Climate Dissenter Receives Death Threats
"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor."I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.""Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges." [Link]
Sun Causes Global Warming…on Mars
This is amazing.Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.htmlDon't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.htmlAbove are links to two articles in National Geographic. One is about a "controversial" scientist (Ellen Goodman would call him a "Global Warming Denier") who cites evidence from Mars that would seem to show that Mars is heating up at the same time Earth is heating and that therefore the cause of heating is most likely solar irradiance and not man-made causes.The other article quotes scientists who found that common sun spot activity is not enough to account for climate changes. However, in that same article (which is linked in the "controversial" article as reason for skepticism) it is noted that:"There are numerous studies that find a correlation [between solar variation and Earth climate]," said Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Lindau, Germany."These authors have looked at the simplest mechanism, and they find that this mechanism does not produce the same level of change that has been observed," he continued."This could be suggesting that there are other mechanisms acting for the way that the sun influences climate." Solar ultraviolet (UV) rays are one possibility, though that theory creates its own challenges."UV is only a small fraction of total solar output, so you'd need a strong amplification mechanism in the Earth's atmosphere," study co-author Spruit said.Magnetized plasma flares known as solar wind could also impact Earth's climate. Solar wind influences galactic rays and may in turn affect atmospheric phenomena on Earth, such as cloud cover.Such complex interactions are poorly understood but could be crucial to unlocking Earth's climatic puzzle. "I think the main question," the Max Planck Institute's Solanki said, "is, How does the sun [in general] act on climate? What are the processes that are going on in the Earth's atmosphere?"Ok, so let me get this straight. One would think that the SUN might have something to do with climate on Earth, right? And, scientists have found a high correlation between "solar variation and Earth climate", right? And, there is great debate between scientists who don't understand the cause of this correlation and admit that "such complex interactions are poorly understood but could be crucial to unlocking Earth's climatic puzzle", right? Yet, didn't they just release a study telling us that it almost beyond reasonable doubt that humans are causing global warming?I submit that if climate scientists are still at the point of saying things like "I think the main question is, how does the sun [in general] act on climate? What are the processes that are going on in the Earth's atmosphere?" then perhaps we should have some skepticism as to the validity of their computer models which extrapolate their current understanding and attempt to predict the weather over the next 100 years!!!!!I will put my prediction of what will happen to humans if we wreck the global economy against predictions based on these climate models anyday.
Fight, Don’t Negotiate with, Palestinians
Irvine, CA--Israeli and Palestinian leaders recently sat down to discuss a peace deal--but the U.S.-brokered talks were fruitless. Many voices, such as the "New York Times," acknowledge that "the biggest single obstacle to peace" is the refusal of Hamas, a member of the Palestinian "unity government," to recognize Israel and renounce violence. But, we are told, if Israel would only make more generous concessions to the Palestinians and bolster their "moderate" leaders, then negotiations can yield peace. "But we must reject the underlying premise of such talks," said Elan Journo, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "It is absurd to debate which combination of concessions Israel should offer and to which faction of Palestinians--because the very notion of diplomatically engaging the Palestinians is illegitimate. If there's to be peace, the Israelis must end the threat of Palestinian terrorism by military force. "Israel's goal of peace is impossible to achieve diplomatically, because a legitimate negotiation presupposes that both sides share the goal of peace. But the Palestinians--both the self-righteously militant Hamas and the supposedly moderate Fatah--seek to destroy Israel. There is no way to negotiate with enemies who want to kill you. To engage them in talks is to concede their right to kill you; after that, all that's left to debate is the size of the rewards the murderers will collect and in what installments. "The Palestinian war must end eventually--and either they will triumph and wipe Israel from the map, or else Israel will protect the lives of its citizens and defeat the Palestinians. Instead of pressuring Israel to appease the Palestinians--and thus encouraging their aggression--the United States should endorse and champion Israel's moral right to defeat them. If Palestinians learn that their war against Israel is futile, if their aggression is punished--they will give up their cause. That is a necessary first step on the road to peace."EU Has No Right to Fine Microsoft
Irvine, CA--Last Thursday European Union authorities threatened Microsoft Corp. with fines that may reach a billion dollars for "overcharging" rival companies for proprietary information. "European regulators should have no power to determine what the price of Microsoft's intellectual property should be," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "That is Microsoft's right." "The European Union justifies its assault on Microsoft's property rights by claiming that the company 'has abused its virtual monopoly power' and engaged in 'unfair' competition by setting 'unreasonable' prices. "But the only thing that is abusive and unfair in this case is the European Union's use of force to violate Microsoft's rights in order to help its competitors. Microsoft has no power to force anyone to buy its products; if its prices were truly unreasonable given the interests of its customers, then its customers would not pay them. What prices are reasonable should be up to the choice and judgment of buyers and sellers--not European bureaucrats who, by their own admission, think Microsoft should charge nothing for its proprietary information."Are Businesses Slaves to Consumers?
Irvine, CA--Few eyebrows were raised when FCC chairman Kevin Martin said recently that Sirius and XM will only be permitted to merge if they can "demonstrate that consumers would clearly be better off--with both more choice and affordable prices." But "Sirius and XM have every moral right to combine companies and, if the new company judges it profitable, to raise prices," said Dr. Yaron Brook."A basic principle of a free market is free, voluntary exchange. This means that buyers and sellers are free to offer and accept whatever terms they mutually choose. If a company decides that its profits are too low or, in the case of Sirius and XM, if it is losing money, it has every right to raise prices if it thinks customers will pay them. If the new satellite radio company charges prices that consumers judge as too high, they have every right to take their dollars elsewhere. But they have no right to have the government dictate what prices businesses can charge or how many separate businesses must sell a given product.
"There is no legitimate reason for government to interfere in the market on behalf of consumers at the expense of producers--or vice-versa, as in protectionist policies that subsidize businesses at the expense of consumers. The government should be neutral towards all its citizens, protecting everyone's rights equally.
"Protecting rights is precisely what the FTC is not doing in the case of the Sirius/XM merger. In the name of a fictional 'right' of consumers to $13-a-month satellite radio and to two satellite radio choices, it is threatening to deprive two innocent businesses of their right to run their businesses as they see fit. We must stop treating businesses as slaves of consumers, and return to a truly free market."
FCC Fine Violates Univision’s Freedom of Speech
Irvine, CA--The Federal Communications Commission has slammed the Hispanic-television network Univision with an unprecedented $24 million fine after the FCC decided it failed to meet regulations requiring broadcasters to air at least three hours a week of educational children's programming. Univision points to several shows it says fulfill the requirement, but the FCC denies the shows are truly educational. "This fine is an outrageous violation of Univision's right to free speech," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Broadcasters should be free to determine what shows they will air without having to answer to government bureaucrats. "If parents desire educational programming for their children and they do not think Univision is providing it, they are free to turn the channel, play a DVD, switch on the radio or open a book. There is no justification for forcing broadcasters to meet a quota for 'educational children's programming.' "But these quotas do not simply undermine free speech. The guidelines defining what qualifies as 'educational' programming are so vague, so inconsistently interpreted and applied that broadcasters have no means of knowing whether their actions will be permitted or punished--until the FCC hands down its verdict. In forcing broadcasters, under threat of crippling fines, to guess which programs a pack of regulators will deem 'educational,' these quotas represent an assault on the rule of law. They should be condemned as such."A Convenient Lie: The Pseudo-Science Behind Global Warming Hysteria
Event: A Convenient Lie: The Pseudo-Science Behind Global Warming HysteriaWho: Dr. Willie Soon, Center for Science and Public Policy; Mr. Peter Schwartz, The Ayn Rand Institute; Mr. Steven Milloy, JunkScience.com. What: A panel event presenting various, often unheard voices of dissent regarding the environmentalism movement in general and global warming theories in particular. Where: Kimmel Center, Room E&L Auditorium (4th Floor), New York University, 60 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012. When: Tuesday, March 6th 2007, at 7:00 PM. Registration: Non-NYU guests must register by e-mailing nyu@objectivistclubs.org. Admission is FREE (although we do ask for a $10 siggsted donation from non-students)
Willie Soon is both an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Soon is the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for New Astronomy. He is the science director at the Center for Science and Public Policy (based in Washington DC). He writes and lectures both professionally and publicly on important issues related to the Sun, other stars, the Earth as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of "The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection" published in March 2004. *Dr. Soon has asked us to note that all views expressed are strictly his own and do not reflect upon any institutions or persons.*
Peter Schwartz is former chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute and former editorial director of its op-ed program. Mr. Schwartz was the founding editor and publisher of "The Intellectual Activist," a periodical covering political, cultural and philosophic issues. He is the author of "The Battle for Laissez-Faire Capitalism." He is the editor and contributing author of "Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" by Ayn Rand (Meridian/Penguin 1999), and the author of "The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America" (Ayn Rand Institute Press). Steven J. Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com. Since April 1, 1996, JunkScience.com has had a discernible impact in the fight against junk science and garnered numerous awards. Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in natural sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.
Preventing Mergers Destroys Competition
Irvine, CA--Opponents of a planned merger between XM Satellite Radio Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. are asking the government to block the merger in order to "preserve competition" in satellite radio. But, said Alex Epstein, junior fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, "The opposition to this merger is irrational. There is no way a voluntary merger can be a threat to genuine competition. "Proper, free-market competition is a process in which businesses, free to produce and sell whatever products they choose, attempt to outdo one another in making consumers the best offers for their money. No combination of companies can force customers to buy its products, nor prevent other businesses from offering theirs--thus, no merger can thwart free competition. To the contrary, mergers are an extremely valuable form of competition. A good merger enables businesses to combine strengths and strip away unneeded costs in an attempt to improve the appeal and profitability of their products. This is exactly the outcome that the struggling satellite providers Sirius and XM are hoping for--as they attempt to sell a profitable product to customers who have the option of listening to terrestrial radio, high definition radio, Internet radio, audiobooks, podcasts, and CDs. "When two businesses have so many outstanding competitors that they are bleeding red ink, how can anyone oppose a merger between them as a 'threat to competition'? These opponents do so only because they accept the perverse concept of 'competition' that underlies our antitrust laws. On this view, 'competition' is not a free process--it is an egalitarian outcome, in which every market and sub-market has as many viable competitors as possible, with no one ever growing or succeeding 'too much.' Antitrust advocates believe that the government must forcibly prevent any one company from gaining too great a market share--that is, prevent it from persuading 'too many' customers to buy its products. "A conception of 'competition' that grants government bureaucrats the power to keep companies from becoming 'too successful' should not be preserved--it should be rejected as perverse and un-American. As a first step, we can tell our government to keep its hands off of satellite radio companies."U.S. Should Not Negotiate with Iran and Syria
Irvine, CA--According to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the United States will join the Iraqi government in inviting Iran and Syria to a "neighbors meeting" on "stabilizing" Iraq. "But Iran and Syria are our enemies," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "These countries are responsible for the maiming and deaths of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq. For months Iran and Syria have been fomenting terrorist activity against American troops and Iraqi civilians, providing terrorists with training, weapons and explosive devices. "The United States should be bombing, not 'meeting,' these terrorist regimes. "Any U.S. appeal to Iran or Syria for help in Iraq would be suicidal and immoral. By evading the evil of these regimes and pretending that they're peace-seekers who share our goals, the United States would be encouraging and rewarding their aggression. Dispensing with moral judgment is not a short-cut to achieving peace; it is a sure way of unleashing and goading the killers to redouble their efforts against us."Enemies of the American Dream
Irvine, CA--America has long been known as the country in which individuals, no matter where they begin in life, have the freedom necessary to achieve great success--to live the American Dream. Yet the critics of "income inequality," complaining about high CEO pay, endless "dead-end jobs," and allegedly low "social mobility," say that the American Dream has become a fiction--and that the government must come to the rescue with new welfare spending. In fact, said Alex Epstein, "Today's America, thanks to its legacy of economic freedom, offers unprecedented economic opportunity to all of us. "Thanks to the ingenuity of individuals under generations of American capitalism, today we have available to us literally thousands of types of well-paying jobs, and myriad resources from which to acquire new skills and knowledge--this, even in spite of our horrible system of public education. Immigrants who come here speaking no English, but who work hard and have a commitment to self-improvement, routinely achieve great success--while their children fill America's top universities. "Anyone who claims that in America today it is nearly impossible to improve your economic situation is lying to you. Indeed, the biggest obstacle many Americans face is that very lie--the determinist philosophy that your success or failure is pre-ordained by economic circumstances. Those who accept this philosophy of failure will not be willing to exert the effort, self-discipline, and commitment to self-improvement that success requires. They will be ripe targets for anti-capitalist politicians who sell them on the latest welfare scheme by telling them that their problems are not of their own making, but rather of an overly capitalist system that permits such income inequality. "Americans must reject the present public outcry against income inequality, and recognize that the American Dream can become a reality for each of us--as long as we embrace a philosophy of responsibility and success, not determinism and failure."‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
John Lewis is one of the most hard hitting intellectuals around -- especially when he gets going in his Q&As. If you are a 100 miles within the area make sure to attend! -- CapMag Who: Dr. John Lewis, historian at Ashland University What: A talk on how we can and why we must defeat Totalitarian Islam—first and foremost by destroying the current regime in Iran When: Wednesday, February 28, 7:30 PM–9:30 PM Where: George Mason University, Fairfax Campus, Johnson Center, 3rd Floor, Meeting Room C The public and media are invited. Admission is FREE. Summary: In the wake of 9/11, and in the face of rising threats to their freedoms and rights, Americans are uncertain about what a proper foreign policy should be. The uncertainty arises from the philosophical influences of pragmatism and altruism, which have misguided Americans and their leaders for decades. Mentally crippled by this uncertainty, America has failed to address the cause of the threats against her and, in so doing, has bolstered it. This talk consults the historical precedent of American policy towards Shintoism in post-1945 Japan to show that a proper policy today would first identify Islamic Totalitarianism as the cause of the threat facing the West, and then direct American resources toward eliminating the political imposition of Islamic Law. If Americans want to end the threats against their lives and liberty, they must first identify the advocates of political Islam (those who seek to impose Islamic Law by force) as the true enemy, and then destroy that enemy—beginning with the Islamic State of Iran. This is the only way to reestablish American security. For more information on this talk, please email info@theobjectivestandard.com. To read the article on which the talk is based, click here.United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rights
From The Archives:United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rightsby Glenn Woiceshyn (December 11, 1998) On December 10th the United Nations celebrated the 50th anniversary of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a five-page, 30-article document specifying everyone's alleged rights. Rather than celebrate it, we should condemn it as a destroyer of rights and a charter of tyranny.
Limited Engagement: Bush Shamelessly Evades The Need to Militarily Confront Iran
From Cox and Forkum:
Three weeks ago, President Bush made it clear that engaging Iran militarily was not being pursued:"Some are trying to say that because we're helping ourselves in Iraq by stopping outside [Iranian] influence from killing our soldiers or hurting Iraqi people that we want to expand this beyond the borders," Bush said. "That's a presumption that's simply not accurate. We believe that we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically."Since then even more evidence of Iran's maleficence in Iraq has been revealed, yet Bush continues to evade the necessity of truly confronting Iran. From CNN: Bush blames Iraq weapons on 'part of' Iranian government.
President Bush said Wednesday that "a part of the Iranian government" is involved in sending deadly explosives into Iraq ... But the president Wednesday rejected as "preposterous" suggestions that the United States was creating a basis for conflict with Iran. "My job is to protect our troops, and when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.," he said "... Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means.""Protect our troops"? What's preposterous is leaving the Iranians completely unmolested while they kill our troops in Iraq. Here again are articles indicating Iran's war-making in Iraq: Rumsfeld: Iraq bombs 'clearly from Iran' (CNN, August 10, 2005)
EXCLUSIVE: Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran? (ABC News, March 6, 2006)
Rumsfeld accuses Iran of troublemaking in Iraq (AP via Army Times, March 7, 2006)
Casey cites Iran hand in attacks by Iraqi Shiites (The Washington Times, June 23, 2006)
Barbero: Iran training Shiite insurgents (AP via Army Times, August 24, 2006)
Donkeys harboring weapons stopped at Iran-Iraq border (Army Times, November 2, 2006)
Iran involvement suspected in Karbala compound attack (CNN, January 31, 2007)
Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran (The Telegraph, February 13, 2007) From the Ayn Rand Institute: Support Our Troops: How the Democrats and Republicans Can Truly Support our Military and Defend America by Alex Epstein.
[A]lmost everyone wants to give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs: the best weapons, armor, provisions, and training available -- as well as praise, gratitude, and encouragement. But for our government to truly support our troops, it must do far more than help them do their jobs; it must give them the right jobs to do -- the jobs that will effectively defend America while minimizing the risk to their lives. Our government must place soldiers' lives at risk only when American freedom is threatened, and during war it must give them the objectives and tactics that will defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. The conservatives' Iraq war does not meet this standard. It could have--if the war had been undertaken as a step in defeating the anti-American, terrorist-sponsoring regimes of the Middle East and thus rendering the region non-threatening. Instead, President Bush made the war's primary focus the welfare of Iraqis--above all, their "freedom" to elect whatever regime they wished, no matter how anti-American. Further sacrificing Americans to Iraqis, Bush and his subordinates imposed crippling "rules of engagement" (also supported by liberals) that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above our soldiers. Our hamstrung troops in Iraq have not been allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency; instead, they have been forced to suffer an endless series of deaths by an undefeated enemy, while Islamic totalitarians worldwide rejoice in our defeat. One does not support our troops by sending them to fight wars of self-sacrifice and then thanking their corpses. The conservatives' call to "stay the course" in Iraq--or to add 20,000 troops to that course--is harmful to America and its troops because the mission has been conceived and conducted in defiance of American interests. If the conservatives do not support our troops, then do the liberals? Absolutely not. Observe that while liberals criticize the Iraq war for killing our troops, they propose no alternative policy that would protect America against Islamic totalitarianism and its state supporters, including the militant, terrorist theocracy of Iran. Liberals' only policy proposal is that we not take military action in Iraq or in any other country beyond Afghanistan.Also see Washington's Make-Believe Policy on Iran by Elan Journo. Related: Dead Ball. From Hot Air: Video: Troops tell Geraldo they support the surge. Notable comments from two different soldiers: "untie our hands" and "let us take the gloves off." From The Moscow Times: Iraq Closes Border Crossings With Iran, Syria for 72 Hours.
The U.S. military said Wednesday that the aim was to choke off the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into the country.The flow will find another way if we don't stop it at the source.
Alex Epstein Takes on Paul Krugman on The Issue of Iran
Irvine, CA--In response to Bush administration claims that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents with deadly weapons, liberals say they are worried that the administration is making the case for military action. The "New York Times" accuses the administration of "saber-rattling," while the paper's leading columnist, Paul Krugman, says that "a powerful faction in the administration is spoiling for a fight." "The truth," said Alex Epstein, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "is exactly the opposite. The real problem with the Bush administration regarding Iran is that it, like its critics, is evading the massive case against this committed enemy of America. "Iran is the leading state-supporter and champion of Islamic Totalitarianism--the ideological movement that is the root cause of the present terrorist threat. Ever since Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979, it has been constitutionally committed to expanding ‘the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world.' It has made good on this commitment by waging terrorist warfare against Israel and America through Hezbollah and other subsidiaries. Its success in terrorizing the West has encouraged other Islamic Totalitarian terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. The regime is furiously pursuing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, with which its president promises to ‘wipe Israel off the map'--while its spiritual leaders declare their ultimate goal with weekly chants of ‘Death to America.' "Yet since 9/11, the Bush administration has done absolutely nothing about the Iranian threat--and its liberal critics promote ‘cooperation' with the regime, even praising Iran for being ‘quite helpful to the United States in the months after [9/11]'! What explains this insanity?"Our intellectual and political leaders have evaded the true nature and scope of the enemy we face. Immersed in the modern dogmas that all cultures are equal and all religions are peaceful, they will not acknowledge that the 9/11 terrorists are part of a religious-ideological movement fueled by Muslim peoples and states. They prefer the fiction that we are at war only with a relative handful of stateless, un-Islamic terrorists. Thus, they can delude themselves, Iran is not our mortal enemy, but only a misguided potential coalition partner in a ‘war on terrorism.'
"Iran needs to be attacked and defeated, the sooner the better. This does not mean another Iraqi boondoggle in which our soldiers try to bring the good life to warring tribes; it means the destruction of an enemy regime without apology. We must make it clear that we will no longer tolerate--or evade--aggression from the Islamic Totalitarians."
The Un-American Opposition to “Income Inequality”
Irvine, CA--Politicians and commentators from both parties are claiming that "income inequality" is a danger to America. They propose to alleviate it by raising taxes on the wealthy and expanding various welfare programs. But, said Alex Epstein, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "Income inequality--even vast income inequality--is a good thing. It is not income inequality but its critics that truly threaten this country. "America is supposed to be a free nation, in which each individual can earn as much money as his ability and effort permit. If this results in vast ‘income inequality'--because different individuals in different professions with different abilities and work ethics create vastly different amounts of wealth--that is a good thing, not a problem for the government to ‘fix.' "Opponents of income inequality complain that the wealthy ‘command' an unfair share of national income--as if the wealth in America were a preexisting national pie, of which everyone is entitled an equal slice. But this is false. The vast wealth in America hasn't fallen from the sky; it has been created through the productive activities of individuals in a free market. No one has a right to more money than he has freely earned--and no one has a right to claim that others have earned ‘too much.' "For those who want to make more money, the solution is simple; enter a new field, develop new skills, start a business, or do anything else to make yourself more productive. But do not ask the government to loot the successful on your behalf. Nothing could be more unjust or more un-American than that."Chavez’s Disastrous Nationalization Plan
Irvine, CAVenezuelan president Hugo Chavez has recently announced plans to nationalize utilities and telecommunications companies. "Chavez claims that this theft of private property from its owners is necessary to improve the lot of the poor in Venezuela," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "But as history has shown, nationalization is both immoral and impractical. Industries under state control are highly inefficient and much less productive than private industries free to function in a capitalist market. As production is throttled, rich and poor alike suffer. "Marxist policies always lead to poverty and disaster. There can be no significant progress, prosperity or wealth creation in a social system that does not recognize individual rights, particularly property rights. Property rights are both moral and practical. "If Venezuelans want to avoid an economic disaster that will eventually wipe out their savings, their investments, their businesses and their livelihoods, they must get rid of Chavez and reject the Marxist ideology he embodies."
Cartoon by Cox and Forkum.