Are You A Terrorist?

By Dan McLaughlin, on April 1st, 2009

You may have heard of the report of the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) called “The Modern Militia Movement.” The MIAC is “fusion center”, combining the Department Of Homeland Security with local organizations. It has created a stir because there are a few people who resent being called domestic terrorist suspects. Who knows, even you may even qualify. You might want to check before you go to Missouri. With involvement by DHS, the same is likely in other states. It just hasn’t been leaked to the press yet.

The Missouri State Police have been issued the report to make them more aware of what to look for to determine potential domestic terrorists. They include characteristics such as Christian religious ideology, anti-abortionist, tax resistance or anti-immigration beliefs. It’s comforting to know that you may be joined on that list of terrorists by some very well known and respected citizens.

According to the report, those who have concerns about the new world order should be watched carefully. They may have terrorist tendencies. Indeed, President Bush, the elder, must be one of the top suspects, because almost two decades ago, he discussed openly and publicly about the “New World Order”, or NWO, and has been pursuing the idea actively. He has been joined by many national and international politicians in discussing the idea of a NWO over many years. Of course, he will be a leader of the new order, so he probably won’t be harassed too much.

There are countless ways to qualify, however. If you don’t like President Obama, you may qualify as a white supremacist. If you resent the idea that the president refused, and continues to refuse, to present a valid birth certificate to prove that he is eligible for the presidency, you may be a terrorist.

If you believe that “President Obama is tight on gun control” and may enact firearms confiscations, or if you happen to think that the strong correlation between gun control laws and violent crime might be worth considering, you may be a dangerous criminal. If you think that the Ammunition Accountability Act is an abuse of power, you may have latent terrorist tendencies. President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel will have to be tagged as a potential terrorist, because he definitely believes gun control and confiscations are coming, and is actively working to make it happen.

If you believe that there may be a severe economic and political crisis that may cause violence, be careful what you say, you may be watched. If you are concerned with the plans for the formation of a North American Union by former Assistant Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, all of the intellectuals of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations and countless other organizations and politicians, you are probably a crazed lunatic. None of that wild talk of the Amero unified currency or the NAFTA Superhighway through the heart of America. Robert Pastor and Andres Rosenthal, contributors to the book “The Future Of Integration”, have said “NAFTA is not enough” and the integration will “create the most powerful, single economic entity on earth.” Bush the younger and the presidents of Canada and Mexico can also be added to the list of suspects for their silly talk about the Union in their planning session.

Your unfounded concern that the government may institute mandatory national service may land you on the list also. You should be joined there by the 535 congressmen who are presently attempting to pass the euphemistically named “Generations Invigorating Volunteeerism and Education (GIVE) Act”, which directs the study of the feasibility of mandatory service requirements. It is a goal stated by the president and various administration officials, so theoretically, they should also be on the list.

If you exercised your political rights but had the bad judgment to support politically incorrect presidential candidate Ron Paul or third party libertarian candidates Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin, the jigs up. You had better scrape those bumper stickers off your car.

It’s a good thing for us non-terrorists that we are being protected against all of those wacko people who don’t adore the politicians or believe that they may be corrupt and sell out the citizens of this country to the highest bidder. We won’t have to worry about all of those crazy Christians and patriotic constitution-lovers. The police are now aware of all of those dangerous bible toting thugs and freedom loving patriots. There now, don’t you feel safer?

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts


Leave a comment   Politics and Government   , , , , , , ,  

The Economics of Abortion

By J.D. Seagraves, on January 20th, 2009

Abortion is a hot-button issue. To people of the pro-life side of the debate, abortion is nothing less than the legally condoned murder of innocent babies. To people on the pro-choice side, the opponents of abortion want to enslave women by claiming literal ownership of their bodies. There are people in the middle of the road, but how can they be? Either the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers are right — you can’t have it both ways.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to whether or not an unborn baby (i.e., a fetus) is an individual with rights. If he/she is, then abortion should be criminalized. If he/she is not, then it should be a completely unregulated procedure.

That’s the moral side of abortion. But what about the economic, or utilitarian side? The authors of Freakonomics made the case that abortion was a societal good in that it led to a drop in crime rates. But did it really? Here’s a contrary view:

Students of economics know that people make decisions based on incentives. If something costs more, then people are less likely to do it. The illegality of abortion, whether right or wrong, made the “cost” of sex higher than it is today. When abortion was illegal, women could still theoretically get an abortion if they really wanted one, but they faced criminal penalties and greater expense, not to mention the comparative difficulty of procuring the service. The nation-wide lift on America’s forty-five state abortion ban “lowered the cost” of sex for women, and for men — who had previously been expected to marry a woman should she become pregnant. Roe v. Wade specifically lowered the “cost” of unprotected sex in the pre-AIDS era, undoubtedly contributing to the explosion of STD rates.

Now when something becomes cheaper, people do more of it. Making no moral judgment on the behavior, the fact is that Roe v. Wade did lead to a a massive increase in casual sex. This put tremendous pressure on girls to have sex — after all, they could always have an abortion if they got pregnant, right? And if they decided to keep their baby — as many did — then the man in question could wash his hands of the situation: “it was her choice — she could have had an abortion!”

This Austrian analysis of “human action” is supported by statistics and is the subject of a chapter in John Lott’s Freedomnomics , an answer to Freakonomics . Out-of-wedlock birth rates soared from 5 percent pre-Roe to 16 percent in 1989. Amongst African Americans, the rate went from 35 percent to over 60 percent. And these children from single-parent homes were much more likely to engage in violent crime later on.

The idea that legalized abortion led to the births of fewer unwanted children, and that this led to a drop in crime makes intuitive sense. However, upon deeper inspection, it just isn’t true.



One comment   Healthcare   , ,