The presentation may contain content that is deemed objectionable to a particular viewer because of the view expressed or the conduct depicted. The views expressed are provided for learning purposes only, and do not necessarily express the views, or opinions, of Strayer University, your professor, or those participating in videos or other media.
We will have two ten-minute breaks: at 7:30 and 9 pm. I will take roll early before we have the weekly Discussion at 9:30 pm before dismissal at 10:00 pm.
REVIEW OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves"[1] in the construction of an argument.[2][3] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Lawyers acknowledge that the extent to which an argument is sound or unsound depends on the context in which the argument is made.[4]
Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A formal fallacy can be expressed neatly in a standard system of logic, such as propositional logic,[2] while an informal fallacy originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form.[5] Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.[6]
A formal fallacy is a common error of thinking that can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic.[2] An argument that is formally fallacious is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure. Such an argument is always considered to be wrong.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or may even be more probable as a result of the argument; but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one: for instance, an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
Aristotle was the first to systematize logical errors into a list, as being able to refute an opponent's thesis is one way of winning an argument.[7]
Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, advertising, or for comedic purposes, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.
Examples of this include the speaker or writer:[14]
- Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi)
- Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem)
- Assume the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "begging the question" (petitio principi)
- Making jumps in logic (non-sequitur)
- Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
- Asserting that everyone agrees (bandwagoning)
- Creating a "false dilemma" ("either-or fallacy") in which the situation is oversimplified
- Selectively using facts (card-stacking)
- Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy)
- Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization)
In philosophy, the term formal fallacy is used for logical fallacies and defined formally as: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
Seinfeld: Elaine's Circular Reasoning, :40
Seinfeld Episode The Maid, Elaine attempts to fight the phone company with circular reasoning.
http://youtu.be/8CVbku6nxhU
Critical Thinking: False Cause Fallacy Example, :33
http://youtu.be/u5xrr4RyqaE
Reductio ad Absurdum
The Big Bang Theory - Reductio ad Absurdum, 1:13
http://youtu.be/ytWGiOuzpe4
Fallacy of Composition - Fire, :44
George illustrates that if there is a fire he should leave first to increase the chances of saving his life, or the fallacy of composition that what is true for the individual (George) is not necessarily true for the group.
http://youtu.be/5CAYhC1W_gQ
post hoc ergo propter hoc
"after this, therefore because of this"
post hoc ergo propter hoc, :42 The Big Bang Theory
Mind you, Sheldon knows informal logic. http://argumentics.blogspot.com/
http://youtu.be/vRJUvFG8gbE
Hasty Generalization commercial examples, 2:00
http://youtu.be/pem_FwggPsM
Critical Thinking Fallacy: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority Example, 1:22
http://youtu.be/jIIRmSV8JKE
Richard Dawkins commits the genetic fallacy, 1:58
William Lane Craig and JP Moreland show how the genetic fallacy has no bearing in terms of the truth or falsity of a proposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
http://youtu.be/uX2uRD4wvYs
Critical Thinking: Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy Example, 1:38
http://youtu.be/2Ra8_gyY9R8
Slippery Slope Fallacy
DIRECTV commercial - Don't Wake Up in a Roadside Ditch, :31
https://youtu.be/kIv3m2gMgUU
Second example - Date, 2:25
Watch a slippery slope fallacy develop when a man and woman are on a date. (Created by spring 2013 Honors Critical Thinking students.)
http://youtu.be/ZMhArBLt8l8
False Analogy Fallacy, 2:00
http://youtu.be/60NSO9pJyVI
The Is/Ought Problem, 1:28
https://youtu.be/eT7yXG2aJdY
Longer explanation, Fallacies: Slippery Slope, 8:12
http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com
This is a sample video from a video tutorial course titled "Fallacies", one of many videos on critical thinking that you can find at the link above.
http://youtu.be/DtmAw9Ia7LA
Packard Pokes At: Logical Fallacies: Bandwagon, 1:00
http://youtu.be/SCxWYinsqtU
Crazy Wisdom: Daniel Dennett on Reductio ad Absurdum, 2:40
http://youtu.be/sVUMAqMmy7o
Paul Henne: Fallacy of Composition, 3:58
In this video, Paul Henne describes the fallacy of composition, an informal fallacy that arises when we assume that some whole has the same properties as its parts. He also discusses why there aren't colorless cats.
http://youtu.be/JELm6peL_sI
Fallacy of Division
Fallacies: False Dilemma, 8:48
http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com
This video looks at the fallacy type known as "false dilemma", or "false dichotomy".
http://youtu.be/3-Xf0y13pQI
Philosophical Concepts- Circular Reasoning, 3:29
This short video explains the fallacy known as "circular reasoning" with a little help from a book about frogs.
http://youtu.be/eKLMsxpYago
Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem) Fallacy, 2:44
George finds himself correcting Professor Appenstall's well intentioned, but misguided defense of the college administration.
http://youtu.be/EO2Dhi-lm-w
3.1 Arguments are Support
A premise or premise [a] is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure. More complex arguments can use a series of rules to connect several premises to one conclusion, or to derive a number of conclusions from the original premises which then act as premises for additional conclusions. An example of this is the use of the rules of inference found within symbolic logic.
Where do I put the X? 5:00
- Premises and conclusions
Before you can analyze an argument you need to be sure that you've clearly identified the conclusion and the premises. This video discusses some of the challenges associated with this task.
Abortion is wrong because all human life is sacred.
What is the conclusion?
What is the premise?
In the space exploration example, what is the conclusion?
What words indicate a conclusion?
What words indicate a premise?
http://youtu.be/07mehbgE5jc
Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. Premises are sometimes left unstated in which case they are called missing premises (not updated for gender).
Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The following is an example of the syllogism written out in prose form:
Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal.
It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus:
Because all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal.
In this example, the independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.
The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.
3.1 Practice: Does the Existing Drinking Age Help or Harm?
3.2 Deduction
Understanding the Parts of a Categorical Syllogism
Visualizing Categorical Syllogisms
Figure 1 Syllogism Venn Diagram
Translating Categorical Statements
Truth, Validity, and Soundness
Enthymemes
Lecture 1
Topics
Categorical syllogisms
Premises and Conclusions
Types of propositions
Figures, validity, Venn Diagrams
Pre-Built Course Content
An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthumēma), is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) as used in oratorical debates, often relying on premises that are probably rather than certainly true, or relying on unstated assumptions that are omitted because they are already well-known or agreed upon.
In another broader usage, the term "enthymeme" is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism, or a less-than-100% argument
Enthymemes Explained - Tutts, 2:35
http://youtu.be/kWjTVTwi0ac
3.2 Practice: Deduction
Syllogisms
3.3 Induction
3.3 Practice: Induction
Debates Over Gun Control
Inductive vs. Deductive
Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.
Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. As a result, induction can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty.
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.
Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true.
Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning by Shmoop, 3:00
There are two different ways to use reasoning: deductive and inductive. Deductive reasoning starts with a general theory, statement, or hypothesis and then works its way down to a conclusion based on evidence. Inductive reasoning starts with a small observation or question and works it's way to a theory by examining the related issues. Writing Guide: http://www.shmoop.com/essay-lab/
https://youtu.be/VXW5mLE5Y2g
A classical example of an incorrect inductive argument was presented by John Vickers:
- All of the swans we have seen are white.
- Therefore, all swans are white.
In logic, a categorical proposition, or categorical statement, is a proposition that asserts or denies that all or some of the members of one category (the subject term) are included in another (the predicate term). The study of arguments using categorical statements (i.e., syllogisms) forms an important branch of deductive reasoning that began with the Ancient Greeks.
The Ancient Greeks such as Aristotle identified four primary distinct types of categorical proposition and gave them standard forms (now often called A, E, I, and O). If, abstractly, the subject category is named S and the predicate category is named P, the four standard forms are:
- All S are P. (A form)
- All S are not P. (E form)
- Some S are P. (I form)
- Some S are not P. (O form)
Quality refers to whether the proposition affirms or denies the inclusion of a subject within the class of the predicate. The two possible qualities are called affirmative and negative. For instance, an A-proposition ("All S are P") is affirmative since it states that the subject is contained within the predicate. On the other hand, an O-proposition ("Some S are not P") is negative since it excludes the subject from the predicate.
| Name | Statement | Quantity | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | All S are P. | universal | affirmative |
| E | No S are P. | universal | negative |
| I | Some S are P. | particular | affirmative |
| O | Some S are not P. | particular | negative |
An important consideration is the definition of the word some. In logic, some refers to "one or more", which could mean "all". Therefore, the statement "Some S are P" does not guarantee that the statement "Some S are not P" is also true.
Distribution
The two terms (subject and predicate) in a categorical proposition may each be classified as distributed or undistributed. If all members of the term's class are affected by the proposition, that class is distributed; otherwise it is undistributed. Every proposition therefore has one of four possible distribution of terms.Each of the four canonical forms will be examined in turn regarding its distribution of terms. Although not developed here, Venn diagrams are sometimes helpful when trying to understand the distribution of terms for the four forms.
An A-proposition distributes the subject to the predicate, but not the reverse. Consider the following categorical proposition: "All dogs are mammals". All dogs are indeed mammals but it would be false to say all mammals are dogs. Since all dogs are included in the class of mammals, "dogs" is said to be distributed to "mammals". Since all mammals are not necessarily dogs, "mammals" is undistributed to "dogs".
Distribution of Terms in Categorical Claims, 3:26
https://youtu.be/gFoghDaNO9A
An E-proposition distributes bidirectionally between the subject and predicate. From the categorical proposition "No beetles are mammals", we can infer that no mammals are beetles. Since all beetles are defined not to be mammals, and all mammals are defined not to be beetles, both classes are distributed.
Categorical Propositions: I and O Statements
I form
Both terms in an I-proposition are undistributed. For example, "Some Americans are conservatives". Neither term can be entirely distributed to the other. From this proposition it is not possible to say that all Americans are conservatives or that all conservatives are Americans.O form
In an O-proposition only the predicate is distributed. Consider the following: "Some politicians are not corrupt". Since not all politicians are defined by this rule, the subject is undistributed. The predicate, though, is distributed because all the members of "corrupt people" will not match the group of people defined as "some politicians". Since the rule applies to every member of the corrupt people group, namely, "all corrupt people are not some politicians", the predicate is distributed.The distribution of the predicate in an O-proposition is often confusing due to its ambiguity. When a statement like "Some politicians are not corrupt" is said to distribute the "corrupt people" group to "some politicians", the information seems of little value since the group "some politicians" is not defined. But if, as an example, this group of "some politicians" were defined to contain a single person, Albert, the relationship becomes more clear. The statement would then mean, of every entry listed in the corrupt people group, not one of them will be Albert: "all corrupt people are not Albert". This is a definition that applies to every member of the "corrupt people" group, and is therefore distributed.
Summary
In short, for the subject to be distributed, the statement must be universal (e.g., "all", "no"). For the predicate to be distributed, the statement must be negative (e.g., "no", "not").| Name | Statement | Distribution | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Predicate | ||
| A | All S are P. | distributed | undistributed |
| E | No S are P. | distributed | distributed |
| I | Some S are P. | undistributed | undistributed |
| O | Some S are not P. | undistributed | distributed |
Major, Middle, and Minor Categorical Terms
Major, Minor, and Middle Term, 1:39
An explanation of how to find the major, the minor and the middle terms in a categorical syllogism.
https://youtu.be/_axMz-RHmvg
The end terms in a categorical syllogism are the major term and the minor term (not the middle term). These two terms appear together in the conclusion and separately with the middle term in the major premise and minor premise, respectively.
Example:
- Major premise: All M are P.
- Minor premise: All S are M.
- Conclusion: All S are P.
In logic, a middle term is a term that appears (as a subject or predicate of a categorical proposition) in both premises but not in the conclusion of a categorical syllogism. The middle term (in bold below) must be distributed in at least one premise but not in the conclusion. The major term and the minor terms, also called the end terms, do appear in the conclusion.
Example:
- Major premise: All men are mortal.
- Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
- Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Validity
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid. Under such conditions it would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises.
CRITICAL THINKING COURSE - valid and invalid arguments, 2:16
https://youtu.be/iE_8mvzi_rI
An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid".
An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:
- All men are mortal.
- Socrates is a man.
- Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
- All cups are green.
- Socrates is a cup.
- Therefore, Socrates is green.
- All men are immortal.
- Socrates is a man.
- Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
A standard view is that whether an argument is valid is a matter of the argument's logical form. Many techniques are employed by logicians to represent an argument's logical form. A simple example, applied to two of the above illustrations, is the following: Let the letters 'P', 'Q', and 'S' stand, respectively, for the set of men, the set of mortals, and Socrates. Using these symbols, the first argument may be abbreviated as:
- All P are Q.
- S is a P.
- Therefore, S is a Q.
- All P are not Q.
- S is a P.
- Therefore, S is a Q.
Introduction to the Logic of Syllogism, 8:11
Before you get into the study of the Syllogism and its rules, this short introduction gives you a few basic elements to start from.
https://youtu.be/o5ameb989CY
Syllogistic Rules
Rules and Fallacies for Categorical Syllogisms
The following rules must be observed in order to form a valid categorical syllogism:
Rule-1. A valid categorical syllogism will have three and only three unambiguous categorical terms.
The use of exactly three categorical terms is part of the definition of a categorical syllogism, and we saw earlier that the use of an ambiguous term in more than one of its senses amounts to the use of two distinct terms. In categorical syllogisms, using more than three terms commits the fallacy of four terms.
Fallacy: Four terms
Example:Power tends to corrupt
Knowledge is power
Knowledge tends to corrupt
Justification: This syllogism appears to have only three terms, but there are really four since one of them, the middle term “power” is used in different senses in the two premises. To reveal the argument’s invalidity we need only note that the word “power” in the first premise means “ the possession of control or command over people,” whereas the word “power” in the second premise means “the ability to control things.
Rule-2. In a valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the premises.
In order to effectively establish the presence of a genuine connection between the major and minor terms, the premises of a syllogism must provide some information about the entire class designated by the middle term. If the middle term were undistributed in both premises, then the two portions of the designated class of which they speak might be completely unrelated to each other. Syllogisms that violate this rule are said to commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Fallacy: Undistributed middle
Example:
All sharks are fish
All salmon are fish
All salmon are sharks
Justification: The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the middle term is never distributed, then the major and minor terms might be related to different parts of the M class, thus giving no common ground to relate S and P.Rule-3. In a valid categorical syllogism if a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in the premises.
A premise that refers only to some members of the class designated by the major or minor term of a syllogism cannot be used to support a conclusion that claims to tell us about every member of that class. Depending which of the terms is misused in this way, syllogisms in violation commit either the fallacy of the illicit major or the fallacy of the illicit minor.
Fallacy: Illicit major; illicit minor
Examples:
All horses are animals
Some dogs are not horses
Some dogs are not animals
And:
All tigers are mammals
All mammals are animals
All animals are tigers
Justification: When a term is distributed in the conclusion, let’s say that P is distributed, then that term is saying something about every member of the P class. If that same term is NOT distributed in the major premise, then the major premise is saying something about only some members of the P class. Remember that the minor premise says nothing about the P class. Therefore, the conclusion contains information that is not contained in the premises, making the argument invalid.Rule-4. A valid categorical syllogism may not have two negative premises.
The purpose of the middle term in an argument is to tie the major and minor terms together in such a way that an inference can be drawn, but negative propositions state that the terms of the propositions are exclusive of one another. In an argument consisting of two negative propositions the middle term is excluded from both the major term and the minor term, and thus there is no connection between the two and no inference can be drawn. A violation of this rule is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.
Fallacy: Exclusive premises
Example:
No fish are mammals
Some dogs are not fish
Some dogs are not mammals
Justification: If the premises are both negative, then the relationship between S and P is denied. The conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive fashion. That information goes beyond what is contained in the premises.
Rule-5. If either premise of a valid categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
An affirmative proposition asserts that one class is included in some way in another class, but a negative proposition that asserts exclusion cannot imply anything about inclusion. For this reason an argument with a negative proposition cannot have an affirmative conclusion. An argument that violates this rule is said to commit the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, or drawing a negative conclusion from an affirmative premise.
Example:
All crows are birds
Some wolves are not crows
Some wolves are birds
Justification: Two directions, here. Take a positive conclusion from one negative premise. The conclusion states that the S class is either wholly or partially contained in the P class. The only way that this can happen is if the S class is either partially or fully contained in the M class (remember, the middle term relates the two) and the M class fully contained in the P class. Negative statements cannot establish this relationship, so a valid conclusion cannot follow. Take a negative conclusion. It asserts that the S class is separated in whole or in part from the P class. If both premises are affirmative, no separation can be established, only connections. Thus, a negative conclusion cannot follow from positive premises. Note: These first four rules working together indicate that any syllogism with two particular premises is invalid.
Rule-6. In valid categorical syllogisms particular propositions cannot be drawn properly from universal premises.
Because we do not assume the existential import of universal propositions, they cannot be used as premises to establish the existential import that is part of any particular proposition. The existential fallacy violates this rule. Although it is possible to identify additional features shared by all valid categorical syllogisms (none of them, for example, have two particular premises), these six rules are jointly sufficient to distinguish between valid and invalid syllogisms.
Fallacy: Existential fallacy
Example:
All mammals are animals
All tigers are mammals
Some tigers are animals
Justification:
On the Boolean model, Universal statements make no claims about existence while particular ones do. Thus, if the syllogism has universal premises, they necessarily say nothing about existence. Yet if the conclusion is particular, then it does say something about existence. In which case, the conclusion contains more information than the premises do, thereby making it invalid.
|||| Summary
Rule 1: There must be exactly three unambiguous categorical terms
Fallacy = Four terms
Rule 2: Middle term must be distributed at least once.
Fallacy = Undistributed Middle
Rule 3: All terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in one of the premises.
Fallacy = Illicit major; Illicit minor
HINT: Mark all distributed terms first Remember from Chapter 1 that a deductive argument may not contain more information in the conclusion than is contained in the premises. Thus, arguments that commit the fallacies of illicit major and illicit minor commit this error.
Rule 4: Two negative premises are not allowed.
Fallacy = Exclusive premises The key is that "nothing is said about the relation between the S class and the P class."
Rule 5: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise.
Fallacy = Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. OR
Drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises. OR Any syllogism having exactly one negative statement is invalid.
Note the following sub-rule: No valid syllogism can have two particular premises. The last rule is dependent on quantity.
Rule 6: If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular.
Fallacy =Existential Fallacy}}
Rules for Testing the Validity of Syllogisms, 7:42
This is a tutorial about how to use six rules of validity to determine if a syllogism is valid. It begins with a brief review of mood, figure, and distribution, concepts you'll need to know to apply the rules.. See other videos for a more detailed introduction to mood, figure, and distribution.
https://youtu.be/RPCbVRThYwc
WEEK 3 POWERPOINT
Discussion Wk 3 Ch 3 Logic Arguments.ppt
Pre-Built Course Content
Lecture 2
Topics
Enthymemes and syllogisms in everyday life
Reasoning errors in categorical syllogisms
Rules for categorical syllogisms
Pre-Built Course Content
Lecture 3
Topics
Deductive argument forms
Hypothetical Syllogism and common errors
Modus ponens and Modus tollens and common errors
Disjunctive Syllogism and common errors
Valid conversions
Pre-Built Course Content
Deductive Thinking: The Syllogism p. 156
Categorical Syllogism - Pt. 1 - Where to put the X?
In this two-part video on categorical arguments and reasoning, I'll explain where to put the "X" for categorical syllogisms using the Venn diagram method, and I'll explain why the x sometimes goes on a line and why at other times it doesn't.
http://youtu.be/PWYiUmJ6wso
Chapter 5.3 Lecture, Rules for Categorical Syllogisms, 6:46
This lecture covers the rules for categorical syllogisms.
http://youtu.be/ZFxH1t1pOYo
Critical Thinking - Lecture 11 (Venn Diagrams), 6:22
http://youtu.be/HlxurMWpzkQ
Resources
Ian Hunter Now Is The Time - Newtown Sandy Hook Version, 5:06
On Ian Hunter's Acoustic Trio tour with Andy York (John Mellencamp's Guitarist), and David Roe (Johnny Cash's Upright Bass Player) the trio played the hauntingly beautiful "Now Is The Time" which is a song from an out of print recording (Album or CD) titled "The Artful Dodger".
http://youtu.be/WWSdLTFvMSY
7:47
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6rPpqtK2irk
9:17
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=teBj5-Qmnf8
What is Distribution in Categorical Syllogisms? 10:16
Explains the concept of distribution in Categorical Logic and why different statements distribute their respective terms.
http://youtu.be/7_Y-Bxr4apQ
Led Zeppeling, The Immigrant Song, 4:38, Invasion
Between Dec 2010 and Nov 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project” with a program description of “Refugee and Entry Assistance.”
Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for “citizenship and education training” with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services.”
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance.”
From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.”
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/07/exclusive-hhs-bankrolled-catholic-and-baptist-church-from-2010-to-2013-to-prepare-for-obamas-2014-invasion/#sthash.ojefXhFi.dpuf
Between Dec 2010 and Nov 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project” with a program description of “Refugee and Entry Assistance.”
Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for “citizenship and education training” with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services.”
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance.”
From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.”
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/07/exclusive-hhs-bankrolled-catholic-and-baptist-church-from-2010-to-2013-to-prepare-for-obamas-2014-invasion/#sthash.ojefXhFi.dpuf
Between Dec 2010 and Nov 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project” with a program description of “Refugee and Entry Assistance.”
Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for “citizenship and education training” with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services.”
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance.”
From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.”
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/07/exclusive-hhs-bankrolled-catholic-and-baptist-church-from-2010-to-2013-to-prepare-for-obamas-2014-invasion/#sthash.ojefXhFi.dpuf
Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for “citizenship and education training” with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services.”
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance.”
From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.”
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/07/exclusive-hhs-bankrolled-catholic-and-baptist-church-from-2010-to-2013-to-prepare-for-obamas-2014-invasion/#sthash.ojefXhFi.dpuf
Between Dec 2010 and Nov 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project” with a program description of “Refugee and Entry Assistance.”
Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for “citizenship and education training” with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services.”
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance.”
From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.”
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/07/exclusive-hhs-bankrolled-catholic-and-baptist-church-from-2010-to-2013-to-prepare-for-obamas-2014-invasion/#sthash.ojefXhFi.dpuf
Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for “citizenship and education training” with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services.”
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance.”
From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.”
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/07/exclusive-hhs-bankrolled-catholic-and-baptist-church-from-2010-to-2013-to-prepare-for-obamas-2014-invasion/#sthash.ojefXhFi.dpuf
RESOURCES
Churches Paid (separation of church and state) to Prepare for Open Borders
Between Dec 2010 and Nov 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project” with a program description of “Refugee and Entry Assistance.”
Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for “citizenship and education training” with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services.”
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance.”
From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.”
http://ncbsi.utep.edu/documents/UAC%20Project%20Site%20Visits/UTEP%20NCBSI%20Final%20Report%20March%2020%202014.pdf
Cities Fight Back Against Illegal Invasion
http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/hundreds-of-cities-fight-back-against-invasion/
42 Border Deaths as people walk to the U.S.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/07/15/Breitbart-Texas-Witnesses-Skeleton-of-Illegal-Migrant-Near-Falfurrias
Thousands Swarm Open Border
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/14/night-time-on-border-endless-wave-illegal-immigrants-floods-rio-grande-valley/
Open Borders for All
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/14/urdu-dictionary-found-on-texas-ranch-near-border-we-just-dont-know-whos-here-already/
1:56
Kuwaiti Professor dreams of Anthrax attack on the US, 8:56
Illegal Immigration, Bill Whittle, 9:49
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DnTus_i2aZI
Immigration, World Poverty, and Gumballs, 5:44
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LPjzfGChGlE
Immigration - Global humanitarian reasons for current U.S. immigration are tested in this updated version of immigration author and journalist Roy Beck's colorful presentation of data from the World Bank and U.S. Census Bureau. The 1996 version of this immigration gumballs presentation has been one of the most viewed immigration policy presentations on the internet.
Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck
Learn More http://www.NumbersUSA.org
NumbersUSA Education & Research Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that favors an environmentally sustainable and economically just America and seeks to educate the public about the effects of high levels of immigration on U.S. overpopulation, the environment, jobs, and wages. We use government data to conduct research on the impacts of U.S. population growth, consumption, sprawl, and current levels of immigration and educate the public, opinion leaders and policy makers on the results of those and other studies.
Operation Jade Helm 15 Arizona 04/17; Preparing for Riots Chemical, Biological warfare FEMA Region 9, 4:41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjHOQNjbh_Y&app=desktop
Jade Helm National Guard in Ontario California, 1:21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj7efDgGRH0&feature=youtu.be
https://youtu.be/V9A9sVV24gA
