpretation of the gospel.

For all yall who don't understand what calvinism means...let me give you the short course...(below):

In calvinism the morally upright people are blessed with the bounties of the earth and moreover their personal weath is evidence of their election, whereas poor peoples plight is a curse stemming from their spiritual failings.

"I do believe the bible is Holy. But that is irrelevant to my point."
Your point is based on fiction, not fact.

my point is that for Christians to hate illegal aliens is PHARISAICAL. Hypocritical

get it?

You have to understand that politicians use religion for their own political gains as well as to control the public.

The SEC admitted total failure in pursuing the leads that it received regarding the Ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff and that it absolutely needed to restructure that segment of its agency nationwide. GUESS WHAT? In November 2003, that very same promise was unfulfilled pursuant to the ultimate probe of Putnam's mutual fund trading scandal in Boston, MA. Herb Perone, an SEC spokesman in Washington, said: "We're in the midst of an intense internal review to determine exactly what happened and what improvements are necessary to handle whistle-blowers, complaints, and tips." The SEC's level of incompetence continues unabated. When does the criminal investigation of Christopher Cox and others at the top begin?

I feel you Senator, we inherited the system, we didn't create it. it's a stage of "Historical Materialism." (for no better description) According to Marx, what takes place next is a Police State. We'll see what happens!

Here's a senator who knows what's right and stands up for it, instead of one being owned by big money! Hooray for him! We need more like him.

There is surprisingly little debate about the role and economic impact of government surveillance in the current economic meltdown.

Independent international organizations dedicated to monitoring intrusion of governments into the privacy of their citizens have ranked the United States number 1 in surveillance of its citizens, ahead of the likes of North Korea.

US government surveillance has had an unseen and unspoken economic impact, for instance:

Example 1:

Has Anyone Ever Noticed That Thursday, September 6th, 2001 was an interesting day ?

(1) On September 6th, the US Department of Justice announces it will end its attempts to break up Microsoft and will stop 19 states from independently pursue damages from Microsoft for anti-trust. The fact that there was no QUID PRO QUO suggests just the opposite — that Microsoft gave into the DOJ and allowed it to add U.S. government spy ware into Windows XP which was released October 25th, 2001. The PATRIOT ACT was signed by George Bush on October 26th, 2001, how tidy and convenient.

(2) On September 6th, $8055 was wired to the chief 9-11 hijacker to buy tickets.

(3) On September 6th, the CBOT records 4744 puts on UAL versus 296 calls

The economic impact ? Microsoft has entirely lost the Chinese market of 300 million users. They have switched to Linux amid fears of a devil’s bargain between the DOJ and Microsoft to insert US government spy ware in exchange for not breaking up Microsoft. Share price has not increased since 1998.

Example 2:

Microsoft, Vonage, Yahoo, Ebay, Google, etc. are all vulnerable to being wiped out. All the Canadians have to do is pass a draconian law guaranteeing internet privacy and Canadian companies can give the same service to Americans without being spied on.

Example 3:

Tourism and conventions go elsewhere when people know they are being spied on.

Example 4:

Limiting Interstate Commerce. The US Government can not only spy on you, they can limit and mess up your communications so as to decide which businesses will win and lose. This is the death of the American Dream.

In summary, surveillance is not just a human rights issue, it is a serious economic issue.

To answer "Just a Ding Dong", the country has always been run by a small select rich elite group. USA was formed by rich white land owners. The power structure persisted throughout most of the USA's history. Now it includes other races but the people who truly run things are still the wealthy elites.

This is the same in all other countries as well. Communism, socialism, capitalism, and all the other ism's do not work. In all of these societal structures, war, crime, and poverty still exist.

If there is social stratification, then crime will exist. If only a few control most of the resources, there will be war. If there is money, then there will be poverty.

We don' t need Socialism in any capacity. We need better Capitalism. I like the fact that I can't afford some things all of the time. It helps me to aspire to be better. If your dead set against a Capitalist mindset than you and the people both should limit the funding of it. Don't by the goods and services that are offered by those individuals.

Why should we the FREE Americans have to constantly pay the price for someone elses ideas of what is right and wrong. Our system is working just fine. If Obama can shave the large percentages of wasted expenditures to pay for his healthcare, then he should start doing it now with the programs that are already accepted and in place. Our programs work just fine and I have never seen an individual not be serviced, especially when in the need of emergency care.

If there is so much wasteful spending right now, then Obama and his Left side and Right side should start to shave those wasted expenditures and in turn start up some much needed programs with that recycled money. That recycled money could be helping tens of thousands of poor and needy families. Grants could be offered for housing, schooling, wellfare contributions and still contribute back to the existing systems that are now permitted to operate at there full momentum.

Why must America be forced to choose from an existing set of problems to new set of them. I work hard to keep my money and I am the middle class. I am no different that Joe the Plumber. Tax increases will force me out of business. Hell, we can't hardly afford gas, electric and some of the other essentials.

Why hasn't any of that DAMN stimulous money come directly to us homeowners that really need it? Why hasn't the Obama bail out contributed to the private sector? Why can't we have cross state bidding on health insurance... ? Why.... Why... Why... Why don't you people answer the existing questions with answers put into action.

This is our country and not the governments. The governments job is not to take care of us. It is our job to take care of us.

I am proud to be an American. Oh, I would gladly pay for the same health plan that you HAVES have. I am certain that it is less expensive than my existing one with Kaiser. Did you ever think of that? Offer us the same health plan you have. Isn't that a bit of a Capitalistic framing. You HAVES on your side of the track have something better than our have nots. After all, if it is all supposed to be the same then you should also make a hell of a lot less. You should also be limited in what you can make and spend and have. Lets take away your luxuries that you earned and see how you feel about it.

Your cry is the same of all of us. You don't even notice but you are demanding SOCIALISM !!!

Because all of you are asking 'Why"..." is provided, yes, by a set of socialist laws...

People and their stupid knee jerk reaction to the word SOCIALISM, we have been brainwashed into believing that it's bad. Who brainwashed us? Corps and our beloved media. Socialism is a first world phenomenon, it's time for us to grow up, it's time the USA stop kicking and screaming into the 3rd millenium. If you dislike socialism its because you went to a public school and/or you watch too much tv. Americans seem to think socialism always is communism, sad. It just shows how lacking we are in scholarship( how bad our schools are). The other first world nations laugh at us, when our govt spends so much on these stupid wars while our govt gives us shitty benefits . In France women get 5 months paid pregnancy leave while in America we get these shitty stupid moronic wars. If you dislike socialism move to the 3rd world because the 3rd world is totally deviod of socialism.

There is no such thing as a fair marketplace. In order to make "profit" you have to screw someone else. When there is money, there is differential advantage. People use this advantage to best suite themselves to attain more wealth.

So Buzze, you think that America was founded on "true capitalism"? If so, then please explain how true capitalism benefited the native Americans? Please explain how true capitalism benefited the Mexicans in Texas? Please explain how true capitalism benefited the African slaves.

If you are under the mistaken impression that the last 60 years have been capitalism, I could see how you'd see it that way. Instead, what you've seen is facism. Yup, I said it again, but it's true...You see, it doesn't matter red or white, liberal or conservative, nor citizen or alien. When the government works in cohoots with corporate interests by creating a lopsided and unfair marketplace through the use of laws and regulations, you see facism. Bailouts, tax breaks, incentives, monopolies. This is facism at work. Even when it benefits you. You know why? Because it's screwing someone else. "Capitilism has/will/must fail" is a foolish thing to say. How? Capitalism is simply the ability to exchange goods/currency/services in exchange for others in as fair a marketplace as possible (life isn't fair). That's all. It's occurred since the begining of time, and will until the end, as long as an individual has desires or needs. Vilifying it is just fooling yourself. You either steal, trade or earn. Pick One.

Very good, "buzze"...
You said with few words how the system works.
You open the door for discussion and opinions...
Capitalism, in its essence, is an inevitable failure and the past proves it - on every major crises, a lot of people get screwed, the rich keep a hold on their assets and money and capitalism "reinvent" itself in a similar scheme like Charles Ponzi did (and most recently Maddoff) - actually he just gave a name to the capitalism scheme.
The essential of capitalism is, like buzze says, where somebody gains there are several losers...
I grew up with a system, that in my country we call "mixed-economy"... With my experience there and here in the USA (the last 25 years) I realize that in USA there's no room for small business - proof? the average "life" of a mom and pop business is 3 years, here in the USA.
So, the answer is "mixed-economy" with primordial services (public services) run by the people (government) like health, water, energy, telephone, transportation (trains and buses) and military industry... and the "private" sector regulated with a socialist set of laws plus Universal Health Care and Education to everyone.

Socialism is wrong when it outlaws God and capitalism is wrong when it is Godless . Micheal Moore says we need capitalism with a moral code. In other words , a Christ centered capitalism or at least a Christ informed capitalism.

Hola from Cancun, Mexico. My wife & I are both 65 and receive social security benefits. We are Medicare subscribers, but because we live in Mexico, we have private insurance which costs us about $17,000 USD through a Norwegian company because unlike other industrialized countries, Medicare won't pay for medical care if you get sick outside your home country. This is not a complaint, just a comment. You echo my sentiments about the way things should be in the US, as they are in the rest of the industrialized world, but as for the "could be", I'm not that optimistic, given the way things are going with the battle over health care reform, global warming and help for those in danger of foreclosure and those who are unemployed. Question: Are you the only one in the Senate who expresses these views? If so, it's a lonely position to be in. If not, who are the others in the Senate & House who have the best interest of the people in mind the same as you do? BTW, we're both graduates of James Madison HS in Brooklyn. I'm Class of '65. I know Chuck Schumer graduated after I did. When were you there? Where did you live? I was on Nostrand bet. R & S. Thanks for listening and for standing up for us.

I thing health care should be non-profit and it should be a right from the time you are born.They have taken dental out of Medicare which means if you have a toothache,you have to go to the hospital so you don't get an infection that can go to your heart,and die.Do you think hospital are going to have to hire dentist's-they can't turn you away or they will be libel.Hospitals will spend more money thanks to Gov.of Ca.(BONEHEAD),in turn the state will be spending MORE $,NOT LESS!

Senator Sanders,
i share your viewpoint about the Darwinian survival of the fittest paradigm we operate in, especially in the united states, and agree that it is simply unsustainable (even if we WANTED it to continue as is). it is not one political party or the other, right/wrong, the system itself is myth-guided. have you heard of dr. bruce lipton? i think you will find his ideas and research on this very thing, along with his historical and scientific accounts of how we got to this point and where we must go from here, very supportive of your thinking.

Capitalism will fail when our economic fabric becomes utterly unsustainable. We've seen the power the lobbyists have when figures of $380 million have been spent by insurance companies to fight the public option. They seem to find money wherever they want, whenever they want unless it comes to providing basic health care to those who are suppose to be covered. Ensign and Cantor state that health is a matter of just exercising and keeping a stable frame of mind. Tell that to those who are battling the most horrendous forms of cancer and disease.

Although unorthodox, I respect Rep. Grayson for standing up to the Republican party and speaking the truth for what their plans entail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

Whenever democracy is preached like a religion, you loose sight of pragmatism and common sense. I'm writing from Singapore and I read with a great deal of sorrow about what is happening to America and how it is affecting the world over. I thank America for all the good things that capitalism has brought about; inventions, innovation, entrepreneurial spirit and inspiration, etc. Nevertheless, I wonder if its just the corporate institutions that have gotten too large. I think the American legislation system has gotten too large. I see a giant who is having a big problem bending down to tie his shoe lace before going out to get breakfast.

There are much accountability America owes, not just to its people but also to the rest of the civilized world. And yes, I'm still wondering till today about who the culprits are whose greed has underlined this global crisis.

Dear Senator, I watch every video you have published here because I really believe your success will impact even someone like me half the globe away. I pray the old Wall Street would not have their way moving forward.

Since FOX doesn't really provide objective NEWS, perhaps their broadcasting license could be amended to read, FOX-OPINION.

Senator Sanders says in this video, "The United States today has the highest rate of childhood poverty." In comparison to the past or to other nations? This statement is succeeded with other statements comparing to other countries. What on earth could this mean?

Thank you so much for your courageous stands. You are a wonderful counterbalance to the right wing noise machine that continuously pollutes almost all political discussions nowadays. How I wish you could be a California senator. Thanks to the good people of Vermont for having you as their spokeman.

I agree completely with your message, however, the background cowboy images cheapen the message and give fodder to those who want to dismiss you as just a loony filmmaker.

Dear Bernie:You know what...you talk the talk but don't walk the walk. You have to ask yourself can you make it happen. Then shit or get off the pot.

Innaction is another form of action and I pray that obfuscation is not a halmark of the Obama years!

Good response, however please double check the level of care provided to our military and you may wish to amend your high opinion of the care they receive from the administration.

Bernie, keep up the good work, we are behind you. As for Michael Moore, I believe the day will come when he will be looked on as being a better patriot than almost all of the people in congress, and all of the right winged talk show hosts.

Bernie,

I like your style and I like your response to Michael Moore's question about what's wrong with capitalism. My question for you is... How do you respond to challenges by Republicans that the Democrats want to convert America to a socialistic society with much higher taxes, etc.? A lot of the examples you gave, like the healthcare system in Scandenavian countries, are forms of socialism. I'm not opposed to this, I just want to hear your point of view.

You seem to indicate that the "American Capitalism" is bad Capitalism and there is some sort of good capitalism. You also indicate that america once had this good capitalism before Regan came to office. Please explain what "good capitalism" is.

Also please explain how pre-Regan capitalism was good for the native Americans, the African slaves, the Mexicans (who lived in what is now called Texas), the Sovereign people of Hawaii, the Chinese brought over to construct the rail-roads in the 1800s, and the Vietnamese people in the 60's and 70's?

Thank you.

After the last eight years, it should be apparent that most religious institutions, are in it for the power and money. The issues they always talk about are, gays and abortion. I think, because it cost them nothing in time and money. Other issues i.e., war and poverty etc., they want no part of. This may cost them something. Why don't we, the American people, take away their non profit status? They are rich, powerful, welfare beneficiaries. We can, maybe ease them off the largess slowly. They vote repube anyway. They are dangerous also. They put their stamp of approval on wars, hate, etc. , etc. At least start talking about this. Maybe then they will be fair and balanced?

Hey Bernie! Why don't insurance companies have to abide by antitrust laws?

Everyone talks about the top one percent. Just exactly, or even approximately, what does that mean? The top one percent of net worth, or the top one percent of annual income? Folks like Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders often use that expression but don't explain it. Buffett and Gates are obviously in the top one percent. But, at what numeric value does the one percent begin. Who is in last place of the top one percent? What are the numbers?

Senator Bernie, how would you feel about passing a federal law prohibiting the identification of party on all ballots, whether national, statewide or local? Additionally, how would you feel about dividing populations via computer programs with no insight to political identification, race, income, or essentially anything other than eligible voting age, with parameters designed to draw squares or rectangles? I would think this would be an accurate and fair way to divide districts, and without parties on the ticket it would be considerably more difficult to vote straight ticket.
Thanks for the time!

why didn't you run for congress and why aren't you on tv more? Why do we have to listen to these right wing nutcases all the time and not hear from awesome senators like yourself. And btw, why is congress voting itslef a 25% increase when so many in usa are suffering in a recession? :( I wish you were on of my Cali senators! lol Keep fighting to keep the middle class -- our kids are depending on you people for their very lives these days and let us know what the people can do to help you!

Senator Sanders, It's an honor to address you. I look forward every Friday to your "Brunch with Bernie hour" on the Thomm Hartmann radio program. If only there were 60 more like you in the Senate, we might have an actual Democracy, not the bought and paid for "Corporatocracy" we suffer under now!

Senator, I am sorry to say that, despite I consider myself well informed, I didn't hear from you before. Now I am pleased to say "Very nice to meet you"...
Your words and ideas are fitting like a glove on my own ideas. Perhaps down the road we would diverge on some points but who knows? well, I'd like to give some ammunition for your arguments:
- I am a Brazilian-born and USA citizen for some time now. I must tell you that is disheartening to hear everybody comparing USA only with "developed countries" and maybe you would be the first comparing USA with the "third world" (I know, it is an unused term this days) to make your (our) point stronger - I came here pretty old (35) so I had a little more than half of my life in Brazil - and few years in Spain - so I can tell you with knowledge - We have a system - if not excellent at least functional - of a "public health" plus the "previdence" as we call the public health care. It is similar to Social Security plus health care. Being here for 25 years I have seen a lot of improvement happening, in Brazil, in terms of health care and labor laws. Be aware - since 1936 we have a labor law that guarantees minimum wage, PAID VACATION (30 days per year from the very first year in the job) and maternity leave. Along the years the improvement includes a 13th salary at the end of the year (meaning a bonus to EVERYONE), a fund (called FGTS) paid by both workers and firms to support the worker if he/she looses the job (it is not unemployment insurance, that is another issue) and a guarantee of 30 notice in case to be fired... well, here's food for thoughts, I suggest that you research a little (or a lot) in the systems of countries like Brazil and others "underdeveloped" countries but be ready to hear some right-wings that might call you a liar...

I live in Guatemala and have been here for almost 10 years. I attend public hospitals when absolutely necessary and with great concern every time. You must arrive at 4.30am to assure a wait of only 8 or 9 hours. You then must hope that your doctor is trustworthy as they will often refer you to other offices (usually their own) to charge you outragously for a blink test (personal experience) or other "services," give you medicine for a different sickness, put a cast on you even though you have no broken bone at all, this way earning money on the side. Should Senator Sanders be researching the system here and would the right-wingers call him a liar if he came to these conclusions?

Mr. Sanders, recently former congressman Traficant has stated that American sovereignty was in question due to the undue influence of the Israel lobby. I happen to agree, what say you?

Since the burden of proof is always upon the claimant, where's the undue influence? I don't see it, and I don't think it exists. Besides, how does a Jewish lobby bring any question against American sovereignty? We have plenty of powerful lobbies in politics today, which isn't to say that's a good thing, but via this logic they're all disrupting the very underpinnings of our society.

Well Traficant did say during his 16 years in congress that he often had seen congressman walking on eggshells for Israel when bills came up. > You say you don't see the undue influence ? Ok, maybe you don't see it. If you want to see it I would suggest googling Israel lobby. How does the Israel Lobby affect our sovereignty ? Undue influence in areas of power which together are called the Media-Political-Banking Complex. Yes other lobbies exist, but the Israel Lobby is much more powerful than any other and I would venture to say than all others combined.

Answer this. If we are fight agianst terrorizm why do we allow neo nazi and the kkk right here in our country? unless they are right and this is not our country but white america only? I've been told over and over in this country by police that I can't voice my oppinion if it roud, obnocious or threating, so why do they get too...
for instant I live in Tampa Florida and a guy told my wife{i'm black and she white} if she did not shut up he would rape her and beat her. So she came got me and I went to talk to the boy parents. sence she{his mother} said I should not live in the getto I called the police and two white police officers came out and they told me and I quote. If I try to press charges becuse the boy hit me after his mom got there that I would be arrested. so I asked why, I did nothing. and they said, because I did not try and talk to there parents a day or two after the ordeal I'm in the worg and they would take me to jail for looking for him... But if I lived in another part of town then the boy would have been arrested. That does not make me proud to be an american when all we see is hatered and raciszem and unfar treatment... I have other story even worst, like when I live on Hawaii, and In Atlanta and on FT. Bragg and so on and so on. and I'm not a felon.

If the repulbic had more Micheal moores in it's mist we'd all vote replubican but sence the republic
for witch we stand is not for all Americans just the few with money you can just about say it racest
not just us minority either. and about that word anyway{minority} there nothing {minort} about us we are all the say, we are Americans but our republic don't see it that way making me ashamed to all myself an American.

Thanks for these weekly videos and for standing firm as a progressive in Congress. I appreciate the work of Brave New Films and what they are doing to educate the public. I saw Michael's movie last night and it is great!!

Senator Sanders, We need to rid ourselves of lobbyists and corporate influence. How can we ,the people make it happen? Is there anyway that we could get the public financing of elections on a ballot, where the american people could vote on it.?