The Alliance for Global Justice has created an online petition and letter writing campaign that allows you to easily tell your elected representatives that you oppose the current U.S. coup attempt in Venezuela.
You can sign the petition here as well as call or send a letter to your members of Congress.
Regardless of one’s opinion of the Bolivarian Revolutionary governments in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez or Nicolas Maduro, the U.S. has no business overthrowing foreign governments because we don’t like their policies. There are many other avenues for addressing such issues.
Whether America likes it or not, or will admit it or not, Maduro was democratically elected by the people of his country.
But, of course, the U.S. has a long history of overthrowing democratically elected governments around the world whenever they possess abundant natural resources and the nation’s leaders dare to diverge from the mechanisms of U.S. economic control.
President Trump regularly appeals to Benjamin Netanyahu’s claims about the supposed success of Israel’s border wall with the West Bank as ironclad evidence in favor of his own border wall plans with Mexico.
The problem is, it’s not true.
The wall dividing Israel from the West Bank has not “worked” to stop terrorism, but then that was never its actual intent. It has, on the other hand, been very successful in accomplishing its actual purpose, which Israel will never acknowledge in public.
Here’s why:
First, it is true that after Israel began construction of its separation/annexation wall during the Second Intifada in 2000, terrorist attacks within Israel came to a slow but steady halt. But in 2001, Hamas leaders (the organization headquartered in Gaza largely responsible for the suicide bombings) claimed that their decision was driven by internal, political considerations and had nothing to do with Israel’s wall. Check out this 2001 article in the British newspaper, The Independent, “Hamas Orders Halt to Suicide Bomb Attacks.”
Of course, Hamas leaders could be lying about their motives in order to save face. But I suspect not, for the simple reason that Israel’s wall is not much of a barrier to the determined terrorist.
I have seen people climb over the wall quite easily.
Long stretches of the wall are nothing more than a fence, mostly strung up in far-flung, isolated areas. It would be easy for a would-be bomber to dig under, climb over or cut through this fence at any number of spots where they would never be seen, or long-gone by the time a border patrol appeared.
This is why I believe Hamas is telling the truth. They chose to stop their bombing campaign because it was costing them support for their cause in the international community and creating division within the membership of the Palestinian Authority.
Second, regardless of all this, touting the awesome success of Israel’s “wall” makes for great P.R. among the Zionist community. It also provides a good illustration of a classic logical fallacy. It’s just a shame that logic never stood in the way of a Zionist hoping to score political points – especially when that Zionist’s name is Benjamin Netanyahu.
Perhaps you have heard of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. If not, I’ll clue you in. It’s a Latin phrase meaning “after this, therefore because of this.” Its purpose is to point out the invalid assumption that just because one event follows after another event, we cannot assume that the first event was the cause of the other.
Yes, the rooster crows every morning just moments before sunup. That doesn’t mean, however, that Mr. Sunshine is hovering below the horizon, waiting for Mr. Rooster’s signal.
In other words, correlation is not proof of causation.
Just because suicide bombings ended soon after Israel began building its separation wall is not proof, in and of itself, that suicide bombings ended because of the wall. We must search for other evidence to prove this claim to be either true or false.
I think that the wall’s easy permeability – any determined bomber could get through if he/she wanted to – tips the scales in favor of believing Hamas’ own explanation: they chose to stop using that particular tactic.
So, NO. When president Trump says over and over again that these walls are always 99.9% effective, he is simply one presidential blow-hard mimicking another presidential blow-hard’s propaganda point. But then, both of these men, Trump and Netanyahu, are 99.9% die-hard political opportunists and only 0.1% intelligent thinkers – and I suspect even that figure is too generous for Trump.
Third, without going into the background here, political Zionism has a very, very long history of believing in the need for a literal wall of some sort to isolate Israel from the bloodthirsty Arab hordes around them. Their current isolation/separation/annexation barrier is the product of Zionist colonial racism. If you want to learn more about this issue, read Avi Shlaim’s important book, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (W.W. Norton, 2000).
The only way in which this wall has actually “worked” has been its success in illegally expropriating more land for Israel, in stopping Palestinian farmers and herdsmen from tending their flocks, their fields and their orchards, in dividing villages and families.
Israel’s wall is only one more Zionist tactic for stealing Palestinian land and oppressing the people of the West Bank.
What we are witnessing in Venezuela today is a classic demonstration of the most extreme expression of class warfare. (See my recent series on the class war in America here, here and here).
Let’s begin with two observations:
One, starting with the election of Hugo Chavez in 1999, the Venezuelan government has put an extraordinary amount of energy into improving the quality of life for its poorest members. International capitalists haven’t approved of their methods, but then, they weren’t elected by the Venezuelan people.
Check out this article from The Guardian to see statistics on the dramatic improvements brought about by the Chavez-Maduro party in Venezuela’s levels of education, health care, poverty, infant mortality and unemployment.
Two, Americans in general, and Christians in particular, need to break out of our simple-minded binary (either this or that) way of thinking. The world is more complicated. It rarely offers only two possibilities, e.g. it’s either this way or the highway; it’s always America against the world; vote either Republican or Democrat; you either support another American coup in Venezuela or you are a communist who thinks there is nothing wrong with Maduro.
Christians must think differently!
As citizens of God’s kingdom, we know that there is always another alternative. We are obligated to look at this world through the radically alternative lens of Jesus Christ and his gospel. This requires nuance, an understanding of alternatives, and stepping outside of the conventional “wisdom.”
So, an alternative optionin this current situation is opposition to any and every U.S. attempt to manipulate and control the internal politics of a foreign country.
It doesn’t mean that we are blessing everything that the Bolivarian Revolution has done in Venezuela, but it must mean that as followers of Jesus (a) we applaud the government’s attempts to prioritize the needs of the poorest members of Venezuelan society, and (b) we oppose any actions intended to reestablish domination by wealthy elites inside the country and/or foreign, corporate powers like the U.S.A.
Jesus Christ never bludgeoned anyone into following him. HE is our one and only model in life, not the realpolitik of American “strategic interests.” Using force, deception, or cheating to get our way is not the way of Jesus Christ.
Anyone who wants to understand this world with the mind of Christ; to embrace his/her role as a citizen of God’s kingdom, now living in America; to grasp Jesus’ call to live lives of peaceableness and non-violence, will always oppose, in words and actions, any American attempt to spread more violence, war and social unrest by forcing its will onto other people in the world for its own selfish purpose.
Below are several brief videos offering a picture of the widespread, popular support Maduro has among the poor of Venezuela.
Here and here are two longer videos (about 30 minutes each) offering more detailed discussion of what is happening in Venezuela from long-time students of Venezuelan politics at The Real News.
The Greanville Post has published a good article by Bill Van Auken explaining some of the history that has led up to the current coup attempt in Venezuela. It’s entitled, “Washington Engineers Right-Wing Coup in Venezuela.”
I have posted an excerpt below. You can read the entire article here.
“…Washington’s recognition of Guaidó as president constitutes a naked intervention by US imperialism with the aim of achieving its own predatory aims in Venezuela, which boasts the world’s largest proven oil reserves. At the same time, it is aimed at rolling back the influence in the hemisphere of Russia and China, which have both established close economic and political ties with Caracas.
“This regime change operation has been two decades in the making, from the abortive 2002 CIA-orchestrated coup against Maduro’s late predecessor, Hugo Chávez, under George W. Bush, through the imposition of sanctions by the Obama administration and its designation of Venezuela as an ‘extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.’ (emphasis mine)
“By in effect throwing US support to a rival government, the Trump administration is seeking to create the conditions for a military coup or even civil war within Venezuela as well as a US military intervention from without…
“It was revealed last year that US officials repeatedly met between the fall of 2017 and the beginning of last year with a group of Venezuelan military officers seeking US support for the overthrow of Maduro. These contacts failed to reach fruition because Washington believed that the conspiracy was insufficiently prepared…”
Trump has publicly “recognized” an opposition leader, Juan Guaido, as Venezuela’s real president. Guaida unilaterally declared himself presidentwith American support, despite the fact that he has never run for president and has never been elected president. (Wow, is that how it works? Maybe I should declare myself president?)
Maduro, on the other hand, has achieved both of these things, with a significant majority of the Venezuelan vote.
John Bolton, the current National Security Advisor, recently called Maduro “an illegitimate” leader who needed to be removed from office.
President Trump has imposed crippling sanctions against Venezuela which have helped to devastate its economy. Check out the State Department’s website listing U.S. sanctions against Venezuela going back to 2014.
Economic sanctions can be seen as an act of war.
Listen to Maduro supporters reject America’s anti-democratic shenanigans:
What is happening now is the culmination of a long-standing American attack against a country that (a) elected to install a leftist government by a popular vote, (b) to nationalize its biggest industries rather than watch its natural resources continue to be exploited for American corporate profits, and (c) to shake itself free of the American Empire.
But as any good slave should know, shaking your fist at “the master” is always a no-no. And the America master will not stand for such disrespect.
If you have not been following recent events in Venezuela or know only the things repeated by American-based media, then a good way to catch up and become properly informed is to watchthis video by the journalist Mike Prysner.
Mr. Prysner, who has spent considerable time in Venezuela, unlike the
Mike Prysner attending a Venezuelan political meeting
typical U.S. reporter, thoroughly addresses and debunks the most common pieces of misinformation, aka propaganda, being spread about Venezuela’s current problems.
If you are as disturbed as I am by America’s oppression of innocent people around the world, and the the rank hypocrisyof our government’s claims to “defend freedom” around the world, then please watch the video above and call your elected representatives.
excellent demonstration in critical thinking and the value of recognizing a leading question when asked.
Asking this question, do you recognize Israel’s right to exist?, is a favorite “go-to” strategy for Zionist apologists when debating critics of Israel. It can arise in different forms. Another favorite is the Zionist accusation that non-Zionist criticisms of Israeli policies “delegitimize” the state.
What does that mean, “to delegitimize Israel”?
The implied answer is that critics of Israel’s Zionist policies are denying Israel’s right to exist. It’s another rhetorical trap. Don’t fall for it.
Below is an excerpt from Mr. Munayyer’s article. You can find the entire piece here.
“The truth is that no state has a ‘right to exist’ — not Israel, not Palestine, not the United States. Neither do Zimbabwe, Chile, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Luxembourg have a “right to exist.”
“States do exist; there are about 200 in our world today, even though there are thousands of ethno-religious or ethno-linguistic groups.
“And these states don’t exist because they have a ‘right’ to. They exist because certain groups of people amassed enough political and material power to make territorial claims and establish governments, sometimes with the consent of those already living there and, oftentimes, at their expense.
“Most people understand this. I’ve never heard anyone demand to know whether Switzerland, or even the United States, has ‘a right to exist.’ States come and go over time; borders can change, names can change, regimes can change and yes, discriminatory systems underpinning regimes can change, too. But one state demands to be beyond reproach through a mythical ‘right to exist’: Israel.
“Can you imagine asking indigenous Americans and indigenous rights activists — fighting for the rights of a population whose languages, societies, culture and possessions were categorically decimated in the process of erecting the United States — whether the United States has a ‘right to exist’?
“That you can’t imagine this is testimony to the disingenuousness of the question. For this question is asked — almost always of critics of Israel’s policies — not for the purposes of debate and discourse, but rather, to create a gotcha moment, to undermine the credibility of the person questioned.
“It is intellectually dishonest and intended, almost always, to silence critics and criticism of Israeli policies.
“Worse, factors like the unfortunate though all-too-often-commonplace conflation of the State of Israel with Judaism and world Jewry, coupled with the awful history of persecution Jews have faced, mean that anyone who doesn’t answer the question about Israel’s right to exist with an unequivocal ‘yes’ risks being portrayed as an eliminationist radical worthy of labels like ‘anti-Semite’ and otherwise marginalized.
“In other words, it’s a set-up.
“Criticizing Israel’s policies toward the Palestinian people, including during its establishment and since, in the form of discriminatory policies against refugee repatriation, should never be conflated with eliminationism. The policies of all states should be open to criticism.
“…it is humans, not states, that have a right to exist. This includes all people: those who identify as Israelis and Palestinians alike, along with seven billion others.
“People also have a whole set of other rights — human rights, which states cannot deny. These include the right to free movement, the right to consent to being governed, the right to enter and exit their country, the right not to be tortured or collectively punished, and so on.
“It is by guaranteeing these rights and only by guaranteeing them that states derive their moral legitimacy; it is not from some mythical ‘right to exist’ or even the historical need of their people, but rather from the extent to which their policies respect the rights of people.
“The question should not be ‘Does Israel have a right to exist’ but rather, ‘Is the way in which Israel exists right?’”
(This is the final installment in my series on class warfare in America and the church’s failure to address its immorality.)
Budgets are moral documents.
How we budget our money, whether personally or as a nation, is determined by our priorities. And our priorities are an expression of our ethics, our moral concerns. As Jesus reminds us, your treasure is invested where your love is directed (my paraphrase; Matthew 6:21; Luke 12:34).
What we care about determines where and how we spend our money.
Which raises two important questions accompanied by a few implications concerning the politics of rising deficits and the ethical significance of Christian support for conservative politicians.
First, what does it say about this country when approximately 25 cents out
President Trump signs the Republican tax plan
of every tax dollar is spent on the military-industrial complex?
For 2019, the total amount of defense spending is budgeted to be $951.5 billion; nearly 1 trillion dollars. The military alone will receive $688.6 billion of that money.
When that budget item is combined with various other tidbits, such as our 800 military outposts in some 70 countries around the world, and our standing as the #1 manufacturer and exporter of military armaments around the world, it is hard not to conclude that the U.S. finds its moral raison d’etre in the maintenance and expansion of the American Empire, no matter the cost in human lives.
In light of the recent revelations regarding the mind-boggling, fiscal fumblings that pass for book-keeping at the Pentagon (see post #2), I suspect that no one has the slightest idea how much money has been spent on these continuously bloody exercises in global, American muscle-flexing.
But I do know this: between 2001 to 2014 the wars and continued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq alone cost the U.S. $1.6 trillion. Spending on all of America’s post-9/11 wars reached $5.6 trillion by 2018. A large portion of that expense is made up of the interest payments required to service the debt created by those wars.
Yep, America fights its wars, in large part, with borrowed money.
So, when was the last time Congress tried to stop another U.S. military intervention, another war, or another bombing campaign because we could not afford it; because it was another “unfunded mandate” not included in the budget; because it would grossly inflate the ballooning national debt?
To the best of my knowledge, this has never happened. We always seem to find the money necessary for more war, which speaks volumes about the blood-thirsty American character.
Second, the national debt has become the most grotesquely manipulated budget item in our national conversation…but NOT for the reasons many suppose.
Ever since Ronald Reagan implemented the voodoo economic formula of “tax cuts for the rich + massive military spending = a growing national deficit” conservatives have eagerly used their feigned hysteria – feigned because they never complain when Republican presidents are creating this debt; in fact, as with the recent Trump tax overhaul, they applaud the creation of more debt – over the national debt as an excuse to cut the budgets of government social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start and others.
The Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell – one of the more manipulative, cynical politicians ever to sully the halls of Congress – is
But his conservative mantra bemoaning our “entitlement” programs as wholly responsible for the national debt is the Republican (and weak-kneed Democratic) equivalent of Chicken Little flailing her wings and crying, “They sky is falling!”
Not only is this warning a lie, even if it were true, it would be a predictable result of our immoral budget priorities, inhuman spending decisions flaunted by Congressional conservatives every time they take out their fiscal crowbars and pull the sky down onto the heads of America’s weakest members.
Let’s think clearly about this issue:
America does have a growing debt, but let’s be honest. That debt grows faster during Republican administrations. That claim is not partisanship; it’s just a fact. (I know, analyzing national debt is complicated. I am not suggesting that budget priorities are the sole cause of the national debt. But because conservative arguments always make it the #1 issue, I make it my primary focus.)
Sorry for the poor quality of the following image.
Then bi-partisan complaint erupts like clockwork insisting that the only way to reduce the national debt is by cutting bigger holes into the country’s social safety-net for the poor, the sick, the elderly and our children.
This is class warfare. It is the weaponization of our national budget, using it to bludgeon the poor while enabling the rich. It is the very behavior that God’s Old Testament prophets condemned as deserving of God’s judgement.
Some of the richest members of our society – remember that Congress is composed largely of millionaires (see post #1) – decide to give more and more of our tax dollars to support the expansion of American Empire and protect its multi-national, corporate investments around the world. (Read The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government, by David Talbot, for a shocking account of the CIA’s history of shameless dirty-work performed in obedience to America’s richest, corporate task-masters.)
At the same time, those millionaire politicians ask the richest Americans to contribute less and less to assist the country’s most needy members. See here and here about the vast level of economic inequality in America and the global economy.)
Then these very same millionaires have the unmitigated gall to accuse senior citizens and the poor of inflating our debt burden and insisting that the only solution is to cut their benefits.
Really?! Are you kidding me?
To make matters worse, most evangelicals, who overwhelmingly vote for conservative, Republican candidates, mindlessly support this God-forsaken economic hocus-pocus.
Not only is it all a tawdry display of narcissistic political theater, it is a heartless strategy to balance the budget-breaking expense of American Empire on the trembling backs of society’s weakest members; to rip food from the mouths of children whose only healthy meal comes through a school lunch program in order to shovel new, despoiling delicacies into the voracious, gaping maw of the American war machine, endlessly thirsting for more blood.
I am sorry, but I must be emphatic.
Every follower of Jesus Christ, every disciple who is seriousabout conforming themselves to the image of a crucified, suffering Savior, has no choicebut to decry the politics of America’s ever-expanding global warfare in the cold-hearted pursuit of America’s intensifying class warfare.
Voting matters. Why do most evangelical voters use theirs to oppress the poor at home and to wreak havoc around the world?
CBN Christian News has recently posted an article that grossly misrepresents Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion about increasing the marginal tax rate.
The article is written by Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation (more on this later). It is entitled, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% Tax Rate Won’t Work.” Sadly, it is another example of the many ways
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
in which so-called Christian journalism regularly fails on both counts – failing to provide either real journalism or a distinctively Christian analysis.
Like so many others, Mr. Moore is too busy carrying water for the wealthy powers-that-be to offer his readers anything beyond the standard conservative, Reaganomics talking-points. (See my first post in my series on Class Warfare in America).
Since I recently wrote a post discussing American taxation and Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion, I thought it would be worthwhile to use this CBN article for another exercise in how to think critically while reading the news.
There are many things that could be discussed here but I will limit myself, first, to dissecting three specific instances of misrepresentation and falsehood. Second, I will then pull back for a broader discussion of the political origins to Mr. Moore’s commentary.
Three Specific Points:
First, throughout his entire article Mr. Moore’s tone works to conjure up the conservative bogey-man of a predatory federal government hell-bent on confiscating as much of the reader’s money as possible through higher taxes.
Since, his writing is a piece of commentary, I can let Moores’s overt subjectivity slide. (His obvious disdain for Democrats reeks through every sentence, but he is entitled to his opinion. I am no fan of the Democratic party, either).
I’ll give just one example: Moore describes Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion as “cheery talk of returning to confiscatory tax rates.”
“Cheery talk”? Notice that Moore’s opponents can’t be taken seriously. Their heads are in the clouds.
But we can’t forget that all taxation is “confiscatory.” Should no one pay any taxes at all? Many libertarians will answer Yes to that question. But I am not a libertarian.
Taxation is a part of the social contract in which we all participate, allowing our government to provide the numerous services benefiting us all. It is not a confiscation but a contribution to the common good and the general welfare of the country, of our communities.
Choosing to use that negative word, confiscate, is a rhetorical strategy intended to appeal to every reader’s defensive, selfish, inner-Scrooge. Sadly, it works, all too well. Even among the readers of “Christian news.”
Only the selfish – and study after study shows that the billionaire class has a very high percentage of those folks – begrudge assisting their neighbor (who needs the fire department when his house catches fire) or paying their own way (for wear and tear on the roads and highways they drive every day) by paying their share of taxes.
Returning to my main point, what cannot be forgiven, however, is Moore’s clear suggestion that a 70% tax rate would take 70 cents out of every dollar earned by every taxpayer in America. He knows better, but stoking this lie works to the advantage of his propaganda.
In other words, Mr. Moore is lying and he knows it. Unfortunately, many readers will not understand that this entire discussion is about marginal tax rates, and Moore has no interest in clarifying this confusion. He is more interested in sowing fear and anger than he is in educating his readers, so he fails to mention this important fact.
Check out the following sites for easy explanations of how marginal taxation works (here, here and here). The fact is, only a portion of the millionaire’s/billionaire’s highest bracket of income would be taxed at 70% (or 90% or 50% or whatever); much of it would not. And the vast majority of Americans would never come anywhere near that higher bracket, remaining unaffected by the marginal tax increase.
Mr. Moore knows all of this.
He is purposely misleading his readers by feeding us misinformation and falsehoods. This, folks, is utterly unacceptable in any source touting its “Christian perspective.” It is the most un-Christian, even anti-Christian, sort of writing one can imagine.
In fact, I will say this: it is worse than printing something overtly Satanic, because Mr. Moore is deliberately abusing his readers’ trust by planting lies which he knows will manipulate his audience into supporting a position built on falsehood.
Now, THAT, my friends is a truly demonic strategy, if ever there was one.
Second, Moore repeats a favorite argument of Reaganomics fans by claiming that Reagan’s tax cuts, and the majority of subsequent tax cuts, increased the national revenue (with no citations for personal follow-up). In other words, the government gains more money, not less, when it cuts taxes on the rich, according to Moore.
in his article endorsing Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion:
We need to do some research here. As luck would have it, I already did some.
Check out this detailed analysis and discussion of the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts and their effect on the U.S. economy (at econdataus.com with copious citations and data for follow-up, unlike Moore’s article). It is fascinating. Or you can jump down to the excerpted summary below:
“The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan’s two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It’s also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40’s, 134.5% during the 50’s, 108.5% during the 60’s, and 168.2% during the 70’s. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90’s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.”
I won’t fault Moore for having a different interpretation of the economic data, but I can fault him for: (a) not citing the sources for his argument in a way that allows the reader to check it on her own; (b) failing to mention that there is a serious debate on the issue among economists; and (c) leaving the impression that all those on the opposite side of the fence are ignorant, dopey-eyed dreamers out of touch with reality and ignorant of history.
Finally, strangely enough, Moore dismisses the idea of taxing billionaires at higher rates by claiming that in the bad old days of higher taxes:
“IRS data confirms that almost no rich people paid those 70, and 80 and 90% tax rates. They hired lawyers and lobbyists to escape paying the taxes, or they stashed their money away in exotic tax-exempt shelters or bought tax-free municipal bonds to avoid forking over the majority of their income to the IRS.”
This is a strange way to bolster his argument. In fact, it undercuts his point.
His claims may be true, I don’t know. But, if so, the obvious solution is not to lower taxes on the rich (that is like saying “since a speed limit does not prevent drivers from speeding, we should do away with the speed limit”) but to impose stricter regulation on the many ways created by billionaires for hiding their wealth – methods, by the way, that are not available to the poor or the average taxpayer.
The Author and the Bigger Picture:
Where do Mr. Moore and his article come from? To answer that question, we need to step back and look at the broader political context of this taxation debate.
For a number of decades, the conservative movement (including Libertarians like the Koch brothers) have brilliantly implemented a strategy
US President George W. Bush speaks on the war on terror 01 November 2007 at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. AFP PHOTO/Mandel NGAN.
for changing – even controlling – the terms of economic and political debate in this country.
A key ingredient in that strategy was the creation of the think tank. Think tanks are “academic” institutions that employ researchers to produce books, articles and position papers legitimizing the conservative worldview held by the wealthiest, conservative Americans.
The Brookings Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation are three examples of U.S.-based think tanks. Remember that our author, Mr. Moore, works for the Heritage Foundation.
These think tanks are bankrolled by wealthy, conservative donors for the sole purpose of influencing public debate to their own political and economic advantage. Of course, there is nothing wrong with wealthy donors contributing to a research institution…as long as their money does not control the results of the institution’s research.
Once that shift occurs, it’s no longer doing research but producing propaganda.
These think tanks are not intended to promote academic freedom. Just the opposite. Their researchers, like Mr. Moore, are paid for one purpose and one purpose only: to produce “data” and to make arguments that advance the economic and political interests of their wealthy, conservative sugar-daddies.
So, now that we know who Mr. Moore is, where his ideas come from, and what he is being paid to do, his arguments and information are not the least bit surprising. Neither are his lies, manipulation and misinformation. He is a hired gun, paid handsomely to promote trickle-down Reaganomics to the general public, by any means necessary.
I wish I could say it is surprising to see a supposedly Christian news outlet like CBN promoting and benefiting from what is, in effect, a public swindle by a high-priced conman. But, alas, this has become not only the way of the world, but the way of modern, American evangelicalism.
Believe it or not, archaeologists continue to excavate the network of caves along the western shore of the Dead Sea that produced the famous Dead Sea Scrolls.
Haaretzhas an interesting article describing this ongoing work. Below is an excerpt. You can read the entire article here.
“The fact that in 2019 explorations to find scrolls are still ongoing may sound
A piece from one of the Dead Sea Scrolls
surprising. Gutfeld thinks otherwise.
“’To many it seems obvious that everything that could be found in the Judean Desert caves has been found, and they are empty. But in the last few seasons we proved that there are findings galore and that these excavations are very important,’ he says.
“’From the first bucket we took out of the cave, we’ve been sifting out pottery fragments. We’ve found vessels and organic material including hundreds of olive pits, dates, seeds and nuts. We’ve found ropes, jars, lids, an intact decorated bronze pot, a candle unique to the Qumran region, linen textiles that were probably used for wrapping scrolls. We found leather straps that were probably used to tie the scrolls…'”
Sojourner’s Magazine has a published a good article by Tylor Standley entitled “Virtue Can’t Redeem Capitalism.” His argument is built around a critique of Kenneth J. Barnes’ book, Redeeming Capitalism.
You can find an excerpt from the article below. The entire piece can be found here. It makes for worthwhile reading.
“The essential virtue, the single most important characteristic needed for
Adam Smith, the father of capitalist economic theory. He gave us ideas like “the invisible hand of the market” and the priority of self-interest
survival in this [capitalist] system, is self-love. As Adam Smith [the ‘father’ of capitalist theory] himself wrote,
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
“Barnes argues, ‘Capitalism can be changed only through a wholesale change of hearts and minds as people consciously seek to create an economic system that serves the common good.’ But we don’t go to the baker and say, ‘I’m hungry and I need food.’ Instead, we say, ‘I’ve got five dollars, and it could be yours if you give me some bread.’ The baker isn’t expected to care about my hunger; he should care for himself, and I will care about my own hunger. Any social good is secondary; it is a byproduct of the self-love of the individuals who buy and sell.
“Ayn Rand, the philosopher and advocate for capitalism whose writings have enjoyed renewed interest among conservatives in recent years, gave a new name to the concept of self-love. She called it the ‘virtue of selfishness.’ Capitalism, as Rand and Smith demonstrate, has no interest in charity or benevolence — characteristics that Barnes and other virtue ethicists say are necessary for justice. The capitalist system is not designed to make a charitable society; it is designed to make a society of individuals who, above all else, love themselves.
“Capitalism is the single most powerful tool for habit formation in Western society — so much so that our identities are wrapped up in what role we play in the market. We instinctively answer questions like ‘What do you do?’ and ‘Who are you?’ with our job titles. If our very survival depends on putting self first, what sort of habits does that form in us? When grasped by the ‘invisible hand,’ into whose image does it craft us?”
campaign that allows you to easily tell your elected representatives that you oppose the current U.S. coup attempt in Venezuela.
and (c) to shake itself free of the American Empire.
Below is an excerpt from Mr. Munayyer’s article. You can find the entire piece 
protect its multi-national, corporate investments around the world. (Read 
misrepresents Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion about increasing the marginal tax rate.
entitled “Virtue Can’t Redeem Capitalism.” His argument is built around a critique of Kenneth J. Barnes’ book, Redeeming Capitalism.
society — so much so that our identities are wrapped up in what role we play in the market. We instinctively answer questions like ‘What do you do?’ and ‘Who are you?’ with our job titles. If our very survival depends on putting self first, what sort of habits does that form in us? When grasped by the ‘invisible hand,’ into whose image does it craft us?”