Conservative Libertarian Outpost

“Military success on the ground now demands that we expand the rules of engagement to allow our troops to shoot more of the jihadists, disarm the militias, train even more Iraqis troops to take over security more quickly, and seal the Syrian and Iranian borders. This solution, of course, is easier said than done. The military must use more force against those who are destroying Iraqi democracy at precisely the time the American public has become exasperated with both the length and human cost of the war. Imagine this war as a sort of grotesque race. The jihadists and sectarians win if they can kill enough Americans to demoralize us enough that we flee before Iraqis and Afghans stabilize their newfound freedom. They lose if they can’t. Prosperity, security and liberty are the death knell to radical Islam. It’s that elemental.” —Victor Davis Hanson

The above from “The Patriot Post” Patriot Vol. 07 No. 02 

Why is it that the leftist elites cannot understand such simple things? Pelosi et al, all say that they are not in favor of surrender in Iraq. Yet? They constantly place our troops in an un-winnable meat grinder situation. I say turn the troops loose. Get rid of un-realistic Rules of Engagement that get our people killed, while at the same time insuring defeat. The Republican leadership is guilty of doing the same things, so this is not a partisan thing. Many years ago there was a story written in a national magazine. Life Magazine possibly; called  “The Politics of Defeat” or something much the same. Different war, same ideology.

Brought to you by the Military of the United States of America. An all too real option for Jihadist looking for a simple path to 72 virgins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmlCmmtCeI0

What Real War Looks Like By Elan Journo The Iraq Study Group has issued many specific recommendations, but the options boil down to a maddeningly limited range: pull out or send more troops to do democracy-building and, either way, “engage” the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria. Missing from the list is the one option our self-defense demands: a war to defeat the enemy. If you think we’ve already tried this option and failed, think again. Washington’s campaign in Iraq looks nothing like the war necessary for our self-defense. What does such a war look like? America’s security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives–and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression–by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead. Those who say this is a “new kind of conflict” against a “faceless enemy” are wrong. The enemy Washington evasively calls “terrorism” is actually an ideologically inspired political movement: Islamic totalitarianism. It seeks to subjugate the West under a totalitarian Islamic regime by means of terrorism, negotiation, war–anything that will win its jihad. The movement’s inspiration, its first triumph, its standard-bearer, is the theocracy of Iran. Iran’s regime has, for decades, used terrorist proxies to attack America. It openly seeks nuclear weapons and zealously sponsors and harbors jihadists. Without Iran’s support, legions of holy warriors would be untrained, unarmed, unmotivated, impotent. Destroying Islamic totalitarianism requires a punishing military onslaught to end its primary state representative and demoralize its supporters. We need to deploy all necessary force to destroy Iran’s ability to fight, while minimizing our own casualties. We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us. This is how America and its Allies defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran’s totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile. We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless–it is a tragically meek pretense at war. Consider what Washington has done. The Islamist regime in Iran remains untouched, fomenting terrorism. (And now our leaders hope to “engage” Iran diplomatically.) We went to battle not with theocratic Iran, but with the secular dictatorship of Iraq. And the campaign there was not aimed at crushing whatever threat Hussein’s regime posed to us. “Shock and awe” bombing never materialized. Our brave and capable forces were hamstrung: ordered not to bomb key targets such as power plants and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers–a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission. U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to “sacrifice for the liberty of strangers,” putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington’s self-crippling policies. (Perversely, some want even more Americans tossed into this quagmire.) Bush did all this to bring Iraqis the vote. Any objective assessment of the Middle East would have told one who would win elections, given the widespread popular support for Islamic totalitarianism. Iraqis swept to power a pro-Islamist leadership intimately tied to Iran. The most influential figure in Iraqi politics is now Moktadr al-Sadr, an Islamist warlord lusting after theocratic rule and American blood. When asked whether he would accept just such an outcome from the elections, Bush said that of course he would, because “democracy is democracy.” No war that ushers Islamists into political office has U.S. self-defense as its goal. This war has been worse than doing nothing, because it has galvanized our enemy to believe its success more likely than ever–even as it has drained Americans’ will to fight. Washington’s feeble campaign demonstrates the ruinous effects of refusing to assert our self-interest and defend our freedom. It is past time to consider our only moral and practical option: end the senseless sacrifice of our soldiers–and let them go to war. Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (www.AynRand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand–author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

While I am not 100 percent in agreement with the above I do have to support it in a general sense. What would a viable solution to Islamic aggression be? Americans spent billions of dollars developing a nuclear strike capability. Why not use it when an identifiable major threat to our existence can be targeted? Produce evidence that is incontrovertible, say in the case of Iran. Tell friendly nations to get their diplomatic corp out and any resistance forces within to get very busy very fast and that failing turn the damned place into radioactive glass. The proceed in the same manner to the next nation that sponsors our eradication.

Some will undoubtedly say that I am proposing a bloodthirsty solution. Admittedly, it is. The question being whose blood will spill? Theirs in a nuclear flash? Or ours via the sawing off of our heads? I seem to prefer them to us being killed. Imagine that?

Throughout much of the blogosphere the situation in Iraq is the hot topic that just will not go away. School shootings, political peccadilloes, social unrest and a host of other things all eventually go by the wayside as this venture into a harsh land tugs at our collective psyche and drags us back like modern day Sirens of the sea. First, what should be considered? The basics that most of us are more than familiar with at this point. Later we can delve into wave effects, historical possibilities, and just plain opinions.

• One of the most heinous killers of our times has been taken down along with his insane sons and regimes.
• A plus that many seem to pass by is that the magnet effect for terrorist’s that Iraq has become keeps them at least to a degree in a relative local setting creating a target rich environment.
• Combat can be wearisome for troops extending. Vietnam made the Soviets concerned that their troops would loose the “Combat” edge. Hence their misadventure into a place called Afghanistan. Our troops are weary, and sharp in their deadly skill sets.
• We are learning much about our strengths as well as our weaknesses in planning and execution.

The minuses are many; Feel free to add to this list.

• Poor planning for the post major battle scenario.
• Terrible media policy.
• Ignoring strategic dictum’s. (Another major frontal conflict before another is secured.)
• Failure to properly train personnel that are not normally considered combat troops.
• Complete failure to properly address the historical political and tribal concerns that have divided the area for centuries.

Any errors in editing or translation are my own

Subject: ALL AMERICANS SHOULD READ THIS

  ALL AMERICANS SHOULD READ THIS

 The psychology behind suicide bombings.

  By – Pierre Rehov, documentary filmmaker
 On July 15, MSNBC’s “Connected” program discussed the July 7th London
attacks.
  One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six

documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre’s

upcoming film, “Suicide Killers,” is based on  interviews that he conducted with the

families of suicidebombers and  would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do

it. Pierre agreed to a  request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new

film.
 
  Q – What inspired you to produce  “Suicide Killers,” your seventh film?
 
  A – I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film
on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became  fascinated with the

personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and

again by their victims.
Especially  the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they  blow
themselves up.
  Q – Why is this film especially  important?

  A – People don’t understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable

phenomenon.
My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem,showing the

real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the

uneducatedare brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill

themselves and killothers in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men,

has become their only certitude.
  Q – What insights did you gain from  making this film? What do you
know that other experts do not know?

  A – I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at thelevel of an entire

civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to
an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their

lives inpure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or

even understandingfrom the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam

is absolute. So is contempt towardwomen, who are totally dominated by men. This leads

to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no

coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young mendominated subconsciously by an

overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy butare afraid of, as if it is the

work of the devil.
  Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be

allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing

themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.
  Q – What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and

survivors of suicide bombings?

  A – It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly

normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain

extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is

like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what

they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying “Thank God, my  son

is dead.” Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of

pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize.

  This system of values works completely backwards since theirinterpretation of Islam
worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only
achievement goal is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a

Shaheed or the family of a shaheed.
 They don’t see the innocent being killed, they only see the impurethat they have to

destroy.
  Q – You say suicide bombers experience  a moment of absolute power,
beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power?
  A – Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life.
They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They  work for God, the

ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single

delusional second of absolute power,where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since

they become God’s sword.
  Q – Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the
psychopathology.
  A – Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes,
generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually

have a lack ofdeveloped personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the

western world they wouldeasily have become drug addicts, but not criminals.

Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don’t see good and evil the same way

that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated
violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only
solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the

afterlife in Paradise.
 
  Q – Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?

  A – Yes, it is their only conviction. They don’t act to gain a territory or to find

freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He
tells them to do.
 Q – Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?

  A – All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail
on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their

mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists

is that moderate Muslims don’t think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during

their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the

fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the

Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to

become extremists.
  Q – Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers.
  A – Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty,
placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding

sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which

is mainly connected to their women’s behavior.

  Q – What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings?
  A – Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one

has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also
supporting the same organizations through different networks. The ironic thing in the

case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial

support from theOccidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects

the West (mainly symbolized by Israel).
  Q – Is there a financial support network for the families of the
suicide bombers?  If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision?

  A – There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam
Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller  amounts), but these
days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their

children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their

families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide

bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide.

  Q – Why are so many suicide bombers young men?
 A – As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego,  because this is a sure way to
become a hero. The shaheed are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a
positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming

a cowboy or a fireman?
 
  Q – What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation?
  A – The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or
ex-communist countries. Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than

any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi.

By behaving this way, theU.N. leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist

organizations. In addition, through UNRWA,  the U.N. is directly tied to terror

organizations such as Hamas,  representing 65 percent of their apparatus in
the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the
U.N. has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to “return” into Israel for

more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which

still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent every year,

mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom

belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject,
and in my film “Hostages of Hatred”).
  Q – You say that a suicide bomber is a ‘stupid bomb and a smart bomb’
simultaneously. Explain what you mean.
  A – Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until  the last
second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform

representing interests which are not his, but he doesn’t know it.

  Q – How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and
terrorism in general?
 A – Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this
culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of

Nazism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat

him in order to make peace one day with the German people.
  Q – Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on

your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide
bombings outside the Middle East?
 A – Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists.
Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now, there are thousands of

candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan and

Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of

brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental

world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be.

Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S.A.  Sadly, this is only the beginning.

This interview appears to point out what so many have said for so long. This cultural clash will inevitably end in bloodshed that the world has never witnessed before.

Legion post in Craig takes heroic name

STORY TOOLS

Email this story | Print

RELATED LINKS

• Slide show: Mark Lawton Memorial

By Jim Sheeler, Rocky Mountain News
August 22, 2006

CRAIG – Each morning her husband spent in Iraq, Sherri Lawton walked out to the fence on the family ranch in Hayden and placed a miniature American flag on a fence post – one flag for every day Mark Lawton was gone.The day she learned about the ambush that killed him, she went out and took down the tiny flag – at first, she had thought there was no reason to continue. Then she realized she couldn’t stop.

For hundreds of days, the widow continued to put out flags and yellow ribbons for the soldiers who remained overseas and only stopped after the men and women of the 244th Engineer Battalion – all but one of them – finally came home.

Monday morning – nearly three years after her husband was killed – she went down the county road near the fields where her husband used to run track and ride horses, near the place where he worked at the coal mine, past the Loaf ‘N Jug, toward the new American Legion post.

For more than a mile, the county road was lined with American flags. This time, the flags were all for Mark Lawton.

This time, the unit was there to meet her.

“Mark Anthony Evans-Lawton American Legion Post 62,” she read as she arrived at the freshly painted building. Then she walked into the arms of one of the last men to see her husband alive.

“It’s good to see you,” she said as she pressed her face into the uniform of Sgt. Kenneth Favorite of Grand Junction. “I’m glad you came.”

“I wouldn’t have missed it,” he said.

Scenes they can’t forget

Hundreds of residents from throughout northern Colorado joined dozens of soldiers from around the country as they assembled to remember the first Army reservist from Colorado killed during the war in Iraq, in the place that now bears his name.

Inside the wood-paneled building in the small town where he graduated from high school, Lawton’s comrades looked at the pictures of him in Iraq and thought back to the scenes they can’t forget.

They remembered the push-ups they endured beneath his barking commands – the punishments that, more often than not, they now realize made them better soldiers. Under the pictures of the man in the cowboy hat they still call “an absolute hard-ass,” they told stories of how they saw the 41-year-old former Marine late at night, writing letters to his wife.

They talked about his choice to go to Iraq – he could have gotten out of the assignment, but as a veteran of the first Gulf War, he felt he had something to teach.

“As more soldiers die in Iraq, I think sometimes individuals can get lost in the numbers,” said Sgt. First Class Dianna Leinberger. “And he’s still an individual – with a wife and two kids. And a community. He’s not just a number.”

‘Still in our hearts’

Most of the members of the 244th took the day off from their civilian jobs throughout Colorado – where they work as carpenters, police officers, oil field workers, students and corporate middle managers – and drove for hours with their families to support the family they promised not to leave behind.

Some still carry shrapnel from the wounds of the attack that took Lawton’s life. A few are already back in Iraq.

“It’s a great honor to show that he’s still in our hearts – and that his loss is still a loss,” said Leinberger, Lawton’s platoon commander, who flew in from Alaska to lead the color guard at the ceremony.

As part of the dedication, soldiers from Fort Carson brought heavy equipment used by the engineers in Iraq, the Colorado Air National Guard provided a helicopter flyover, and more than 60 motorcyclists from the American Legion Riders stopped by on their way from Indianapolis to Salt Lake City – as part of a ride to raise money for the Legacy Fund, a scholarship for children of fallen soldiers.

“You’re a good post,” said Ralph Bozella, Colorado commander of the American Legion, during the dedication. “Now you’re going to have to be a better post. Because you’re going to have to live up to that name.”

At a picnic lunch outside, Robb Smith, who was Lawton’s first sergeant in Iraq, looked at Lawton’s two boys – Tanner, 4, and Dustin, 7 – and then looked at his own little girl.

“You kind of adopt those kids, too,” he said. “In your mind and in your heart. Every father has to deal with that. It is really tough.”

While the troops were stationed overseas, Sherri Lawton continued to write them and send care packages. Before she and her family left Colorado to move to Missouri last year, she had one more package to send.

When the envelopes arrived at the soldiers’ homes, they contained a tattered yellow ribbon, and a small, faded American flag that once flew over a fence post.

“It’s all weathered, it’s a bit worn,” Robb Smith said. “But it means more than anything else.”

How to help

• To contribute to the fund for scholarships of fallen service members, send donations to American Legion National Headquarters, attn: Legacy Fund. 700 N. Pennsylvania Indianapolis, Id. 46204

sheelerj@rockymountainnews.com or 303-954-2561.

I often hunt in the Craig area. It is a tough land. It grows tough men. Men tough enough to publicly shed tears for fallen brothers.

Terrified about terrorism

The story about British-born Islamic terrorists who allegedly planned
to detonate bombs on transatlantic flights is dominating the headlines,
so it’s easy to forget how miniscule the odds are that you will ever
become the victim of terrorism.

In fact, the likelihood that you’ll be killed by a terrorist is no
greater than the likelihood that you’ll die from a peanut allergy.

With the renewed hysteria about terrorism, it’s a perfect time to dust
off the Fall 2004 issue of Regulation magazine, published by the Cato
Institute. It featured an article entitled “A False Sense of
Insecurity?”

In it, John Mueller (a professor of National Security Studies at Ohio
State University) pointed out: “For all the attention it evokes…the
likelihood that any individual will become a victim [of terrorism] in
most places is microscopic.”

How microscopic? “Even with the September 11 attacks included in the
count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since
the late 1960s…is about the same as the number of Americans killed
over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe
allergic reaction to peanuts,” he wrote.

Wait a second: Isn’t terrorism the #1 danger facing the nation?

That’s certainly what politicians would have you believe. They’re
constantly giving dire speeches, issuing color-coded alerts, and making
demands for more government programs and more infringements of civil
liberties to “fight terrorism.”

But maybe there’s another reason why politicians respond so franticly
to the real and imagined dangers of terrorism.

In his 2003 book The Progress Paradox, Gregg Easterbrook noted bluntly,
“Most politicians prefer bad news to good.”

Politicians “drastically” exaggerate “all negative trends while denying
all positive developments” in hopes of getting into office or remaining
in power, he wrote. There are “self-serving reasons” why you so
frequently see “politicians talking as pessimistically as possible.”

That could explain why politicians are waging a “War On Terror” — but
no “War On Allergic Reactions to Peanuts.” Being seen as tough on
terror can get politicians re-elected. Being tough on peanuts won’t.

Of course, citing the long odds of being killed by terrorism isn’t
meant to diminish the real pain and suffering that terrorists have
caused, or to minimize the tragedy of those who have died at their
hands. The suffering is real, and danger from terrorism certainly
exists.

As Mueller wrote in Regulation: “Efforts to confront terrorism and
reduce its incidence and destructiveness are justified. But hysteria is
hardly required.”

In fact, he continued, “It seems sensible to suggest that part of this
reaction [to terrorism] should include an effort by politicians,
officials, and the media to inform the public reasonably and
realistically about the terrorist context instead of playing into the
hands of terrorists by frightening the public.”

Mueller is right.

Want to strike a real blow against terrorism? Know the odds. Understand
the dangers. And refuse to be terrified.

Source: Regulation (Fall 2004)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3.html

While I agree with this article it should be pointed out that one set of issues deals with the power of mother nature, about which little if anything can be done. The other is clearly man made, about which much can be done.

Are Capitalists Bamboozling the Poor?
by Thomas Woods
[Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006]
Subscribe at email services, tell others, or Digg this story.

For lack of a better term I am dubbing it Woods’s Law: whenever the private sector introduces an innovation that makes the poor better off than they would have been without it, or that offers benefits or terms that no one else is prepared to offer them, someone — in the name of helping the poor — will call for curbing or abolishing it.

Last time I noted the crusade against rent-to-own stores. This time it’s something you may not have heard of: the tax refund anticipation loan (RAL). It works very simply: consumers borrow against their anticipated refund from the IRS, and then pay the loan back when their refund checks arrive. These short-term loans ranged from $200 to $7,000 in 2004.

So what’s the problem? Well, plenty, according to the poor-people-are-idiots-who-can’t-read-a-simple-form school of thought. The poor, it is alleged, are not given sufficient information about the features of the loan, and/or are being charged fees to borrow money for as little as a week to ten days that amount to unusually high annual interest charges.

A typical RAL, according to a recent study, involves a loan fee of $89 for a $3,000 loan, which comes out to an annualized interest rate of 108 percent. Now 108 percent annual interest is very high, to be sure, but of course no one is borrowing the money for a full year. It would make more sense for these borrowers to avoid the RAL, charge their expenses on a credit card, and hold a balance (if necessary) until the tax refund arrives, but people applying for RALs come disproportionately from groups with limited if any access to credit or additional credit. In 2004, fully a quarter of them had credit records containing at least one serious delinquency within the previous year alone. These are the people who would be directly harmed if RALs were no longer available to them, whether or not the activists seeking to deprive them of this option do so with their best interests in mind.

Woods’s Law
Whenever the private sector introduces an innovation that makes the poor better off, someone will — in the name of helping the poor — call for curbing or abolishing it.
But there is always that radical possibility that the poor are capable of judging their best interests for themselves. Krystal Akons, an office manager in her mid-30s, told a reporter at an H&R Block office that she had consistently applied for RALs, since she could thereby pay her tax preparation fee more easily, simply deducting it from the loan money. A mother of four, she likes the ability to receive her money as soon as possible. “Sometimes I have bills that I need to pay right away,” she said. She added that people should have the right to choose the RAL if it’s right for them. “It’s their money.”

There are plenty of good reasons for someone who lacks other credit outlets to consider one of these loans. If someone needed to purchase an important item that for a limited time was marked down from $4,000 to $3,000, and the opportunity would be gone by the time he received his tax refund, he would be crazy not to pay the $89 for the RAL and get his money right away. The $89 would be a pittance compared to the $1,000 he would save on the purchase.

Gregory Elliehausen, of Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, conducted a study in 2005 that found RAL borrowers to be fairly well informed about the process, contrary to accusations by critics of the practice. “Most refund anticipation loan customers provide evidence of some deliberation in choosing to obtain a refund anticipation loan. Nearly all customers were aware of electronic filing, and more than half of customers discussed with the tax preparer other options for getting funds from refunds faster. About half of customers recalled the refund anticipation loan fee, and most customers recalled some other information about the loan.”

Even the fact that surveys have found some RAL borrowers less informed about the details of their recent loans is less alarming than it first seems, thanks to several important mitigating factors — among them the fact that as repeat users of the service they are in a position to understand it well enough without having to do much additional research each year. “Consumers with ample previous experience are often in a position to make purposeful and intelligent decisions without much deliberation,” Elliehausen explains.

Moreover, it is not difficult to acquire the necessary information to make a sensible decision. “Information about refund anticipation loan fees and alternatives for filing and obtaining funds faster is readily available,” according to Ellihausen. “Hardly any refund anticipation loan customers perceived unclear or insufficient information or hidden fees as problems.”

“By far,” Elliehausen noted, “most customers were satisfied with their most recent refund anticipation loan.”

Whether consumers are satisfied or not, plenty of voices can be heard describing the practice as predatory and wicked. “Unfortunately when you’ve got low-income families getting a big chunk of money, the sharks come circling,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), in a 2005 interview.

Chi Chi Wu, by the way, has also advocated state regulation of RALs, or even — in quaint fidelity to Woods’s Law — banning them altogether.

So the RAL is another example of an option from which the poor obviously benefit, but from which the activist community wants to rescue them. But there is a much more important point to all this.

Not a single critic of RALs I have come across has bothered to point out that the poor wouldn’t be in this unfortunate situation at all if the government hadn’t taken their money from them in the first place. Here we have private firms whose programs alleviate at least a portion of the suffering and deprivation caused by government policy, and it is these private firms, rather than government itself, that attracts all the condemnation!

In a recent report, the NCLC and the Consumer Federation of America complained that people who used RALs were “essentially borrowing their own money at extremely high interest rates.” And what exactly happened to “their own money” that they don’t currently possess it? The entire report contains not a single word criticizing the government for looting the poor and putting them in this vulnerable situation in the first place. Not one word. So closed are these alleged researchers to predatory public-sector behavior that it does not occur to them even to mention it, much less criticize it.

This bizarre oversight is only a tiny example of a much broader sociological phenomenon — let’s call it Westley’s Law, after Jacksonville State University economics professor Christopher Westley with whom I discussed it earlier this month. Even simpler than Woods’s Law, Westley’s Law holds that the public sector is always held to lower standards than the private sector. Thus the private sector is condemned for alleged misdeeds of which the government is far more consistently guilty and on a much grander scale. Or government failures are treated far more kindly — when they are noticed at all — than are failures by private actors.

Westley’s Law
The public sector is always held to lower standards than the private sector.
Crime control is a good example. On a particular New York expressway there are people who make an illicit living cruising by and waiting for someone’s car to break down. At that point, they stop, threaten the hapless motorist, and strip his car of anything that might fetch them money. They know very well that the police are completely incapable of doing anything about this, and that law enforcement will get involved only if physical harm is done to the poor driver. So these crooks are careful not to hurt their victims.

Once when I lived in Manhattan a friend who had come to visit me from Connecticut had his car stereo stolen while we were eating. A police car happened to drive by as we surveyed the car and realized what had occurred. We flagged him down and explained the situation. He told us it was a real shame, and drove away.

When the government tells people that they have absolutely no recourse in a matter of property theft, they typically accept it in a spirit of grim resignation. Now imagine a private firm saying the same thing: we agreed to protect you, but we’re not going to lift a finger to track down the perpetrator, recover your lost item, or reimburse you for your loss.

Let’s not even discuss the question of the percentage of crimes, even serious ones, that the New York police actually manage to solve, because it’s frighteningly low. And let’s leave aside the fact that according to a former New York police captain of my acquaintance, exactly nothing happens to a first-time car thief. In some places you need to steal a car five times before anything happens to you at all.

As I have wondered aloud in the past, what would be people’s reaction if a private firm were this negligent, and so obviously incapable of carrying out its task? We would never hear the end of the lectures about the incompetence of the market and the need for strict regulation and oversight. State failure, on the other hand, to the extent that it is noticed at all, is a matter of head shaking and chuckling. Yes, occasionally a flagrantly corrupt official resigns, but no one is losing his job because the postal system is expensive and inefficient or the police department can’t do anything about auto theft. The state has somehow managed to exempt itself from ordinary standards of behavior and performance, and many people have, without thinking, simply gone along.

$20
We have heard a great deal about accounting irregularities in the private sector. It was in the news for months on end, particularly in 2002. Early this month, USA Today reported that the true United States budget deficit for 2005 was not the officially reported but certainly misleading $318 billion, but $760 billion — and, if Social Security and Medicare were included, $2.9 trillion. Is anyone being punished? Has anyone been fired? Has anything happened at all? These questions answer themselves. The item is already yesterday’s news.

To review: the government loots a lower-class household to the tune of, say, $10,000 in a given year, deigns to return perhaps $2,000 of that money to its owner, and then, aided by the hopeless activist community, tries to paint private firms as wicked and dastardly for charging a $100 fee to accelerate the return of the slice of money the government has chosen to give back. That government has managed to corrupt our sense of justice to the point that it can perpetrate such a transparent fraud upon any fully conscious human being is yet another argument in favor of the free society and against the state.

——————————————————————————–

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is a resident scholar at the Mises Institute. He is the author of The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. His other recent books include The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (a New York Times bestseller) and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

This states what should be the obvious!

To ensure we Americans never offend anyone — particularly
fanatics intent on killing us — law enforcement and security
screeners are not allowed to “profile” people in public places or
security checkpoints. However, they will continue to perform
random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots
with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members
of the President’s security detail, 85-year-old congressmen with
metal hips and even Medal of Honor recipients. But targeting
Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40
constitutes “ethnic profiling.”

Let’s pause a moment and review….

In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: (a) A salesman from
Utah (b) An construction worker (c) A college student on Spring
Break (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.

In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics
by: (a) Your grandmother (b) A Midwest auto-parts dealer (c) A
mom and her 6-year-old son visiting from Indiana (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by: (a) A
bluegrass band (b) Dallas Cowboy fans (c) A tour group of
80-year-old women (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the
ages of 17 and 40.

During the 1980’s numerous Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon
by: (a) A family on their way to Disney World (b) Jesse Ventura
(c) A Boy Scout Troop (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between
the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: (a)
A pizza delivery boy (b) The UPS guy (c) Geraldo Rivera making up
for a slow news day (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the
ages of 17 and 40.

In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a
70-year-old disabled American passenger was murdered and thrown
overboard by: (a) A girls’ choir (b) A hardware store owner (c) A
secretary (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of
17 and 40.

In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy
diver was murdered by: (a) A Marine officer with two weeks leave
(b) A plumber going to visit his mom (c) A Catholic nun (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: (a) A college-bound
freshman (b) A cardiac surgeon on his way to Houston (c) A
waitress (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by: (a) A starving
actress (b) A mom with a newborn (c) Twin six-year-old boys (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1995, a plot to blow up U.S.-bound international flights over
the Pacific was attempted by (a) Hawaiian school kids (b) An
decorated Vietnam Veteran (c) Twin sisters on their way to
Paducah (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) A local TV weatherman (b) A dad and his two sons on a ski
trip (c) A widower going to visit his grandchildren (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2000, 17 sailors died in an attack on the USS Cole (DDG 67) in
Yemen by: (a) A child in a stroller (b) A high school class on
their way to visit Washington, DC (c) Newlyweds on their way to
Miami (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked — two flown into the
World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon and one into the
ground in rural Pennsylvania. They were hijacked by: (a) A
retired police officer on a mission trip to Haiti (b) A
firefighter going to Maryland for training (c) An paramedic on
his way to vacation in Hawaii (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males
between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002 the United States liberated Afghanistan from: (a) USAID
relief workers (b) Jewish Pilgrims (c) Christian missionaries (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl and other Westerners were kidnapped
and beheaded by: (a) The Peace Corp (b) Scottish clansmen (c)
Cuban refugees (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.

In 2002, more than 330 hostages in Beslan and 130 hostages in
Moscow were murdered in sieges by: (a) Russian exchange students
(b) The Red Guard (c) Church planters (d) Middle Eastern Islamist
males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2003 the United States liberated Iraq from “The Butcher of
Baghdad,” but most American military personnel were killed by:
(a) Iraqi school-girls (b) Street vegetable venders (c) Women
without burkas (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.

In 2004, more than 200 Spanish civilians were murdered on trains
by bombs in Madrid, detonated by: (a) Morning commuters (b) A
three-year-old Chinese girl (c) Flamenco dancers (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005 more than 50 UK citizens were killed by bombs on trains
in London, detonated by: (a) Rail workers (b) Those unable to
hail taxis (c) Wheelchair-bound grandmothers (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005, there were hundreds of casualties, men, women and
children, killed by bombs in Jerusalem, Riyadh and Amman. These
innocent civilians were murdered by: (a) Construction workers (b)
Farmers (c) Christian missionaries (d) Middle Eastern Islamist
males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005, the city of Paris, and other European cities experienced
an extended period of riots and destruction. The unrest was led
by: (a) “Youth” (b) Soccer fans (c) Catholic nuns (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 2,500
Americans have been murdered by terrorists. 35,000 Iraqi men,
women and children have also been murdered by terrorists. Most of
the combat and civilians casualties were the result of bombs
detonated in civilian population centers by: (a) Fruit vendors in
Baghdad (b) Disgruntled transit union workers (c) Iraqi
schoolteachers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.

In 2006, hundreds of Israeli civilians have been killed by
rockets launched by: (a) the Salvation Army (b) remnants of the
‘Jackson Five’ (c) the cast of ‘Friends’ (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2006, a plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound planes from the U.K. was
attempted by (a) members of the royal family (b) Japanese
tourists (c) groupies of the band ‘Cream’ (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Since 2001, the FBI reports that there are major terrorist cells
still in U.S. urban centers. Several of these cells have been
uncovered and cell members arrested. In every case, the
terrorists cell members were: (a) Southern Baptists
Conventioneers (b) Lutheran Youth Groups (c) Presbyterian Elders
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

President George Bush said this week, “America is at war with
Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us
who love freedom, to hurt our nation.” The Council on
American-Islamic Relations issued an immediate objection to the
President’s reference to “Islamic fascists”. Nihad Awad,
executive director of CAIR protested, “We have to isolate these
individuals because there is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic
faith that encourages people to be cruel or to be vicious or to
be criminal. Muslims world wide know that for sure.” In light of
this objection, we are left to ponder why every Islamic leader in
the U.S., and the world, does not publicly condemn every terror
action being undertaken in the name of the god of Islam. Their
silence is deafening…

Between 1970 and present, there were more than 60 other notable
examples of terrorism perpetrated by Middle Eastern male
Islamists between the ages 17 and 40, but we think you get the
point. Singling out “Middle Eastern male Islamists between the
ages 17 and 40” is not “ethnic profiling,” it’s “terrorist
profiling” — acting on prolific evidence.

Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?

Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot
http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=341

GUNNY’S COLUMN
07/17/06

THE FOOLHARDY FALLACY OF REQUISITE PROPORTIONAL RESPONSE
The elite liberal media, being yapping lap dogs for the American political left, have been screaming about the evil Jews using disproportionate force as Israel finally responds to the carnage Muslim terrorists have been heaping upon it of late. The proverbial last straw was the Iranian- and Syrian-controlled terrorist group Hezbollah kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in northern Israel. Hezbollah, in case you have forgotten, carried out the 1983 attacks on the United States Embassy and Marine compound in Beirut, the 1984 attack on the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, and the 1996 destruction of the Khobar Towers U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia (total Americans dead in these attacks: 325).

The usual sniveling lackeys of the anti-Israel Democratic Party and their liberal media henchmen can’t seem to grasp the entry-level tactical maxim of disproportionate response, which throughout recorded history has demonstrated innumerable times how disproportionate response can oftentimes end a war. It is the same principle used in barroom brawling: If someone punches you in the nose, you must assume he has no intention of stopping with that one punch, which means your response should be to repeatedly and viciously hit him over the head with the barkeep’s Louisville Slugger until sufficient evidence is presented that causes you to believe the fellow is no longer a threat. It all has to do with the concepts of survival and victory. And, as an added attraction, word will get around town that you are not to be trifled with.

Funny, but we haven’t really been inundated with liberal newspaper editorials lamenting Hamas and Hezbollah’s unending attacks on Israel with Qassam and Katyusha missiles and demanding the terrorists cease and desist, now have we? Why do you suppose that is? And why, as soon as Israel decides enough is enough, do you suppose liberal newspaper editorials from coast to coast attack the Jews for having the temerity to vigorously defend themselves?

Naturally, many liberals are screaming that a “disproportionate response” to an attack is illegal. This is an asinine claim with no basis in fact. And any professional military man will tell you that the military commander who orders only proportionate responses to attacks will soon be dead or relieved of command. If a commander comes up against a platoon in the defense dug into a fortified position on a hill, he doesn’t send one of his platoons against the enemy platoon. He sends a reinforced company with armor, artillery and close-air support. And he employs every weapon he can get his hands on short of a tactical nuke. That’s how you win, people.

No part of the Laws and Customs of War on Land requires warring parties to use proportional force in response to an attack. Are we pretty clear on that?

The leader of the liberals is Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Edvard Munch must have somehow looked into the future to find and use Dean as his paradigm for “The Scream.”

There is no more delusional an extremist liberal in American politics than Howard Dean and, yes, that’s saying something because he has a slew of competition. However, to give you his most recent example of just how unhinged a weirdo he is, while addressing an audience of braying liberals in San Diego this past Sunday at a lemmingesque gathering called DemocracyFest at San Diego State University, Dean claimed that, if Democrats were in charge, Israel would not have needed to invade Lebanon because this diuturnal conundrum would have been handily deciphered years ago by the sagacious liberals.

Said Doctor Demento: “If you think what’s going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn’t, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn’t get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

Yes, Howard, you Democrats sure did a dandy job on not only the Middle East, but North Korea, China, Congo, Somalia, the Pakistan-India fracas, the Philippines, the birth and global rise of al Qaeda, the intercontinental expansion of Hezbollah, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. I can’t determine what he is babbling about when he says Clinton brought the “Northern Irish and the IRA” together, given that the Irish Republican Army is from Northern Ireland. And on the same day Dean made his bizarre claim that Clinton had brought Israel and the Palestinians together, Israel again walloped the Palestinian Authority’s Foreign Ministry compound. The man lives on Planet Preposterous in the Screw-Loose Galaxy.

In the end, liberals are a spineless lot who have once again shown their true colors, every one of which is a sickly and sickening shade of yellow.

http://www.850koa.com/pages/shows_gunny.html

Once again Gunny Bob nails it. I have never understood the very concept of proportional response. In war you fight to win. No ifs ands, or buts. Our troops deserve all the support that we can drum up, and then some. The Israeli’s deserve the same. We are, after all is said and done, fighting the very same enemy.