During a press conference outdoors with the Turkish Prime Minister, Obama ordered the Marines to break protocol and hold umbrellas over their heads as it rained, remarking “They’re gonna look good next to us.”
What a pompous elitist! The Marines are not house slaves for the ruling class. They are not “photo ops.” They are heroes who are sworn to protect and defend. If Obama wants someone to bow and apologize to, he should start with the marine on his left.
The Twitterverse exploded with biting commentary on this one:
Funny how quickly Obama got the Marines there when he was getting wet. Our men in Benghazi waited 8 hours for Obama to call in the Marines.
Why? Because a Socialist dictator like Chavez is an ideological ally, while a liberty-loving conservative like Thatcher is political enemy. That should tell you all you need to know about dark and dangerous Obama’s personal ideology truly is.
This is a deliberate, public slap in the face in front of the entire international community. Obama is a small, petty, dangerous man.
President Obama declined to send a high-level delegation to Wednesday’s funeral of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher. It’s a measure of how little he values the special relationship — and a sign of his own smallness.
Back in more gracious times, vice presidents routinely attended funerals of foreign dignitaries. As such, the presence of Vice President Joe Biden — if not Obama himself — would seem fitting for as significant a U.S. ally as the late Prime Minister Thatcher, if not out of warmth of feeling, then simply to represent the U.S.’ gratitude. Thatcher’s uncompromising friendship with the U.S. helped to set off a free-market revolution, end the Cold War, and left the U.S. and U.K. the standard-bearers for freedom in the world — the very basis of the power Obama now enjoys.
But appallingly, not even Biden could be spared for the funeral of the most consequential British prime minister since Winston Churchill.
[…] This snub shows Obama places partisan politics above leadership or statecraft.
In the days leading up to Margaret Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday, the three networks repeatedly hyped hateful, ugly attacks on the former Prime Minister of Britain, describing her as a “polarizing,” “divisive” figure. On Rock Center, his low-rated Friday night show, Brian Williams explained that it was “sad, but necessary to report” that, while Americans may like Thatcher, “It’s been a harsh couple of days …Tonight, the number one song on iTunes in Great Britain is the Wizard of Oz classic [Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead], in this case celebrating the death of the Iron Lady.”
On Sunday’s Today, Lester Holt began by insisting, “Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is proving to be as polarizing in death as she was in life.” He, too, highlighted angry liberals in Britain gleefully playing the mocking song. Leftist journalist Martin Bashir appeared on the program to bemoan the “controversial” Thatcher. He touted, “An online campaign has pushed the song Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead up towards the top of the British music charts.”
Bashir made sure to play a clip of a protester complaining, “I’m here to remember the victims, the victims of Margaret Thatcher and her society– her type of government.”
On Wednesday, CBS This Morning reporter Mark Phillips lectured, “Well, this funeral was going to be a tense and controversial affair even before [the Boston bombing.]” It was going to be “controversial’ to bury Thatcher, the woman elected three times in massive landslides?
On the April 17 Today, Keir Simmons reported live from the funeral route and deemed Thatcher a “divisive figure for many people in Britain.” He did allow that there were “many people here in the streets to pay their last respects.”
This last point, the massive outpouring of people who actually admired Thatcher, hasn’t received as much attention from the network reports.
Mrs. Thatcher’s predecessor as prime minister, the amiable but forgotten Sunny Jim Callaghan, once confided to a friend of mine that he thought Britain’s decline was irreversible and that the government’s job was to manage it as gracefully as possible. By 1979, even this modest aim seemed beyond the capabilities of the British establishment, and the nation turned to a woman who was one of the few even in a supposedly “conservative” party not to subscribe to the Callaghan thesis. She reversed the decline, at home and overseas.
[S]he understood that the biggest threat to any viable future for Britain was a unionized public sector that had awarded itself a lifestyle it wasn’t willing to earn. So she picked a fight with it, and made sure she won. In the pre-Thatcher era, union leaders were household names, mainly because they were responsible for everything your household lacked. Britain’s system of government was summed up in the unlovely phrase “beer and sandwiches at Number Ten” — which meant union grandees showing up at Downing Street to discuss what it would take to persuade them not to go on strike, and being plied with the aforementioned refreshments by a prime minister reduced to the proprietor of a seedy pub, with the Cabinet as his barmaids.
In 1990, when Mrs. Thatcher was evicted from office by her ingrate party’s act of matricide, the difference she’d made was such that in all the political panel discussions on TV that evening no producer thought to invite any union leaders. No one knew their names anymore.
What Reagan and Thatcher showed–and it is a lesson that may seem at odds with the conservative impulse that the private sector is the most significant–is what a difference political leadership can make. (Later Rudolph Giuliani showed the same thing–he was for urban policy what Reagan and Thatcher were for national policy.) They both inherited a mess: In Thatcher’s case she took over in 1979 following the “Winter of Discontent” when Britain was paralyzed by multiple strikes and high unemployment. As the Conservative advertising slogan had it, “Labour isn’t working.” Reagan, of course, took over from Jimmy Carter in the wake of the failed hostage-rescue mission and in the midst of a severe recession characterized by “stagflation.” Worst of all was a widespread loss of confidence in the future–both in Britain and America it was fashionable back then to imagine that the “the West” was finished and that the Soviet Union was ascendant.
Reagan and Thatcher would have none of it. Both were firmly outside the political and intellectual mainstream, and both were derided as simpletons for imagining that they could reverse the course of history. But that is precisely what they did–Reagan with his tax cuts (helped by Fed chairman Paul Volcker’s anti-inflationary policy) and defense spending increases which, respectively, revived the economy and restored our military power; Thatcher with her income-tax cuts, budget cuts, interest-rate hikes and her willingness to stand up to the unions, all of which revived the British economy, and her willingness to fight Argentina for the Falkland Islands, which restored British confidence.
[…] Thatcher’s challenge was all the greater given that so much of the Conservative Party remained “wet”–i.e., skeptical of her conservative principles. Eventually it was not the political opposition but her own party which toppled her, leading to a long period of Conservative wandering in the wilderness, punctuated by uninspiring rule first by John Major and now by David Cameron, neither of whom will ever be mentioned in the same breath as the Iron Lady.
Like Reagan, Thatcher was vindicated by history–and just as Reagan was praised by Bill Clinton, so she was praised by Tony Blair. She will be remembered as the greatest female ruler since Queen Elizabeth I and the greatest British prime minister since Winston Churchill.
New CIA Director John Brennan was sworn in this week on a 1787 copy of the constitution from the national archives, instead of the Bible:
“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points outthat what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy’s post has some strong language.)
That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.
There are two possible reasons for a new office holder to refuse to lay their hand on the Bible while swearing an oath, as has been the tradition in America for over two centuries.
On the one hand, he may refuse because he intends to break his oath, and therefore wants to avoid swearing on the Bible and the inescapable accountability to God that it would bring.
The other possibility is that he doesn’t respect the Bible as a sacred document and views it as too “religious” (or contrary to his own religion), and therefore seeks to publicly demonstrate that he is not accountable to the God of the Bible.
Either way, it shows what a dangerous radical Obama has chosen to lead the one organization in the U.S. that holds our most closely guarded secrets.
Obama treats our men and women in uniform shamefully, as mere pawns that can be used, exploited, and tossed away. The Bin Laden raid has always been about the Narcissist-in-Chief ever since he sauntered up to the microphone and took personal credit for the operation that killed America’s most wanted terrorist. The man who actually pulled the trigger is disposable, in Obama’s view. Since he can’t be used as a photo-op or campaign prop, his usefulness is done.
Obama wants to provide billions in hand-outs to life-long welfare recipients whose votes he can buy with Obamaphones. To those who risk their lives and sacrifice for freedom, however – those who truly earned and deserve their benefits – he is not so generous.
The Navy SEAL who says he put three bullets in the head of Usama bin Laden is out of work and bitter that he was never told he is still eligible for health care coverage, according to a new report, which the military and Veteran’s Administration are disputing.
The hero frogman is bitter as he waits for disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to an exclusive story for Esquire by the Center for Investigative Reporting. After quitting just three years short of retirement, he has no health care or pension, he said.
“I left SEALs on Friday,” the unnamed SEAL told author Phil Bronstein last September. “My health care for me and my family stopped at midnight Friday night.
“I asked if there was some transition from my Tricare to Blue Cross Blue Shield. They said no,” the SEAL told Bronstein, executive chairman of the Center for Investigative Reporting. “You’re out of the service, your coverage is over. Thanks for your sixteen years. Go f— yourself.”
[…] But six months after leaving the military, because “I wanted to see my children graduate and get married,” he is physically and psychologically wrecked. He left the military a few years short of retirement eligibility and now has no job and is not qualified for a pension. He is awaiting a VA disability ruling for neck, back and eye injuries.
Because it’s too dangerous to identify himself, making money from book deals, speaking engagements and interviews is not an option.
Maybe he quit early due to PTSD. Maybe it was because he was pressured to retire early, so the military wouldn’t have to pay his pension and health benefits. Either way, he deserves far better than simply being tossed aside.
With President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and other national leaders in attendance, Dr. Carson spoke plainly about the great challenges America faces today: “moral decay and fiscal irresponsibility.”
“One of our big problems right now is our deficit,” Dr. Carson states. “Our national debt, 16 and a half trillion dollars—you think that’s not a lot of money? Counting one number per second, you know how long it would take to count to one trillion—507,000 years.”
Dr. Carson continued:
I don’t like to bring up problems without coming up with solutions… What about our taxation system? It is so complex, there is no one who can possibly comply with every jot and tittle. That doesn’t make any sense.
What we need to do is come up with something that’s simple. The inherently fair principle is proportionality: you make 10 billion dollars, you put in a billion. You make 10 dollars, you put in one. Of course, you have to get rid of the loopholes.
Some people say, ‘That’s not fair! It’s doesn’t hurt the guy who made 10 billion dollars.’ Where does it say you have to hurt that guy? He just put a billion dollars into the pot!
Growing up in dire poverty, Dr. Carson tells of taking responsibility for his own decisions thanks to “a mother who believed in me, who would never allow herself to be a victim no matter what happened—she never made excuses, and she never accepted excuses from us.”
Brennan gave a speech to Islamic law students at New York University, where he was introduced by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. Mattson, who had been involved with the Obama inaugural prayer service, had come under fire then for her organization’s longstanding terrorist support.
During his NYU speech, Brennan defended the administration’s highly unpopular move to try al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court (which the administration eventually backed away from). He claimed that terrorists are the real victims of “political, economic and social forces,” said that Islamic terrorists were not jihadists, referenced “Al-Quds” instead of Jerusalem, and described the 20 percent of former Guantanamo detainees returning to terrorist activities as “not that bad” when compared to ordinary criminal recidivism.
During a talk at the Nixon Center in May 2010, Brennan said that the administration was looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” of the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah.
Two weeks later, at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Brennan defended the Islamic doctrines of jihad as “a holy struggle” and “a legitimate tenet of Islam.”
[A] known top U.S. Hamas official had been given a guided tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and FBI Academy at Quantico under Brennan’s watch, several former top intelligence and defense officials again called for his resignation.
Last month, it was revealed that Brennan was implicated in a serious intelligence breach detailing an ongoing counterterrorism operation led by British and Saudi intelligence agencies that had placed an operative deep inside the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) organization. The White House leak forced the termination of the operation and the immediate withdrawal of the double agent, infuriating our foreign intelligence allies.
Just two weeks ago, internal White House documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request revealed that Brennan and other White House officials had met twice with Hollywood filmmakers preparing a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden, providing them unparalleled access including the identity of a SEAL Team 6 operator and commander along with other classified information. Amazingly, these high-level White House meetings between Brennan and the Hollywood filmmakers took place just weeks after the Pentagon and CIA had publicly warned of the dangers posed by leaks surrounding the successful SEAL raid killing bin Laden.
Revealing Politics went around the streets asking people what Kindergartners should be taught about Thanksgiving. The most common answer? How America is a racist, genocidal, oppressive nation that exterminated the Native Americans and stole all their land:
I’ll bet none of their Marxist professors told them about all the atrocities of the countries that millions of immigrants have fled to come to these shores, or how Communism killed over 100 million people just in the last century alone. But why quibble over facts?
The video’s producer Ben Howe, a RedState contributor and Revealing Politics creative director, told TheBlaze on Wednesday that the respondents in the video displayed “repulsive anti-Americanism and thought.”
“No nation on earth is blameless. No people are blameless,” he added. “Ideally something like Thanksgiving is an opportunity for us to share in our common humanity not our common feelings of guilt. But given that it is a uniquely American holiday, I guess these people just can’t pass up the opportunity to trash her.”
Howe went on: “I’m not saying we don’t bear any responsibility for any scars that were left in our history. Clearly America has had its moral failings. The point is that Thanksgiving is supposed to be a time of coming together, but for these people and so many like them they just can’t let go and prefer to live in a world where blame always rests on the shoulders of someone else.”
“While many Americans try to set politics aside for the Thanksgiving holiday, it’s too much to ask of a vocal group of Twitter users who are using the day to slam America,” the staff at Twitchy said. […]
“[H]appy thanksgiving, the most racist/colonialist of ALL the holidays! wiping out native people really gets me in the mood for some pie (sic),” tweeted “lizzie c.”
“[T]hanksgiving is the most american holiday because like america its hella racist and like america its all about food (sic),” added “Weed Supreme.”
“I’ll say happy Family Day….’Happy Thanksgiving’ is racist….Native Americans did not sit around & sing kumbaya with the pilgrims smh (sic),” another person tweeted.
Twitchy said that a number attacked cartoon character Charlie Brown as racist.
“You gotta love vaguely-racist-towards-Native-American people Peanuts Thanksgiving specials,” tweeted “Kyle Elphick.” […]
Unfortunately, it’s the kind of reaction one expects from liberals on Twitter these days.
“It is sad when our country is belittled and trashed at every turn by Liberals,” a commenter at Twitchy said.
“The Progressive motto: ‘We cannot be happy until you are as miserable as we are.’ Happy Thanksgiving anyway, folks,” another person wrote.
It’s refreshing to see a celebrity using their influence to draw attention to REAL human rights abuses.
While Hollywood starlets are pledging allegiance to Obama and decrying the ridiculously contrived “war on women” (asking women to pay for their own birth control? Oh, the horror!), Christian Bale has been bringing attention the work of Chen Guangcheng, a blind Chinese lawyer who was brutally beaten and isolated under house arrest for defending women who were being kidnapped and forced to undergo abortions against their will – their babies ripped from their wombs and murdered.
Last year, Bale tried to visit Chen while he was in China promoting a movie. He got no further than the edge of the village before Chinese officials roughed him up with his camera crew and chased them out of the area. Chen miraculously escaped a few months later and was able to gain asylum with his wife and children in the U.S., although his mother and brother have suffered retaliatory abuses back home in China.
On Thursday actor Christian Bale presented blind forced abortion opponent Chen Guangcheng with an award at the annual gala of Human Rights First. In December 2011, while Chen was still in China under house arrest, Bale attempted to visit Chen but was roughed up by thugs, who prevented him from visiting Chen’s village. Bale said at that time, “What I really wanted to do was shake the man’s hand and say ‘thank you,’ and tell him what an inspiration he is.”
Chen dramatically escaped house arrest and arrived in the United States in May 2012. The two men met for the first time tonight, when Bale presented Chen with the award.
Bale praised Chen for his bravery and for symbolizing the hopes of the people of China to live in freedom. Significantly, Bale also highlighted Chen’s fight against forced abortion in China. Bale stated,
“He [Chen] had exposed a program of forced abortion and sterilization in Shandong. A program of forced abortion means that women are being dragged from their homes against their will. They are being forced to have abortions, sometimes late-term — imagine that — with some women reportedly dying in the process. Now this is true horror. And in this insane world, this man, Chen, who was helping these women — who was living by some of the most simple, brave and universally admired values – values that we teach our children every day, and helping our fellow man – for this, this man was imprisoned and beaten for over four years.”
Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, stated, “Chen Guangcheng is a towering champion of human rights, who with incomparable courage, stood alone against the Chinese totalitarian regime. The women of China and the world will long remember his bravery on their behalf.”
“At the same time,” Littlejohn added, “Christian Bale has become a human rights champion in his own right. He risked his safety to visit Chen last December. His attack by Chinese thugs brought visibility to Chen’s case. This visibility greatly helped the international effort to free Chen. And Bale is brave to condemn the practice of forced abortion in China. Women’s Rights Without Frontiers salutes both men.”
Set to air on the National Geographic Channel two days before the Presidential election, “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden,” is billed as the “real inside story behind the manhunt and raid that took down al-Qaeda’s notorious leader, told through the eyes of the military and intelligence teams involved.”
But rather than focusing on the heroes who carried out the mission, President Obama now takes center stage in the film, with voice-overs, still photographs and archival footage being added after “SEAL Team Six” was purchased in May for a reported $2.5 million by Harvey Weinstein, a big supporter of the President.
Not only that, Meghan O’Hara – a producer for Obama supporter Michael Moore’s films “Fahrenheit 9/11,” “Sicko” and “Bowling for Columbine” – was the one hired to gather that extra footage.
A report in the New York Times said the new footage serves to “strengthen Mr. Obama’s role and provide a window into decision-making in the White House,” a move the report says will “bolster claims that the 90-minute film amounts to a political stunt.”
Indeed FrontPageMag.com called it an “Obama Infomercial From Michael Moore’s Favorite Producer” which they say is essentially “about the man that sat on his ass while they (SEAL Team Six) risked their lives.”
The additional material will definitely not include footage of President Obama speaking at a $35,000 per person fundraiser this summer at the Connecticut home of the movie’s producer, Harvey Weinstein.
A group of ex-soldiers are buying TV ads attacking President Barack Obama that will run during the first showing of a pro-Obama movie created by his Hollywood backers.
The group, dubbed OPSEC, is buying the anti-Obama ads on local cable systems in swing-state cities like Tampa, Orlando, Miami, Denver, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Raleigh, Cincinnati and Richmond.
“There is nothing acceptable about playing politics with national security and American lives,” says Scott Taylor, former Navy SEAL and president of OPSEC, in an voice-over on the ad. “Aren’t some things more important than politics?”
Neil Armstrong was a great American: hard-working, honest, humble, a man of strong convictions, faith, and integrity. He was raised at a time when Americans were taught to love God and appreciate the heritage, freedom and opportunity of our exceptional nation.
He became a world-renown figure as the first man to walk on the surface of the moon in July 1969 – the face of America and mankind’s most incredible technological achievement. Yet, he never forgot that he was merely the most visible member of the extraordinary team that worked tirelessly to make that moment possible, and his experience only gave him greater awe for the Creator of the heavens and earth, who had given human beings the intelligence and capacity to accomplish such amazing feats.
Neil Armstrong was a quiet self-described nerdy engineer who became a global hero when as a steely-nerved pilot he made “one giant leap for mankind” with a small step on to the moon. The modest man who had people on Earth entranced and awed from almost a quarter million miles away has died. He was 82.
Armstrong died following complications resulting from cardiovascular procedures, a statement Saturday from his family said. It didn’t say where he died.
Armstrong commanded the Apollo 11 spacecraft that landed on the moon July 20, 1969, capping the most daring of the 20th century’s scientific expeditions. His first words after setting foot on the surface are etched in history books and the memories of those who heard them in a live broadcast.
“That’s one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind,” Armstrong said.
In those first few moments on the moon, during the climax of heated space race with the then-Soviet Union, Armstrong stopped in what he called “a tender moment” and left a patch commemorate NASA astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts who had died in action.
“It was special and memorable but it was only instantaneous because there was work to do,” Armstrong told an Australian television interviewer in 2012.
Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin spent nearly three hours walking on the lunar surface, collecting samples, conducting experiments and taking photographs.
“The sights were simply magnificent, beyond any visual experience that I had ever been exposed to,” Armstrong once said.
The moonwalk marked America’s victory in the Cold War space race that began Oct. 4, 1957, with the launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1, a 184-pound satellite that sent shock waves around the world.
Although he had been a Navy fighter pilot, a test pilot for NASA’s forerunner and an astronaut, Armstrong never allowed himself to be caught up in the celebrity and glamor of the space program.
“I am, and ever will be, a white socks, pocket protector, nerdy engineer,” he said in February 2000 in one of his rare public appearances. “And I take a substantial amount of pride in the accomplishments of my profession.”
A man who kept away from cameras, Armstrong went public in 2010 with his concerns about President Barack Obama’s space policy that shifted attention away from a return to the moon and emphasized private companies developing spaceships. He testified before Congress and in an email to The Associated Press, Armstrong said he had “substantial reservations,” and along with more than two dozen Apollo-era veterans, he signed a letter calling the plan a “misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future.”
Armstrong’s modesty and self-effacing manner never faded.
Shortly after the men landed, Aldrin radioed NASA and asked for a moment of silence so that “each person listening in (could) contemplate the events of the last few hours.” During this quiet period, Aldrin opened little plastic packages containing bread and wine, silently read a few verses of Scripture and received communion. “It was interesting to think that the first liquid ever poured on the moon and the first food eaten there were the Christian communion,” Aldrin said later.
Only the pastor at Aldrin’s Houston Presbyterian church—and a few NASA personnel—knew that communion was happening on the moon. Why? Because the famous atheist, Madelyn Murray O’Hare, was involved in a legal fight protesting the reading of Scripture by the Apollo 8 crew. To broadcast a private communion in a very public arena might create even more challenges, and dull the luster of this accomplishment. So Aldrin was asked to “keep it quiet,” which he did.
It was twenty years before the secret was revealed.
“The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.” ~ Milton Friedman
It’s a tragedy that Milton Friedman—born 100 years ago on July 31—did not live long enough to combat the big-government ideas that have formed the core of Obamanomics. It’s perhaps more tragic that our current president, who attended the University of Chicago where Friedman taught for decades, never fell under the influence of the world’s greatest champion of the free market. Imagine how much better things would have turned out, for Mr. Obama and the country.
[…] In the 1960s, Friedman famously explained that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” If the government spends a dollar, that dollar has to come from producers and workers in the private economy. There is no magical “multiplier effect” by taking from productive Peter and giving to unproductive Paul. As obvious as that insight seems, it keeps being put to the test. Obamanomics may be the most expensive failed experiment in free-lunch economics in American history.
Equally illogical is the superstition that government can create prosperity by having Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke print more dollars. In the very short term, Friedman proved, excess money fools people with an illusion of prosperity. But the market quickly catches on, and there is no boost in output, just higher prices.
Next to Ronald Reagan, in the second half of the 20th century there was no more influential voice for economic freedom world-wide than Milton Friedman. Small in stature but a giant intellect, he was the economist who saved capitalism by dismembering the ideas of central planning when most of academia was mesmerized by the creed of government as savior.
Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for 1976—at a time when almost all the previous prizes had gone to socialists. This marked the first sign of the intellectual comeback of free-market economics since the 1930s, when John Maynard Keynes hijacked the profession. Friedman’s 1963 book “A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960,” written with Anna Schwartz (who died on June 21), was a masterpiece and changed the way we think about the role of money.
More influential than Friedman’s scholarly writings was his singular talent for communicating the virtues of the free market to a mass audience. His two best-selling books, “Capitalism and Freedom” (1962) and “Free to Choose: A Personal Statement” (1980), are still wildly popular. His videos on YouTube on issues like the morality of capitalism are brilliant and timeless.
In being able to express himself at both the highest level of his profession and also at a level that the average person could readily understand, Milton Friedman was like the economist whose theories and persona were most different from his own — John Maynard Keynes.
Like many, if not most, people who became prominent as opponents of the left, Professor Friedman began on the left. Decades later, looking back at a statement of his own from his early years, he said: “The most striking feature of this statement is how thoroughly Keynesian it is.”
No one converted Milton Friedman, either in economics or in his views on social policy. His own research, analysis and experience converted him.
As a professor, he did not attempt to convert students to his political views. I made no secret of the fact that I was a Marxist when I was a student in Professor Friedman’s course, but he made no effort to change my views. He once said that anybody who was easily converted was not worth converting.
I was still a Marxist after taking Professor Friedman’s class. Working as an economist in the government converted me.
[…] Although Milton Friedman became someone regarded as a conservative icon, he considered himself a liberal in the original sense of the word — someone who believes in the liberty of the individual, free of government intrusions. Far from trying to conserve things as they are, he wrote a book titled “Tyranny of the Status Quo.”
Milton Friedman proposed radical changes in policies and institution ranging from the public schools to the Federal Reserve. It is liberals who want to conserve and expand the welfare state.
China’s Communist Party doesn’t care about human rights or the rights of women. All they care about is how they’ve been embarrassed by their evil deeds being brought to light, and they will do everything they can get away with to punish the whistle blowers.
The family of a woman who was victimized by a shocking forced abortion at seven months of pregnancy now faces harassment and potential violence.
As LifeNews reported, Chinese officials apologized to a woman who was forced to undergo an abortion at seven months of pregnancy and reportedly suspended three family planning officials after gruesome photos of the mother and her dead unborn baby went viral on the Internet. Now, human rights campaigners say the woman and her family face more persecution.
Kat Lewis of the Chinese human rights watchdog All Girls Allowed, informed LifeNews late Monday that friends of the woman, Feng Jianmei, told her that local officials have drastically changed their tone following the apology.
“They ran her husband, Deng Jiyuan, out of the village and we haven’t yet been able to reach him. They’ve also labeled Ms. Feng a “traitor,” and posted signs outside her home in warning,” Lewis explained. “In the photo right, some men in the village are carrying banners that urge others to “beat the traitor mercilessly” and ‘drive them out of the village.”
“Sometimes it’s hard to believe this is happening—and just as hard to believe that officials have largely succeeded in keeping it quiet,” she said.
In the wake of international coverage of the gruesome forced abortion committed on Chinese woman Feng Jianmei, another woman has stepped forward to share her story of the brutality of China’s one-child policy.
Feng Jianmei’s story burst into the international spotlight earlier this month after a photograph of her lying next to the corpse of her forcibly aborted 7-month-old unborn baby began circulating on the internet. While Chinese officials issued an “apology” to Feng for the abortion, reports since indicate that she and her family are being hounded by the government, while she has been labeled a “traitor.”
Now Zhang Wen Fang, 43, has risked retribution from the government by stepping forward to tell Chai Ling of the human rights organization All Girls Allowed about how she lost both her baby and her livelihood when officials forced her into a hospital for surgery four years ago.
According to Zhang, on May 23rd, 2008, when she was nine months pregnant, at least eleven Family Planning officials entered her home while her husband was away. Eight or nine men and three women dragged her into a van and took her to the People’s Hospital, where they induced labor despite her protests. At 8 p.m. they tried to inject an unknown chemical into her stomach, and Zhang resisted: “I pulled the needle out,” she said. “But then six men held me down so that they could give me the injection with a second needle.” Afterwards, they kept her in a room and did not let her family know where she was.
On May 25th, Zhang began to suffer contractions and then her water broke. She remembers feeling panic: “I was saying, ‘Help, help!’ but they ignored me and wouldn’t even let me out of the room.” Shortly after, she lost consciousness.
When Zhang woke up on May 26th, she was in extreme pain—and her baby was gone. “When I asked the officials and doctors what happened to the baby, if it was alive or dead, they would not tell me.” Chai Ling asked Zhang how she felt after the ordeal, and she broke down in tears. “I often have dreams about the baby,” said Zhang. “In those dreams, a child is looking at me and crying, asking, ‘Mommy, can you save me?’”
But officials did not stop there. They also removed Zhang’s uterus. The next morning, they forced Zhang’s mother to sign a form accepting that her daughter’s uterus was gone. Subsequent medical examinations revealed that the hospital had also removed her cervix, fallopian tubes, and right ovary.
Before the incident, Zhang was an entrepreneur. She began a successful trucking business and was making 1,000 RMB ($157 USD) per day. But she suffered major complications when doctors removed her uterus and is now confined to a wheelchair with severe kidney malfunction. She had to close her business because she can no longer move freely, and her marriage also broke down under the strain. “After suffering much harassment and beatings from the Family Planning Committee people, my husband left me,” said Zhang.
Zhang tried to petition the government about the incident, but Mr. Guo, the Deputy Minister of the Family Planning Committee in Hong Hu, was reportedly defiant. “I removed the uteruses of one thousand women, and no one dared to say a word to me,” Zhang reports him as saying.