Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Matrix Programming 101: Destroy Logic
 by / Personal Liberty Digest

Matrix Programming 101: Destroy Logic
PHOTOS.COM
Once upon a time, in medieval universities, new students enrolled in the trivium. It was the foundation curriculum. It was required. Its parts were: grammar, logic and rhetoric.

Grammar: the interior construction of language; the parts of speech; the proper agreement of parts of speech.

Logic: the valid and invalid connections in the course of an argument; the method of proper reasoning; the deductive links in a chain, at the end of which is a conclusion.

Rhetoric: oral presentation; the use of language to make a case; the capacity to persuade, even in the face of counter-argument.

Today, the subject matter of the trivium is not only downplayed. It has been shattered.

This article focuses on the death of logic.

When the intensive handling of ideas is seen as a laughable goal for education, indoctrination is plugged in as the only alternative.

The mind of the student shifts from being an active force to being a container.

The destruction of logic is a conscious strategy, a game plan. Its goal is to pervert rational thought at its core and insert ideology masked as insight.

The game plan was cooked up a long time ago at the Carnegie Foundation, where the undermining of American history was the No. 1 pastime.

Instead of merely erasing knowledge of American history, it was decided that the basic way ideas are studied should be torpedoed.

The actual meaning of an idea was firmly placed on the back burner. Front and center would be: Relentlessly assess and attack the people who forwarded those ideas.

And sure enough, this strategy has gained great prominence.

The revered Founders of the Republic? Shysters, con men, slaveholders, monopolists who saw rebellion from England as the way to win greater power for themselves at the expense of everyone else living on American soil.

Therefore, the argument continues — and this is crucial — the Founders’ ideas, as expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution, were rotten to the core. The ideas can be dismissed out of hand as coming from “a bad source.”

If you want to see that sleight-of-hand trick in action, just visit a few American studies classes in universities and catch the wave.

Ideas no longer need to be judged on their sense, merit and alignment with basic principles. Nor are they judged by their position in a well-formed argument. All that is out. Now, you have to “look to the source” and make all your decisions based on “who these people really were who expressed the ideas.”

And since that’s the case, learning to think or reason is unnecessary.

New education, then, once you strip away the old essentials, is really nothing more than learning who the bad guys were and the good guys were. This can be taught by ideologically motivated professors in a few hours.

In logic, this used to be called the fallacious ad hominem argument. Now, it isn’t called anything. It’s praised as the insightful way to do intellectual business.

In the case of the Founders’ ideas, we have, among others: the free market, individual freedom, private property and severely limited central government.

No need to examine these concepts. No need to assess, for instance, the success of the free market — despite its corruption by criminals and monopolists — in providing a better standard of living for millions of people. Forget it. All you have to know is that the free market was proposed by phony American aristocrats who wanted more power for themselves. On that basis alone, you can reject the free market.

How about private property? Same thing. The same phony Founders put that idea forward; therefore, it must be wrong.

Thomas Jefferson? He owned slaves. Therefore, as the night follows day, everything he said or thought or did was wrong.

See how easy education has become?

Individual freedom? Another absurdity proposed by the crooked Founders. Reject it. Don’t bother thinking about what that freedom has allowed you to express. Who cares?

So, one by one, these core ideas fall to the ax; and criticizing America becomes destroying America.

7 Political Questions for Republicans Who Support Amnesty

7 Political Questions for Republicans Who Support Amnesty

Republicans who support amnesty are like global warming alarmists. They can't answer the most basic questions about what they believe. Since the Republican Party is now once again considering going to war with itself over amnesty instead of trying to move the ball forward for conservatism, it seems like a good time to ask some of the crucial questions that always seem to be conspicuously ignored because the pro-amnesty side has no answers.

1) How many net votes would the GOP lose if illegal immigrants become citizens? Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney 73% to 27% with Hispanic voters. Given that illegals are poorer, less educated and less law abiding than Hispanic Americans, we'd be VERY lucky to get more than 20% of their votes. So, if there are 12 million illegals, that means Democrats would have 9.6 million new potential voters while the GOP could add 2.4 million, leaving a 7.2 million vote gain for the Democrats. When Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama by a little less than 5 million votes, how can allowing the Democrats to pad their totals by another 7.2 million potential votes help the GOP?

2) Why don't Hispanic voters already support the Republican Party since Reagan backed an amnesty in 1986? The only way the GOP could be helped politically by backing amnesty would be if our numbers with Hispanic Americans went through the roof as a result of the policy. Well, guess what? This concept has been tested in the real world. In 1984, Ronald Reagan received 37% of the Hispanic vote. Then, in 1986, he backed a "one-time" amnesty for illegal aliens. The result? In 1988, George Bush received 30% of the Hispanic vote. If the exact same thing happened again with 12 million illegal immigrants, it would be like the crack of doom for the conservative movement.

3) Doesn't the GOP's experience with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 suggest Democrats would get all the credit for an amnesty? The Republican Party has ALWAYS been the party of Civil Rights while the Democrats were the party of slavery, the KKK, poll taxes and Jim Crow laws. However, diehard racist Lyndon Johnson backed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for political reasons. Percentage wise, more Republicans in Congress voted for it than Democrats. Yet, who got all the credit? The Democrats. This time around, we also have a Democrat President while percentage wise, Democrats would support amnesty wholeheartedly while the majority of Republicans would oppose it. Why wouldn’t Hispanic Americans rightfully give Democrats credit for the amnesty instead of Republicans?

4) Why do Democrats want to make illegal aliens citizens if it will help Republicans? We've often heard that Hispanic Americans are "natural" Republican voters -- and maybe they are. It would be nice if someone, make that ANYONE in the Republican Party would abandon gimmicks like amnesty and actually do real, sustained outreach to Hispanic voters to convince them to vote for us. That being said, since 1980, Republican candidates for President have captured somewhere between 21% and 40% of the Hispanic vote. In other words, whether immigration was a hot issue or not, whether the GOP backed amnesty or not, or whether the candidate was Ronald Reagan or Mitt Romney, the Democrats have taken at least 60% of the Hispanic vote. That means what we're really debating is how many more people we're going to add to a demographic group that the Democrats are practically guaranteed to win. It only makes sense politically for Democrats to back that policy. Republicans? Now that's a lot harder to explain.

5) Is making 12 million illegals American citizens good for the country? That may be a quaint, seldom asked question in Washington D.C. these days, but the voters still seem to care about whether policies help or hurt the country. While immigration is certainly good for America, it's worth asking: Why would we want 12 million illegal manual laborers as American citizens as opposed to legally bringing in more scientists, engineers and computer programmers? At a time when 47% of Americans aren't paying income taxes, what percentage of these illegals would be contributing more to the tax base than they'd take out in services and welfare programs if they were allowed to become American citizens? Very, very few -- after all, don't the proponents of illegal immigration claim that they're doing crummy jobs for low pay that Americans just won't do (Yes, that's a phony argument, but still…). Furthermore, given how poor the job market is today, does it really make sense to give 12 million foreigners free reign to compete for jobs with American citizens who are desperate for work? Whatever happened to American politicians putting America first? Moreover, if we have a second "one time" amnesty, why wouldn't we have a third, a fourth, or a fifth? Obviously, the Democrats will want as many amnesties as possible for political purposes and the corrupt businesses that make a killing on illegal immigrant labor while passing on the costs to everyone else will keep pushing their stooges in the GOP to bring in more illegals. All that is aside from the fact that the moment you make 12 million illegals American citizens, both parties will have to pay attention to them. Naturally, the first thing they're going to want is to legally or illegally bring as many of their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, cousins and friends as they can to the United States. The first amnesty covered 2 million illegals. This one would be 12 million. It wouldn't be a surprise if the next one is 20-30 million.

6) Is it worth having a terrible 2014? Typically, incumbents face a "sixth year curse" that's phenomenal for the opposition. "In nine of the ten sixth-year Congressional elections since 1910, the president’s party has lost seats in the Senate and in the House. The average loss in the Senate has been 8.6 seats and in the House it was 30 seats." Is it worth putting all that in jeopardy by starting the same sort of interparty war that helped drive George W. Bush's approval rating down in the twenties? Do you want ugly, amnesty-driven primary challenges all across the country with millions of conservatives staying home because they're disgusted about being sold out by the Republican Party yet again? No matter how many things the Republican Party does right over the next two years, it's entirely possible that pursuing amnesty could put the Senate out of reach in 2014. Is it really worth it to give the Democrats their extra 7.2 million votes?

7) Politically, doesn't it make a lot more sense to take a security first position and do outreach? There's a reason that even John McCain started claiming he had a security first position on illegal immigration: It's because it makes perfect sense politically. We have almost universal agreement that the border should be secured. So, why not build the fence, get e-verify or the equivalent working and secure the border first? If the border (and our VISA system) is secure, then we don't have to worry about more amnesties. If the illegals that are here are locked out of employment, they'll start to go home. Although it's highly unlikely that we'd have any sort of real labor shortage driven by illegals, if we do, we could always pass a guest worker program. The end result of all of this would be that the venom would be taken out of the issue. No one would have to worry about whether politicians are telling the truth about securing the border because it would be done. Many of the illegals that are here would self-deport without work and the less illegals that are here, the easier it would be to come to a compromise over giving them some kind of legal status. There's a world of difference between dealing with 2 million people here illegally as Reagan did and 12 million, like we have today. In the interim, the GOP could start doing something it should have been doing all along, which is Hispanic outreach. Waiting for Hispanic voters to come to the Republican Party hasn't ever worked and probably never will. It's time for the GOP to go to the mountain instead of waiting for the mountain to come to us.

Obama's Anti-Zionism

Obama's Anti-Zionism 

By: Daniel Pipes  / Townhall Columnist

Were Barack Obama re-elected, I predicted two months before the Nov. 2012 presidential vote, "the coldest treatment of Israel ever by a U.S. president will follow." Well, election's over and that cold treatment is firmly in place. Obama has signaled in the past two months what lies ahead by:
  • Choosing three senior figures – John Kerry for State, John Brennan for the CIA, and Chuck Hagel for Defense – who range from clueless to hostile about Israel.
  • Approving a huge gift of advanced weapons - 20 F-16 fighter jets and 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks - to the Islamist government in Egypt despite the fact that its president, Mohamed Morsi, has becoming increasingly despotic and calls Jews "blood-suckers, … warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs."
  • Reiterating the patronizing 35-year old tactic relied upon by anti-Israel types to condemn Israeli policies while pretending to be concerned for the country's welfare: "Israel doesn't know what its own best interests are."
  • Ignoring evidence of Cairo importing Scud missile parts from North Korea.
  • Rebuffing the 239 House members who called for closing the PLO office in Washington in response to the PLO's drive for state-observer status at the United Nations.
Asked about Obama's nomination of Hagel, Ed Koch, the former New York City mayor who, despite his astringent criticism of Obama nonetheless endorsed him for re-election, offered an astonishing response: "I thought that there would come a time when [Obama] would renege on … his support of Israel [but this] comes a little earlier than I thought." Even Obama's pro-Israel supporters expected him to turn against the Jewish state!

These anti-Israel steps raise worries because they jibe with Obama's early anti-Zionist views. We lack specifics, but we know that he studied with, befriended, socialized, and encouraged Palestinian extremists.

For example:
A picture from 1998 shows him listening reverentially to anti-Israel theorist Edward Said. Obama sat idly by as speakers at an event in 2003 celebrating Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO public relations operative, accused Israel of waging a terrorist campaign against Palestinians and compared "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden. Ali Abunimah, an anti-Israel agitator, commended Obama in 2004 for "his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict," code words for distancing the U.S. government from Israel. In turn, Obama praised Abunimah for his obsessively anti-Israel articles in the Chicago Tribune, urging him to "Keep up the good work!"

Abunimah also reveals that, starting in 2002, Obama toned down his anti-Israel rhetoric "as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene" and Obama made this explicit two years later, apologizing to Abunimah: "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front."

And Obama dutifully made the requisite policy changes, if in a cramped and reluctant manner ("I have to deal with him every day" he whined about Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu). He supported Israel in its 2008-09 and 2012 wars with Hamas. His administration called the Goldstone Report "deeply flawed" and backed Israel at the United Nations with lobbying efforts, votes, and vetoes. Armaments flowed. The Israeli exception to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remained in place. When Ankara canceled Israeli participation in the 2009 "Anatolian Eagle" air force exercise, the U.S. government pulled out in solidarity. If Obama created crises over Israeli housing starts, he eventually allowed these to simmer down.

Returning to the present: Netanyahu's likely re-election as Israeli prime minister this week will mean continuity of leadership in both countries. But that does not imply continuity in U.S.-Israel relations; Obama, freed from re-election constraints, can finally express his early anti-Zionist views after a decade of political positioning. Watch for a markedly worse tone from the second Obama administration toward the third Netanyahu government.

Recalling what Obama said privately in March 2012 to the then-Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev ("This is my last election and after my election, I have more flexibility"), there is every reason to think that, having won that re-election, things have now "calmed down" and, after a decade of caution, he can "be more up front" to advance the Palestinian cause against Israel.

I also predicted in September that "Israel's troubles will really begin" should Obama win a second term.

These have begun; Jerusalem, brace for a rough four years.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a proud Zionist

MLK.jpgFrom Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer     


Martin Luther King, Jr., was an opponent of the jihad against Israel. While there are some disputed quotations circulating in this connection, here are some key and authenticated MLK quotes. Take them to heart today:
"I cannot stand idly by, even though I happen to live in the United States and even though I happen to be an American Negro and not be concerned about what happens to the Jews in Soviet Russia. For what happens to them happens to me and you, and we must be concerned." 
"Israel's right to exist as a state in security is uncontestable."
"Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality."
"I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews -- because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all."
"When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism."

McDonald's to pay $700,000 in halal lawsuit

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


"There was no evidence that the chain set out to deceive customers." So why the $700,000 payout?
Pamela Geller asks: "So meat producers in the US who are selling unlabeled meat that is halal should be the target of a multi-million dollar lawsuit, no?"

"McDonald's settles Mich. suit over Islamic diet," by Jeff Karoub for the Associated Press, January 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):
DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — McDonald's and one of its franchise owners agreed to pay $700,000 to members of the Muslim community to settle allegations a Detroit-area restaurant falsely advertised its food as being prepared according to Islamic dietary law. 
McDonald's and Finley's Management Co. agreed Friday to the tentative settlement, with that money to be shared by Dearborn Heights resident Ahmed Ahmed, a Detroit health clinic, the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn and lawyers.
Ahmed's attorney, Kassem Dakhlallah, told The Associated Press on Monday that he's "thrilled" with the preliminary deal that's expected to be finalized March 1. McDonald's and Finley's Management deny any liability but say the settlement is in their best interests.
The lawsuit alleged that Ahmed bought a chicken sandwich in September 2011 at a Dearborn McDonald's but found it wasn't halal — meaning it didn't meet Islamic requirements for preparing food. Islam forbids consumption of pork, and God's name must be invoked before an animal providing meat for consumption is slaughtered.
Dakhlallah said there are only two McDonald's in the United States that sell halal products and both are in Dearborn, which has one of the nation's largest Arab and Muslim communities.
Overall, the Detroit area is home to about 150,000 Muslims of many different ethnicities.
The locations advertise that they exclusively sell halal Chicken McNuggets and McChicken sandwiches and they have to get those products from an approved halal provider, Dakhlallah said. He said there was no evidence of problems on the production side, but he alleges that the Dearborn location on Ford Road sold non-halal products when it ran out of halal.
Dakhlallah said he was approached by Ahmed, and they conducted an investigation. A letter sent to McDonald's Corp. and Finley's Management by Dakhlallah's firm said Ahmed had "confirmed from a source familiar with the inventory" that the restaurant had sold non-halal food "on many occasions."
After they received no response to the letter, Dakhlallah said, they filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court in November 2011 as part of a class action.
The AP left messages Monday afternoon for attorneys representing the corporation and the franchise.
In the settlement notice, Finley's Management said it "has a carefully designed system for preparing and serving halal such that halal chicken products are labeled, stored, refrigerated, and cooked in halal-only areas." The company added it trains its employees on preparing halal food and "requires strict adherence to the process."
He said although Ahmed believes McDonald's was negligent, there was no evidence that the chain set out to deceive customers....

Is President Obama Liberalism's Gorbachev?

Angelo Codevilla has spent more than his share of time as a sojourner among America’s ruling class. He was a key part of the Reagan transition and point-man in the Gipper’s efforts to transform both the foreign and the intelligence services. Then later he served as a professor of International Relations at prestigious Boston University. From this vantage point, Codevilla was able to get a close look not only at the international relations elite, but at the entire American ruling class, from which the former are overwhelmingly drawn. I had the honor of sitting across a Skype line with Angelo Codevilla recently to talk about his views on foreign policy and on the ruling class in general.

As the ruling class wannabes, has beens, might’ve beens and I ams gather for today’s inauguration ceremony to offer laud and narcissistic supply to the most perfect exemplar of the ruling class that they have ever seen, Codevilla’s observations about the rapidly imploding ratio of competence to confidence among America’s elite are a breath of contrarian sanity.

The discussion is available here. Although the first section is devoted to foreign affairs and the second to the ruling class, this column will focus on the second of the two topics. What follows are my notes from the wide ranging and fascinating discussion. I hope you won’t limit yourself to my jottings about the conversation, but go on to the conversation itself. The following is a collection of paraphrased quotes from Codevilla.

· The Ruling Class of America is not up to the challenge of leading America in the world, partly because it has engaged for several generations now in a process of reverse merit selection.

· Our ruling class has practiced negative selection for several generations now. I point you to a very, very interesting piece of research by a man called Ron Unz.

· Ron Unz, a wealthy entrepreneur, has just conducted interesting research on the admissions policies of America’s elite universities and has found that there is an iron quota against Asians in these universities: a limit of roughly 16 percent in these universities, even though the proportion of Asians relative to other ethnic groups among high achievers in the country has risen…they account for something like 40 percent of high achievers in the national merit scholar competition, national math and science competitions, etc.

· What you’ve got here is a ruling class in these universities which has perpetuated itself and has become more like itself, and has excluded alien elements. The element most excluded happens to be also the most numerous, which is to say ‘white non-Jewish Americans,’ and hence the overwhelming majority of high achievers. Yet the percentage of white non-Jewish admittees has continued to drop; there is especially a virtual absence of Christians among these admittees. The point being that this ruling class, which is increasingly styling itself as meritocratic, is anything but meritocratic and has renewed itself by cooption.

· This has nothing to do with fairness; this is not a moral argument I’m making at all…I’m saying that the people running this country are ever less competent to do their job. They are ever less able to do whatever the hell they do.

· They are ever more confident because they live in a bubble. They congratulate themselves. They give prizes to one another; they tell each other how smart they are.

· Having been a college professor for many years I saw students become ever more confident of their own intelligence and their own preparation while they were becoming less able to do the most elementary things.
· They are becoming more insular, less bright and less demanding of themselves.

· That’s what happens so often to ruling classes: they protect themselves against their competitors. Their greatest interest is in perpetuating their own cushy positions.

· Let me give you one example, look at Mikhail Gorbachev. Here was a man who was invested with total power; a system had grown up built by Stalin which gave all power to the general secretary; this general secretary had risen in a system which had prized people like himself who believed their own press clippings and who was literally out of touch with what was happening. So here was a man who took into his hands all the levers of power nd pulled them all in the wrong direction and brought the whole system crashing down without knowing what he was doing.

· The Soviet system was completely closed. Our system becomes more closed as the years go on….today’s American ruling class differs from even a generation ago…now they come to the ruling class almost exclusively from the most prestigious universities and through institutions which are connected to government. Very few people now rise independent of the ruling class itself: you have to rise through the ruling class to get to the ruling class…

· Given this kind of increasingly closed ruling class, given its tendency to go easy on itself…given the things that it does to guard itself against infiltration from the rest of the country…you have a class which is becoming ever less able to meet its basic responsibilities at home and abroad.

Me: Is Obama American Liberalism’s Gorbachev?

· The point here is that one part of the American body politic, that part which is connected to government, is well represented politically. The Democratic Party is a good and faithful representative of that sector of American life…those who are not part of the ruling class do not have a political vehicle. There are roughly 3/4s of Democrats who say they are happy with their party, while only 1/4 of Republicans are happy with their party.

· Obama, the main thing that he has done is to denigrate the country class, to denigrate everybody else.

· In what way is Obama like Gorbachev: if they are alike at all, they are alike in that Obama has now made it perfectly clear to the country class how alien is the ruling class. Never has the ruling class been so obviously alien to the rest of the country.

· In the election of 2012 the country class was demoralized. In this the Republican Party helped. You had a candidate who did not in any way defend the country class in the accusations brought against it.

· When you see a horse that is misbehaving you shouldn’t say, “Oh, what bad horse,” you should say, “What a bad rider.” This country, this wonderful horse of ours, has had a bunch of bad riders and the horse is gonna buck. May the next rider be worthy of the horse.

The paraphrased notes from above capture only a portion of our discussion about the ruling class, and none of our discussion about international relations. The latter topic deserves a separate column all together. But regarding the former topic, the ruling class: I came away from the interview with an odd feeling of exhilaration. America’s ruling class seems to this economist’s eye to contain the classic signs of a bubble: arrogance, narcissism, opulence backed by nothing other than the ongoing willingness of the patsies to go along with the con. And it is a con, as in confidence game. Our ruling class rules on the basis of sheer, unearned self-confidence. They are not up to running the nation, its economy, its markets, its school system, its philanthropies or its foreign affairs. It is a ruling class of pygmies who walk on stilts and call themselves giants. They are not giants and the moment the rest of us realize this, the long con is over.