Insane policies often arise when in order to solve a problem policies are made that create other problems. For example in no-fault divorce a man can divorce his wife for committing adultery and she will still collect money from him. In California this is the only type of divorce allowed. Apparently the policy of only allowing this kind of divorce arose because spouses would attempt to create false evidence against the other spouse. Another solution would be to create severe penalties for creating false evidence. The latter solution would prevent the insanity of forcing a man to support his adultery committing wife when she elopes with the man she was cheating with. Reverse discrimination is an example of a policy that creates problems in order to solve them. Sometimes there is no clear solution and all the solutions have problems and the best solution has to be chosen of a bad lot. However, often in our country, an insane solution is chosen.
Insane Environmental Policies
Congress and the Bush administration mandated a sextupling of ethanol production, from the 6 billion gallons produced last year to 36 billion by 2022 in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Only problem is ethanol increases CO2 emissions and this policy makes the price of corn skyrocket which is a calamity for 3rd world countries.
Insane Policies to Help Minorities
The subprime crisis is a result of pressure from the U.S. government on banks to make risky loans to minorities in order to help them. As a result as of March 2008 there is a huge economic crisis that hits who the most, you guessed it, minorities.
Insane or (evil) American Foreign Policy in the Middle East
The United States gives billions of dollars in aid to Egypt even though Egypt persecutes its Christian population. One Christian described being locked up in a 3 by 5 cell. He and another Christian were locked up for insulting Islam, preaching Christianity and maintaining an unlawful association with a foreign organization. The foreign organization was a Canadian ministry (wnd.com).
The United States continues to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority despite the use of those funds for terror against Israeli civilians and despite the relentless hatred preached by the Palestinian Authority against the United States. Three Americans went to Gaza to grant USAID scholarships to Palestinians. In October 2003 Palestinian Arabs murdered them. The State Department posted an ad in Palestinian newspapers offering a 5 million dollar reward for help in finding the terrorists. In an article titled Relentless Hate (Palestinian Media Watch 3/4/04) the author wrote:
Both Arafat advisor Jibril Rajoub, and the Union of Palestinian Journalists called the American pressure on the PA to find the killers extortion. The Journalists Union even condemned a PA daily for publishing a US State Department ad offering a reward for help in finding the terrorists. The ad was likewise called extortion. [See below]
As mentioned above, this anti American hatred continues at the very time that the US continues to give political and financial support to the PA. Indeed, the Palestinian editor had no trouble [or possibly it was intentional] placing the news item [cited above] rejecting PA co-operation in finding the murderers of the three Americans on the very same page as a large ad by USAID offering scholarships to Palestinian students.
Notice, the United States is still giving USAID even after the three Americans who came to give USAID were murdered. According to the article:
Despite continuing United States and Western European support for Palestinian political aspirations, the tightly-controlled official Palestinian Authority (PA) media relentlessly incites hatred and violence against the US and the West...
A principle of PA ideology is to present the various conflicts around the world involving Muslims and Arabs as part of a war between civilizations that the West led by the United States is fighting against Islam and the Arab world. They incite their people to support violence because the US runs a dirty war against all that is Arab and Muslim. As victims they, the Palestinians, will lead the war against the West. The editor of the official PA daily, echoing Bin Laden ideology , insists there exists a American -European- Russian alliance, promoting Muslim- Arab subjugation, and that the Palestinians are at the forefront of the war that will shake the earth under the feet of the blood and oil sucking neo- imperialists, the thieves of natural resources murderers of nations. [See full texts below.]
President Bush, in this global war context, is depicted not merely as a leader of the "enemy United States", but is the enemy of all civilization, the Fuhrer of the globalization era, a greater danger than Hitler, leading the world to destruction: The new Fuhrer [Bush] will return the world to the Stone Age, while Hitler only left tens of millions of dead.
Despite this the United States insanely continues to fund the Palestinian Authority.
Perhaps the best article about the insanity of United States policy in the Middle East is an article titled The Strange Case of Bethlehem which was written by David Hornik for Frontpagemagazine.com (3/1/04). In the article he writes about the consequences of United States pressure on Israel to keep its forces out of towns such as Bethlehem. He wrote that:
Just half a century ago Bethlehem was 80% Christian; today its down to 20% and constantly dwindling. Like Christian Arabs elsewhere in the Palestinian Authorityan entity whose official religion is Islam and whose basic laws reflect the ShariaBethlehems Christians have been subject to discrimination and harassment and are abandoning the town to those aiming for an Islamic monolith in the Middle East.
But the home of the Church of the Nativity and of Rachels Tomb, a focus of prayer and pilgrimage for both Christians and Jews, is not only succumbing to grim Islamic totalitarianism. Even worse, Bethlehem is now a terrorist haven. This despite the fact that its within walking distance of Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, a country with a modern army of hundreds of thousands whose citizens are the victims of Bethlehem terror...
For a couple of years, Israel and the Palestinian Authority have engaged in a strange dance over Bethlehem. In April 2002, as part of Operation Defensive Shield, Israel took control of the city and terror attacks from it stopped. But in mid-May, under pressure from the Bush administration, Israel obligingly withdrew and handed the city back to the PA. On May 22, a Fatah terrorist from Bethlehem blew himself up in Rishon Lezion, killing two Israelis and wounding many more. The Israeli army then reoccupied the city for several days, arresting suspects from the Palestinian intelligence forces. But by June, it had restored the city to the willing stewardship of Dar al-Islam. Promptly, on June 18, a Bethlehem bomber killed nineteen on a Jerusalem bus. Later that month, another emissary of the town was only able to wound five on a Jerusalem street. Israel, concluding this latest experiment wasnt working so well, re-retook Bethlehem.
But the extraordinary chess game continued. In August the Israeli government... yet again withdrew from the city. Indeed, it took all of an additional three months before another Bethlehem bomber struckkilling, on November 21, eleven people on a bus in the Kiryat Menachem neighborhood of Jerusalem.
This time Israel cracked down: it reentered Bethlehem and stayed there a whole eight months, a period in which no attacks were mounted from the city. But in July last year, our government... withdrew. Indeed, from that point so much time went by without a made-in-Bethlehem exploit that one might have thought the Kingdom of Heaven had descended to earth. Until, that is, the morning of last January 29, when my son, sleeping in his flat in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem, was woken up by a huge boom. Another raider from the enclave just to the south had struck, and the bombed-out bus eventually traveled to The Hague. The eleven dead stayed where they were.
Though I think of myself as a realist, I suffer from terminal naivete. I really thought that at that point wed take Bethlehem again, not wait to see if the latest mishap was just an aberration. But we didnt. Our forces were instructed to blow up the home of the bomber and make some arreststhats all. Then we waited for the Palestinians next move. It came last Sunday...
Last Sunday morning, February 22, a suicide bomber literally walked into Jerusalem from Bethlehem, got on a bus, and blew himself up, killing eight Israelis and wounding scores.
The United States arms both sides of conflicts in several places in the world, the Middle East being a prime example. The United States sells arms to Israel and to Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The United States is giving vast military assistance to Egypt in return for Egypt signing a peace treaty with Israel, never questioning why Egypt would need military assistance if it was making peace. The fact that Egypt wants weapons in return for a peace treaty means that Egypt is not serious about peace and is using the peace treaty to increase its military strength. By arming Egypt the United States has increased the risk of war. Arutz 7 of 8/28/01 quotes a Middle East News Line (MENL) report that the Bush administration persuaded Congress not to reduce U.S. military aid to Egypt. The congressional effort sought to trim at least $100 million from the current annual military aid level of $1.3 billion. Administration officials said that Congress was persuaded that any attempt to reduce U.S. aid to Egypt would only hurt American interests during the current violence in the Middle East. The officials said Egypt has remained a key factor in preventing an Arab-Israeli war. This is an ironic statement considering that Egypt has threatened to go to war with Israel should Israel invade the Palestinian Authority or attack Syria. With a regular army of 450,000 soldiers, the Egyptian army is larger than the combined NATO forces. . Caroline Glick in her article, Not a Cold Peace A Cold War , (Makor Rishon Newspaper Magazine Supplement, pp. 6-8, August 17, 2001) writes:
Pines research indicates that Egypt actually spends between twenty and twenty five billion dollars annually on its defense budget. This sum equals one third of Egypts GNP. According to Stav, The only country that spent a third of its GNP on its military was Nazi Germany on the eve of World War II. Even the allies, at the height of the war did not allocate a third of their GNP on the war effort. To what possible end is this impoverished country, whose per capita income is smaller than Jordans or the Palestinian Authoritys arming itself? Egypt has no external threats. This is offensive militarization directed entirely against Israel.
The United States claims it is maintaining a qualitative edge for Israel yet they have made the Egyptian air force with more than 215 F-16 jets, the fourth largest such fleet in the world. In addition Egypt gets arms from the Soviet Union that are not provided by the United States. Regarding Israel's perception of the situation Glick writes:
The main difference between the United States and Israel - is that America knew it was in the midst of a cold war and Israel remains in stubborn denial.
Egypt tortures the Christians living there. Does that stop the Bush administration from funding Egypt? obviously not.
According to member of the Israeli Knesset, Yuval Steinitz, the United States is offering to modernize the Syrian army in return for Syria's making a peace treaty with Israel and that has convinced Syria to negotiate with Israel. Again, if you need to offer weapons to bring a country to the peace table, you may get the peace treaty you want, but you won't get peace.
The government controlled media of both Egypt and Syria are full of incitement against the United States. What greater folly can there be than to arm a country that incites against you?
The United States sold arms to Iraq to offset the growing military power of Iran and then had to fight a well armed Iraq. In fact the investigation into the anthrax attacks in the U.S. that started in Sept 2001 suggest they came from a U.S. lab. Stephen Hatfill was labeled "A person of interest" (suspect) in the anthrax investigation and became furious that he was publicly labeled in this way. He pointed out in front of television cameras that the U.S. had given Iraq anthrax in the past (8/02). The United States government never learns from its mistakes and at the time of the writing of this sentence (July 17, 1998) the United States is trying to cozy up to Iran in order to offset the growing threat of Iraq. It is insane to arm Islamic countries. The arms will inevitably be used against the Great Satan, the United States.
The United States armed the Taliban in their war against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Before Sept 11, Northern Alliance soldiers were interviewed for the documentary Jung. One Northern Alliance soldier when asked why he is fighting the Taliban, explained, "They are servants to Pakistan and to America." "The Taliban serve Pakistan and England," says another. (New York Post 11/23/01)
The Madness of the FBI and the CIA
Mark Riebling in his article Why America Slept wrote that Congressman Barney Frank amended legislation so that a special FBI-CIA unit, the Alien Border Control Committee, could not deport known members of terrorist groups; the government had to show that an individual had actually committed a terrorist act.
By 1999, meanwhile, the annual spy budget, adjusted for inflation, was less than three-fourths of what it had been in 1989. Scarce Pentagon and CIA resources were diverted into questionable new areas such as "environmental intelligence," to counter "green menaces" like elephant poaching.
It took the thousands of deaths on Sept 11, 2001 to get the U.S. government to free the FBI to visit Internet sites, libraries, churches and political organizations as part of an effort to give the beleaguered agency new tools to pre-empt terrorist strikes. Before this these actions including web surfing which any private citizen can do, had to be part of an ongoing criminal investigation. In otherwords a private citizen could investigate more easily on the web than the FBI. A lot of the investigating Steve Emerson did that led to his documentary "Jihad in America" was off limits to the FBI.
The reason the FBI never searched Zacarias Moussaoui's computer and never caught on to the impending attacks of Sept 11 2001 was probably due to the insane Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). According to Rich Lowry of the New York Post (Who Probes the Probers 6/4/02) Fisa was the fruit of the congressional Church committee-- which responded to CIA and the FBI scandals of the 1960s and 70s by creating rules forbidding information sharing between the two agencies and limiting domestic surveillance. These restrictions were increased by Attorney General Janet Reno, creating myriad internal obstacles on the way to getting a FISA warrant and forbidding counterintelligence agents who have gotten information from FISA from any contact with criminal division lawyers. Ronald Kessler writes in his book, "The Bureau" that Reno enforced this "separation doctrine with religious ferver and FBI agents considered crossing the line... to be a 'career stopper.' Rowley the whistleblower who was blocked from searching Moussaoui's computer speculated that FBI headquarters didn't follow up on the Moussaoui case "in order to get out of the work of having to see the FISA application through or possibly to avoid taking what he may have perceived as unnecessary career risk"
In May or June 02, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the New Jersey State Police held a job fair at the Islamic Center of Passaic County, one of the largest mosques in the area in order to recruit Arabic and Farsi speakers. Of course that is a perfect way for radical Moslems to infiltrate the FBI.
The FBI hires Muslim translators of questionable loyalty and refuses to hire Jewish translators because it will anger the Muslim translators and when whistleblowers report the infiltration of the FBI by people with questionable loyalty they are fired. This was the experience of Sibel Edmonds and can be read about on her web site.
The Madness of United States Immigration Policy
Joel Mowbray in his article Visa Pipeline for Terror (New York Post 6/18/02) wrote that the United States does not require immigrants from Saudi Arabia to apply for a visa at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. Instead Saudis only need to go to a Saudi travel agent and fill out a two page form and submit a photo. This program is called Visa Express. Three of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States through Visa Express. Yet the program continues.
I wonder if Saudi Arabia is bribing the chief of Consular Affairs, Mary Ryan who is responsible for this policy. Even if they are it is insane of the United States to allow it to continue even if they wish to appease the Saudis.
While we're talking about illegal immigration it is important to remember that Rudi Dekkers of Huffman Aviation received notification from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of approval of the the student visa applications of Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, two of the al Qaeda terrorists who hijacked the jetliners that decimated the World Trade Center 7 months after they decimated it.
Michelle Malkin (New York Post 7/10/02) wrote how Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, the gunman who killed two people at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4th 2002, became a legal immigrant when his wife won the Visa Lottery. The Visa lottery is run to insure diversity of the immigrant population by selecting immigrants at random. We now have a diverse group of lucky terrorists in our country ready to kill the unlucky Americans who become their victims.
Michelle wrote a book called Invasion, How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. In the book she wrote:
One year after the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta's prayer ("Oh God, please open all doors for me") is still being answered. From our consula offices to our airports, seaports, and land borders, and from our visa policies to our asylum policies to our naturalization policies and deportation policies, every front, back, and side doorto America has been left swinging in the wind....We remain paralyzed by political correctness, greed, and schizophrenia about enforcing our immigration rules.
The INS allows illegal aliens who are criminals to go free. One example was Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway snipers. Michelle Malkin, in a column "INS Policy: Let Killers Walk" (New York Post 10/30/02) wrote about several such examples where the INS released criminal aliens who then went on to commit more crimes.
The Madness of Appeasement
Although he disastrous historical consequences of appeasement are well known appeasement goes on. Most peace loving countries avoid military action as long as possible while their enemies arm themselves. Once their enemies have enough strength, relative to the peace loving ones who failed to maintain their strength, war breaks out. There is an oscillation through history of war and peace. War comes again because during peace time the aggressors build up their strength and the peace loving countries do nothing to stop them. Often the peaceful countries will appease the aggressive ones with arms sales and so increase their strength still further. To maintain peace, it is necessary for peaceful countries to prepare for war so that war will never happen.
In the United States juries must be made up of people who have no previous knowledge of a case. In prominent cases such as the O.J. Simpson case everyone knew about the case unless they didn't follow the news. This is a policy that selects for jurors that are unaware of what is going on in the world. These are people who are likely to be uneducated and of low intelligence and not suitable for judging cases. Mark Twain once said:
"The jury system is a marvel of jurisprudence, marred only by the difficulty of finding 12 people who know nothing and who can't read."
Another insane policy is the one of excluding evidence. In order to arrive at a correct solution to a problem it is important to have as much information as possible. If information is suspect then the judge should tell the jury that why he thinks so but he shouldn't withhold the information.
Such a policy is based on the unfounded assumption that people exposed to prior information will believe it no matter what and are unable to adapt to new information.
At the same time as the law is designed to prevent the outcome being slanted by prior information prosecutors are allowed to pressure defendants into making a guilty plea in order to avoid a tougher sentence. They can also plea bargain with defendents that if they accuse someone else, they will have a lighter sentence. So the law creates incentives to make false accusations but excludes information that could increase the chances of a just trial.
Another insanity of our legal system is the propensity to convict people of abuse based on questionable testimony. For Example, Oliver Jovanovic was locked up on the basis of testimony of "Madame X" who told a court that Oliver kidnapped and raped her with a stick. Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post wrote (5/23/02)
Not only was there no evidence against Oliver, her own family told me how "Madame X" was a pathological liar, a thief and a twisted Barnard student who once wrongly accused her own father and uncle of sexually molesting her.
I was found guilty and sentenced," Oliver said. "While in prison a 250 pound inmate stabbed me in the neck while I was eating cornflakes. It was 20 months before I got a new trial and I have to thank the New York Post for their campaign. Suddenly, the district attorney dropped the case."
In May 2002 Oliver Jonanovic graduated with with a Ph.D. from Columbia University with top honors and an award for outstanding research in microbiology.
Oliver Jonanovic is free. Others false accused such as Paul Ingram and Francisco Fuster are still in jail.
Another insane policy of the judicial system is that which allows innocent people to be locked up in solitary confinement in order to force them to confess. The most outrageous example of this was when Janet Reno locked Ileana Fuster in solitary confinenent in order to force her to confess to committing abuse and to testify against Francisco Fuster. To view Ileana's testimony about the ordeal click here. There is a law in the United States forbidding cruel and unusual punishment yet solitary confinement which definitely is cruel is widespread and is being used against two border agents who shot at Mexicans crossing the border.
The American prosecutors can offer a reduced sentence in return for testimony. This resulted in the conviction of Thomas Lee Goldstein a college student and ex-Marine of a murder he did not commit. As a result he spent the next 24 years of his life behind bars. Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson in their book Mistakes Were Made But Not by Me, wrote that:
The police found no physical evidence linking Goldstein to the crime: no gun, no fingerprints, no blood. He had no motive. He was convicted on the testimony of a jailhouse information, improbably named Edward Fink, who had been arrested thirty-five times, had three felony convictions and a heroin habit, and had testified in ten different cases that the defendant had confessed to him while sharing a jail cell. (A prison counselor ahd described Fink as "a con man who tends to handle the facts as if they were elastic.") Fink lied under oath, denying that he had been given a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony.
In another case a stripper named Mangum accused Duke lacrosse players of gang raping her. A second stripper called the rape allegation a "crock" and said she had been separated from Mangum for no more than five minutes all night. Nifong the prosecutor offered her favorable bail treatment for violating probation. After taking Nifong's deal the second stripper suddenly decided it was possible a rape had occurred.
The legal system is constantly releasing dangerous people back to the street. Judges seem to believe that their primary duty is to dispense forgiveness instead of protecting the innocent from the wicked.
The judicial confusion about affirmative action shown by Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer on June 23 2003 in voting for affirmative action in the case of University of Michigan's Law School but against affirmative action in the case of University of Michigan's undergraduate program shows an unwillingness to face reality. They voted against the undergraduate admissions policy of assigning a 20 point bonus to minority applicants, even though that is exactly what affirmative action requires, giving an advantage to black minorities. Instead of drawing the logical conclusion which is that if assigning a 20 point bonus on the basis or race is wrong then affirmative action is wrong too, they opted to vote against that which made them face reality (the 20 points for minorities) and vote for affirmative action in the abstract (more minorities in law school) where they didn't have to face what it really means.
In 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) which banned the employment of illegal aliens and imposed liability on employers who did so. However if an employer demands proof of worker eligibility he may face a lawsuit for racial discrimination. Heather MacDonald wrote in the New York Post (W's Immigration Fallacy, New York Post 1/16/04) that:
Civil rights and ethnic lobbies made sure that IRCA included a whole new anti-bias bureaucracy: the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices, which sues employers who demand clear proof of worker eligibility...
What we have ... is a system of playacting. Millions of illegal workers pretend to present valid documents, and thousands of employers pretend to believe them.
Army records obtained by NBC 5 Investigates details how the U.S. government spent nearly $5 million to convict Nidal Hasan in the Fort Hood massacre -- crimes for which he wanted to plead guilty.
The Madness of Adoption Law
There are a great many loving couples who would willingly pay large sums of money to be able to adopt a child. There are also a great many abortions in this country. The law will not allow money to be paid to pregnant mothers to keep their children to term and give them up for adoption. Probably the reasoning behind this is that a baby market would be immoral. Which is more immoral, killing unborn babies or giving them a chance to live in a loving home?
Statistics show that America's population is changing and that immigrant populations many of whom are hostile to American ideals are growing much faster then the dwindling population of those with those ideals. If it was easier for couples to adopt it is possible that this trend could be reversed. Currently if one adopts there is a high risk of adopting a baby with serious medical problems because there aren't that many babies out there and those that are, are often the children of people who were to drunk or in other ways incapacitated, to have an abortion.
The Madness of American Priorities
Representative James Hansen, a Utah Republican wrote in the Washington Post (7/20/02) that:
On June 3, a federal district judge in Washington ordered a halt to all military training on a tiny, uninhabited rock 70 miles north of Saipan in the western Pacific. The training range on Farallon de Medinilla (FDM) is the closest U.S. training range to the current theater of operations in Afghanistan and the last opportunity that Navy and Marine Corps pilots and ships have to train with live ordnance before entering the theater. The range is so critical that the commander of the Seventh Fleet in Japan has stated that without access to FDM, "military readiness would deteriorate to unacceptable levels within six months."
If the judge knew of these serious national-security concerns (which he did) why would he put these lives at risk? The answer lies in a lawsuit brought by the extremist Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Fresh off of their efforts to block all low-level military flight training in the country, the CBD sued the Navy and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to stop training on FDM, claiming the training threatened a migratory bird in the vicinity...
Lawsuits, or the threat of lawsuits, have shutdown or severely restricted realistic training at bases all across the country. Marines in California are not allowed to practice amphibious landings at Camp Pendleton because they might disturb the mud puddles that the endangered fairy shrimp calls home. Soldiers in the Southwest are not allowed to practice night maneuvers because they might not see the desert tortoise. Air Force pilots in Idaho cannot practice low-level combat because the noise might disturb the river runners or the mating habits of elk. Army soldiers in Texas have to use tape to simulate digging foxholes because they might disturb nesting areas of a local bird.
The British and Somali Pirates
According to the Sunday Times, "The Royal Navy…..has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights. Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain. The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft.
Daniel Pipes wrote that:
A Scottish judge recently bent the law to benefit a polygamous household. The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone – usually grounds for an automatic loss of one's driving license. The defendant's lawyer explained his client's need to speed: "He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving licence he would be unable to do this on a regular basis." Sympathetic to the polygamist's plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license.
c o p y r i g h t ( c ) 1 9 9 9 - 2004 Karl Ericson Enterprises. All rights reserved
Table of Contents