Why police were called to a South Jersey third-grade class party
by Emma Platoff, Staff Writer
On June 16, police were called to an unlikely scene: an end-of-the-year class party at the William P. Tatem Elementary School in Collingswood. A third grader had made a comment about the brownies being served to the class. After another student exclaimed that the remark was "racist," the school called the Collingswood Police Department, according to the mother of the boy who made the comment. The police officer spoke to the student, who is 9, said the boy's mother, Stacy dos Santos, and local authorities. Dos Santos said that the school overreacted and that her son made a comment about snacks, not skin color. "He said they were talking about brownies. . . . Who exactly did he offend?" dos Santos said.
The boy's father was contacted by Collingswood police later in the day. Police said the incident had been referred to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency. The student stayed home for his last day of third grade. Dos Santos said that her son was "traumatized," and that she hopes to send him to a different Collingswood public school in the fall. And she wants an apology. She said she graduated from Collingswood High School and has two other children, a 21-year-old who also went through Collingswood schools, and a 3-year-old. Her husband, the third grader's father, is Brazilian, dos Santos said.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Convicted and Unemployed
John Stossel
Just got out of jail? Odds are that within five years, you'll get caught doing something illegal and go back to jail. This is bad for ex-cons, their victims, their families and America. Some of these people, of course, are career criminals who ought to stay in jail. But most are people who deserve another chance. They are more likely to stay straight if they find work. Work gives people purpose. It fills the idle hours that get many people into trouble. But America makes it extra hard for ex-cons to find work. Some states make it illegal.
Illinois bans ex-convicts from more than 118 professions........Why do states have so many restrictions? "There are two forces at work," says Rasmussen. "One, government bureaucrats like being busybodies, deciding who gets to do what." They think that makes the world safer......To Read More......
Just got out of jail? Odds are that within five years, you'll get caught doing something illegal and go back to jail. This is bad for ex-cons, their victims, their families and America. Some of these people, of course, are career criminals who ought to stay in jail. But most are people who deserve another chance. They are more likely to stay straight if they find work. Work gives people purpose. It fills the idle hours that get many people into trouble. But America makes it extra hard for ex-cons to find work. Some states make it illegal.
Illinois bans ex-convicts from more than 118 professions........Why do states have so many restrictions? "There are two forces at work," says Rasmussen. "One, government bureaucrats like being busybodies, deciding who gets to do what." They think that makes the world safer......To Read More......
After "Brexit," Can We Exit a Few Things Too?
Last week’s UK vote to leave the EU may have come as a shock to many, but the sentiment that led British voters to reject rule from Brussels is nothing unique. In fact it is growing sentiment worldwide. Frustration with politics as usual, with political parties that really do not differ in philosophy, with an economy that serves the one percent at the expense of the rest of society is a growing phenomenon throughout Europe and in the United States as well. The Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump phenomena are but one example of a frustrated public sensing something is very wrong with society and looking for a way out.
What is happening in the UK, in Europe, and in the US, is nothing less than a breakdown of the entire system. The EU was meant to be a customs union where post-World War II Western Europe could rebuild itself through free trade and a reduction in bureaucracy. Through corruption and political ambition it became an unelected bully government in Brussels, where the well-connected were well compensated and insulated from the votes of mere citizens.
Whatever happens in the near future — and it is certainly not assured that the vote to “Brexit” will actually end in the UK’s departure from the EU — a line has been crossed that supporters of more personal liberty should celebrate. Rule from London is preferable to liberty-minded Britons than rule from Brussels. Just as Texans should prefer rule from Austin to rule from Washington. That doesn’t make either option perfect, just more likely to produce more freedom.
Is Brexit the first victory in a larger freedom movement? Can we get out of a system that creates money out of thin air to benefit the ruling class while impoverishing the middle class? Can we get out of a central bank that finances the wars that make us less safe? Can we exit Executive Orders? Can we exit the surveillance state? The PATRIOT Act? Can we exit NDAA and indefinite detention? Can we exit the US worldwide drone program, that kills innocents overseas and makes us ever-more hated?
Getting out of NATO would be a good first move. This Cold War relic survives only by stirring up conflict and then selling itself as the only option to confront the conflict it churned up. Wouldn’t it be better to not go looking for a fight in the first place? Do we really need still another NATO military exercise on the Russian border? It should be no surprise that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was fear-mongering on the eve of the Brexit vote, warning UK citizens that if they vote to leave they could face increased terrorism.
Likewise, the US would do well to exit the various phony “free trade” agreements that provide advantage to the well-connected elites while harming the rest of us.
The act of exit is liberating. We should make a longer list of those things we would like to get out of. I am only getting started.
Via the Ron Paul Institute.
What is happening in the UK, in Europe, and in the US, is nothing less than a breakdown of the entire system. The EU was meant to be a customs union where post-World War II Western Europe could rebuild itself through free trade and a reduction in bureaucracy. Through corruption and political ambition it became an unelected bully government in Brussels, where the well-connected were well compensated and insulated from the votes of mere citizens.
Whatever happens in the near future — and it is certainly not assured that the vote to “Brexit” will actually end in the UK’s departure from the EU — a line has been crossed that supporters of more personal liberty should celebrate. Rule from London is preferable to liberty-minded Britons than rule from Brussels. Just as Texans should prefer rule from Austin to rule from Washington. That doesn’t make either option perfect, just more likely to produce more freedom.
Is Brexit the first victory in a larger freedom movement? Can we get out of a system that creates money out of thin air to benefit the ruling class while impoverishing the middle class? Can we get out of a central bank that finances the wars that make us less safe? Can we exit Executive Orders? Can we exit the surveillance state? The PATRIOT Act? Can we exit NDAA and indefinite detention? Can we exit the US worldwide drone program, that kills innocents overseas and makes us ever-more hated?
Getting out of NATO would be a good first move. This Cold War relic survives only by stirring up conflict and then selling itself as the only option to confront the conflict it churned up. Wouldn’t it be better to not go looking for a fight in the first place? Do we really need still another NATO military exercise on the Russian border? It should be no surprise that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was fear-mongering on the eve of the Brexit vote, warning UK citizens that if they vote to leave they could face increased terrorism.
Likewise, the US would do well to exit the various phony “free trade” agreements that provide advantage to the well-connected elites while harming the rest of us.
The act of exit is liberating. We should make a longer list of those things we would like to get out of. I am only getting started.
Via the Ron Paul Institute.
The EU Is About Control, Not Free Trade
On Tuesday, during a somewhat raucous session of the European parliament, Nigel Farage gave his post-Brexit “victory speech”. Besides his trademark taunting of his pro-EU colleagues, Mr Farage made an important point, suggesting:
This alternative explanation seems to be confirmed by comments made by the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, in May, including that “deserters will not be welcomed back with open arms,” and yesterday, by German chancellor Angela Merkel, who said in front of the German Bundestag:.......To Read More.....
Why don’t we be grown up, pragmatic, sensible, realistic and let’s cut between us a sensible tariff-free deal and thereafter recognise that the United Kingdom will be your friend, that we will trade with you, cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world.This statement, like most of Mr Farage's speech, was greeted with jeers. While the reaction could simply be regarded as being due to Mr Farage's earlier taunting and to the emotional nature of the post-Brexit debate, it seems to hint at a deeper issue, which has been brought up on the Mises Wire several times: That the European Union is not primarily about free trade for mutual benefit, but about political integration and economic harmonisation, in which free trade is just the reward for going along with the political ambitions of Brussels.
This alternative explanation seems to be confirmed by comments made by the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, in May, including that “deserters will not be welcomed back with open arms,” and yesterday, by German chancellor Angela Merkel, who said in front of the German Bundestag:.......To Read More.....
Multiculturalism: A Failed Concept
Walter E. Williams
German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that multiculturalism has "utterly failed," adding that it was an illusion to think Germans and foreign workers could "live happily side by side." The failure of multiculturalism is also seen in Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and other European countries. Immigrants coming from Africa and the Middle East refuse to assimilate and instead seek to import the failed cultures they fled.
Leftist diversity advocates and multiculturalists are right to argue that people of all races, religions and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one set of cultural values cannot be judged superior to another and that to do so is Eurocentrism.
That's unbridled nonsense. Ask a diversity/multiculturalism advocate: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in northern Sudan. In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education.
Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves are punished by having their hand severed. In some African and Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime, in some cases punishable by death. Are all these cultural values morally equivalent to those of the West?.........Western values are superior to all others.........To Read More.....
German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that multiculturalism has "utterly failed," adding that it was an illusion to think Germans and foreign workers could "live happily side by side." The failure of multiculturalism is also seen in Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and other European countries. Immigrants coming from Africa and the Middle East refuse to assimilate and instead seek to import the failed cultures they fled.
Leftist diversity advocates and multiculturalists are right to argue that people of all races, religions and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one set of cultural values cannot be judged superior to another and that to do so is Eurocentrism.
That's unbridled nonsense. Ask a diversity/multiculturalism advocate: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in northern Sudan. In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education.
Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves are punished by having their hand severed. In some African and Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime, in some cases punishable by death. Are all these cultural values morally equivalent to those of the West?.........Western values are superior to all others.........To Read More.....
U.N. trucks mystery deepens: 'They're not ours!'
2 major contractors deny any role in vehicles' production or presence
The mystery of the military-style U.N. vehicles spotted being hauled along Virginia’s highways deepened on Tuesday when two major contractors denied to WND that they had any role in the vehicles’ production or presence. WND had reported on Monday when a wave of blogs reported online that trucks painted with the United Nations logo were being moved by flatbed through Virginia.
One interested reader pointed out that the trucks likely were made in America and simply needed to be hauled to some port for shipment to customers – most likely overseas. In fact, the online rumor-busting site Snopes said it had contacted Alpine Armoring, which reported the vehicles “seen in these photographs were purchased by the United Nations for use outside the United States.”
The explanation continued, “A number of defense industry manufacturers are based in and around Washington, D.C. (a region that includes Virginia) for obvious logistical reasons, and the representative confirmed that the trucks were ordered by the U.N. for use in locations abroad.”
But when WND contacted Alpineco, a spokeswoman denied the vehicles were produced by the company. WND then was referred to another company, BAE Systems, where a spokesman also denied his company’s divisions were in any way connected to the vehicles.........Read more
The mystery of the military-style U.N. vehicles spotted being hauled along Virginia’s highways deepened on Tuesday when two major contractors denied to WND that they had any role in the vehicles’ production or presence. WND had reported on Monday when a wave of blogs reported online that trucks painted with the United Nations logo were being moved by flatbed through Virginia.
One interested reader pointed out that the trucks likely were made in America and simply needed to be hauled to some port for shipment to customers – most likely overseas. In fact, the online rumor-busting site Snopes said it had contacted Alpine Armoring, which reported the vehicles “seen in these photographs were purchased by the United Nations for use outside the United States.”
The explanation continued, “A number of defense industry manufacturers are based in and around Washington, D.C. (a region that includes Virginia) for obvious logistical reasons, and the representative confirmed that the trucks were ordered by the U.N. for use in locations abroad.”
But when WND contacted Alpineco, a spokeswoman denied the vehicles were produced by the company. WND then was referred to another company, BAE Systems, where a spokesman also denied his company’s divisions were in any way connected to the vehicles.........Read more
The Liberal Tilt at PolitiFact
Brent Bozell
CNN's "Reliable Sources" offered a panel discussion on June 26 asking if Americans are so apathetic to the truth that our politics have entered a "post-fact check phase." This is a reference to Donald Trump, of course. The media believe he's a liar and gets away with it because of public apathy. What these journalists will never concede, however, is that Democrats get away with dishonesty because of their own apathy. Hillary Clinton's obscene lie about landing in sniper fire in Bosnia is a distant memory.
Washington Post humorist/columnist Gene Weingarten was less than amused. Referencing the segment, he tweeted, "Everyone associated with this needs to be fired, killed, buried in an unmarked grave."
Surely he was reacting to Trump-defending Jeffrey Lord who said, "I honestly don't think that this fact checking business ... is anything more than, you know, one more sort of out-of-touch, elitist, media-type thing." You can start with CNN. It has been documented countless times over the years how its fact-checking of politics has required fact-checking in return.
CNN is by no means alone. This arrogance, this "out-of-touch, elitist, media-type thing," also infects the liberal-media project calling itself PolitiFact. CNN interviewed PolitiFact boss Angie Drobnic Holan, who agreed in assessing last week's candidate speeches that Clinton's was more accurate than Trump's: "Clinton is very well-prepared. She is very literal. She doesn't make unforced errors." Like Bosnia?.....To Read More...
CNN's "Reliable Sources" offered a panel discussion on June 26 asking if Americans are so apathetic to the truth that our politics have entered a "post-fact check phase." This is a reference to Donald Trump, of course. The media believe he's a liar and gets away with it because of public apathy. What these journalists will never concede, however, is that Democrats get away with dishonesty because of their own apathy. Hillary Clinton's obscene lie about landing in sniper fire in Bosnia is a distant memory.
Washington Post humorist/columnist Gene Weingarten was less than amused. Referencing the segment, he tweeted, "Everyone associated with this needs to be fired, killed, buried in an unmarked grave."
Surely he was reacting to Trump-defending Jeffrey Lord who said, "I honestly don't think that this fact checking business ... is anything more than, you know, one more sort of out-of-touch, elitist, media-type thing." You can start with CNN. It has been documented countless times over the years how its fact-checking of politics has required fact-checking in return.
CNN is by no means alone. This arrogance, this "out-of-touch, elitist, media-type thing," also infects the liberal-media project calling itself PolitiFact. CNN interviewed PolitiFact boss Angie Drobnic Holan, who agreed in assessing last week's candidate speeches that Clinton's was more accurate than Trump's: "Clinton is very well-prepared. She is very literal. She doesn't make unforced errors." Like Bosnia?.....To Read More...
Is this Red Cross poster racist? Just ask Whoopi
The American Red Cross issued an unusual apology Monday regarding a recent poster it created and distributed that advises children to be safe — and “cool” — around swimming pools this summer.
The poster was uploaded to the Red Cross’ swimming safety mobile application as well as various swimming pool venues around the United States.
Under the campaign called, “Be Cool, Follow the Rules,” the poster depicts several children swimming and others playing around the pool. Some of the misbehaving children are identified on the poster with an arrow that says, “not cool” — while two other responsible children are labeled as “cool.”
While that message might not seem controversial, some have complained that the way each group of children are depicted is offensive. The reason, they say, is because all the misbehaving children appear to be minorities and the well-behaved kids are white.......To Read More.....
My Take - Well, what do you know! Whoopie "felt angry". She's has long been a member of the Club For The Galacticly Stupid right along with the rest of that gaggle of goofy geese on that rediculous show - and since the audience on that show is always applauding their stupid comments - they're all complimentary members.
As for he Red Cross - what a bunch of cowardly curs.
A Socialist Les Miserables in Venezuela
Posted by Daniel Greenfield 2 Comments @ The Sultan Knish Blog
A mob of starving people advanced on the presidential palace chanting, “We want food”. They were met by soldiers and police dispatched by the tyrant from his lavish palace decorated opulently with a golden sun, giant rock crystal mirrors, sparkling chandeliers and towering oil portraits.
The scene wasn’t 19th century France, but 21st century Venezuela.
And if you are wondering why you haven’t seen it on the news, it’s because Venezuela is a Socialist disaster area that was once being used as a model by the left. Now it’s a place where the vast majority of people can’t afford basic food staples and a third are down to two or fewer meals a day.
Obama laughed and joked with deceased monster Hugo Chavez, who handed him a copy of the anti-American tract, “Open Veins of Latin America” that had even been disavowed by its own author. Obama called the book a “nice gesture”, but Eduardo Galeano, its author, had told an audience that the left “commits grave errors” when in power.
Venezuela, once a wealthy oil state, where the doctors offering “universal health care” have no medicine and starving people loot government stores looking for food, is yet another example. 50 people are dead in the latest food riots. Their graves are yet another “grave error” of the left.
Obama has not appeared too concerned at the meltdown in Venezuela. Unlike Syria, there are no threats of intervention to remove Maduro, Chavez’s successor, and the rest of the leftist regime illegally clinging to power while slaughtering Venezuelans, smuggling drugs and aiding terrorists.
When Hugo Chavez was killed by the wonders of Cuban medicine, a remedy that American leftists recommend to others while they obtain the best private health care for their own ailments, Obama offered a vague statement of support calling Chavez’s passing, “challenging”.
It was certainly that.
Chavez had been none too tightly wound; claiming that capitalism had destroyed life on Mars, that Jews run the world and that his cancer had been caused by America, but his successor, Nicolas Maduro is insane. Maduro claimed that his deceased predecessor appeared to him in the form of a “little bird” and on a subway wall. He showed off the photo of the wall on state television while crying.
“Chavez is everywhere, we are Chavez, you are Chavez," he insisted.
Hugo Chavez is indeed everywhere. His portraits cover Venezuela. They’re a lot easier to find than food. And these days Venezuelans are far more interested in finding something to put in their mouths.
The left-wing sociologist running the Venezuelan economy doesn’t believe in inflation. Last year he wrote a pamphlet in which he insisted that “Inflation does not exist in real life.”
Inflation certainly exists in Venezuela which has seen 500% inflation. The Socialist regime responded with price controls. When stores and farmers wouldn’t sell at set prices, soldiers were sent in to take them over. Crowds initially cheered all the subsidized products. But they wouldn’t be cheering for long.
After the fun of electronics stores forced to discount televisions at gunpoint, there were no more televisions. And no more cars. Then no more toilet paper, milk and other basic necessities.
The Socialist government tried to solve its money problem by printing more money. But it wasn’t able to pay for the money it wanted to print because of the inflation which officially did not exist.
Venezuela needs 10 billion bank notes in its new inflationary economy, more than America, and it can’t pay for them. Or pay for anything else. It can’t afford to import food and it refuses to pay fair prices at home. Meanwhile eggs, at the official exchange rate, run to $150, McDonald’s fries for $126 and a pound of coffee for $85. Socialists may not believe in inflation, but inflation believes in them.
No wonder the people are starving.
Teachers sell passing grades to students in exchange for milk and flour. Lines at government stores are endless and an entire economy has been built on buying and trades spots on food lines. Fingerprint scanners are used to enforce milk rations. And a heavy military police and military presence is required to stop mobs of starving people from grabbing the food as soon as it arrives.
The military elite receive special food privileges. In a country where bread and butter have become distant memories for many, the guns used to oppress the Venezuelan people are paid for with butter. And the people are fighting back. The government calls its crackdown on starving people “Operation People’s Liberation”. The people however want to be liberated from their socialist liberators.
When the Socialist regime responded to electoral defeats by rigging the Supreme Court and arresting the free market opposition, the street battles intensified. The “Liberators”, who have the luxury of eating butter with their bread, are fighting hungry men and women in the streets of cities. And sometimes it’s the socialist “liberators” who are forced to retreat from the true people’s liberators.
While the socialists route food through the United Socialist Party of Venezuela’s CLAP committees to their own supporters, ordinary Venezuelans are hunting pigeons, and even dogs and cats in the capital.
Before the last election, Chavez said, “If I was from the United States, I'd vote for Obama.” And the two leaders do have some political and economic views in common. The fundamental difference is that it took Venezuela a lot less time to run out of “other people’s money” than America.
A few years ago, the left-wing site Salon was praising “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle” and suggesting that we should follow his example of nationalizing companies. “Are there any constructive lessons to be learned from Chavez’s grand experiment with more aggressive redistribution?” its author wondered.
Someone ought to ask the starving mobs redistributing government food while dodging bullets.
Venezuelan socialists used the familiar language of claiming that subsidies and free services were human rights. “Health care can’t be privatized because it is a fundamental human right,” Chavez once claimed. That should sound familiar. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have said the same thing.
But Venezuela’s universal health care has no actual medicine. Hospitals have no running water or soap. Victims arrive with gunshots and aren’t treated until they settle their bill. Babies die routinely.
And it goes without saying that there is no food.
“I doubt that anywhere in the world, except in Cuba, there exists a better health system than this one,” Maduro insists.
Considering how bad actual Cuban medicine is, he’s probably right.
Socialism killed Venezuela. The country has no food, no money, no power, no health care and no hope. Venezuelans were promised a better life through government. This is what they received.
There are lessons for us here and they are obvious ones. And that is why the media has minimized its coverage of a horrific crisis. The people chanting that they want food are not rebelling against unfeeling corporations, but a government whose economic policies many on the left had viewed as a model.
The popularity of Bernie Sanders is based on many of the same empty promises of freebies for all that made Hugo Chavez such a hit. Venezuela is a model of how well that works out in real life. Socialism is increasingly popular in America. Meanwhile in Latin America, socialism kills babies and drives starving mobs to demand food outside the presidential palace under the guns of the regime’s soldiers.
It’s an old story, but it’s also a new story because when we forget history, then we are forced to repeat it.
A mob of starving people advanced on the presidential palace chanting, “We want food”. They were met by soldiers and police dispatched by the tyrant from his lavish palace decorated opulently with a golden sun, giant rock crystal mirrors, sparkling chandeliers and towering oil portraits.
The scene wasn’t 19th century France, but 21st century Venezuela.
And if you are wondering why you haven’t seen it on the news, it’s because Venezuela is a Socialist disaster area that was once being used as a model by the left. Now it’s a place where the vast majority of people can’t afford basic food staples and a third are down to two or fewer meals a day.
Obama laughed and joked with deceased monster Hugo Chavez, who handed him a copy of the anti-American tract, “Open Veins of Latin America” that had even been disavowed by its own author. Obama called the book a “nice gesture”, but Eduardo Galeano, its author, had told an audience that the left “commits grave errors” when in power.
Venezuela, once a wealthy oil state, where the doctors offering “universal health care” have no medicine and starving people loot government stores looking for food, is yet another example. 50 people are dead in the latest food riots. Their graves are yet another “grave error” of the left.
Obama has not appeared too concerned at the meltdown in Venezuela. Unlike Syria, there are no threats of intervention to remove Maduro, Chavez’s successor, and the rest of the leftist regime illegally clinging to power while slaughtering Venezuelans, smuggling drugs and aiding terrorists.
When Hugo Chavez was killed by the wonders of Cuban medicine, a remedy that American leftists recommend to others while they obtain the best private health care for their own ailments, Obama offered a vague statement of support calling Chavez’s passing, “challenging”.
It was certainly that.
Chavez had been none too tightly wound; claiming that capitalism had destroyed life on Mars, that Jews run the world and that his cancer had been caused by America, but his successor, Nicolas Maduro is insane. Maduro claimed that his deceased predecessor appeared to him in the form of a “little bird” and on a subway wall. He showed off the photo of the wall on state television while crying.
“Chavez is everywhere, we are Chavez, you are Chavez," he insisted.
Hugo Chavez is indeed everywhere. His portraits cover Venezuela. They’re a lot easier to find than food. And these days Venezuelans are far more interested in finding something to put in their mouths.
The left-wing sociologist running the Venezuelan economy doesn’t believe in inflation. Last year he wrote a pamphlet in which he insisted that “Inflation does not exist in real life.”
Inflation certainly exists in Venezuela which has seen 500% inflation. The Socialist regime responded with price controls. When stores and farmers wouldn’t sell at set prices, soldiers were sent in to take them over. Crowds initially cheered all the subsidized products. But they wouldn’t be cheering for long.
After the fun of electronics stores forced to discount televisions at gunpoint, there were no more televisions. And no more cars. Then no more toilet paper, milk and other basic necessities.
The Socialist government tried to solve its money problem by printing more money. But it wasn’t able to pay for the money it wanted to print because of the inflation which officially did not exist.
Venezuela needs 10 billion bank notes in its new inflationary economy, more than America, and it can’t pay for them. Or pay for anything else. It can’t afford to import food and it refuses to pay fair prices at home. Meanwhile eggs, at the official exchange rate, run to $150, McDonald’s fries for $126 and a pound of coffee for $85. Socialists may not believe in inflation, but inflation believes in them.
No wonder the people are starving.
Teachers sell passing grades to students in exchange for milk and flour. Lines at government stores are endless and an entire economy has been built on buying and trades spots on food lines. Fingerprint scanners are used to enforce milk rations. And a heavy military police and military presence is required to stop mobs of starving people from grabbing the food as soon as it arrives.
The military elite receive special food privileges. In a country where bread and butter have become distant memories for many, the guns used to oppress the Venezuelan people are paid for with butter. And the people are fighting back. The government calls its crackdown on starving people “Operation People’s Liberation”. The people however want to be liberated from their socialist liberators.
When the Socialist regime responded to electoral defeats by rigging the Supreme Court and arresting the free market opposition, the street battles intensified. The “Liberators”, who have the luxury of eating butter with their bread, are fighting hungry men and women in the streets of cities. And sometimes it’s the socialist “liberators” who are forced to retreat from the true people’s liberators.
While the socialists route food through the United Socialist Party of Venezuela’s CLAP committees to their own supporters, ordinary Venezuelans are hunting pigeons, and even dogs and cats in the capital.
Before the last election, Chavez said, “If I was from the United States, I'd vote for Obama.” And the two leaders do have some political and economic views in common. The fundamental difference is that it took Venezuela a lot less time to run out of “other people’s money” than America.
A few years ago, the left-wing site Salon was praising “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle” and suggesting that we should follow his example of nationalizing companies. “Are there any constructive lessons to be learned from Chavez’s grand experiment with more aggressive redistribution?” its author wondered.
Someone ought to ask the starving mobs redistributing government food while dodging bullets.
Venezuelan socialists used the familiar language of claiming that subsidies and free services were human rights. “Health care can’t be privatized because it is a fundamental human right,” Chavez once claimed. That should sound familiar. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have said the same thing.
But Venezuela’s universal health care has no actual medicine. Hospitals have no running water or soap. Victims arrive with gunshots and aren’t treated until they settle their bill. Babies die routinely.
And it goes without saying that there is no food.
“I doubt that anywhere in the world, except in Cuba, there exists a better health system than this one,” Maduro insists.
Considering how bad actual Cuban medicine is, he’s probably right.
Socialism killed Venezuela. The country has no food, no money, no power, no health care and no hope. Venezuelans were promised a better life through government. This is what they received.
There are lessons for us here and they are obvious ones. And that is why the media has minimized its coverage of a horrific crisis. The people chanting that they want food are not rebelling against unfeeling corporations, but a government whose economic policies many on the left had viewed as a model.
The popularity of Bernie Sanders is based on many of the same empty promises of freebies for all that made Hugo Chavez such a hit. Venezuela is a model of how well that works out in real life. Socialism is increasingly popular in America. Meanwhile in Latin America, socialism kills babies and drives starving mobs to demand food outside the presidential palace under the guns of the regime’s soldiers.
It’s an old story, but it’s also a new story because when we forget history, then we are forced to repeat it.
Why George Will is Wrong
George Will did not leave the GOP because he is a conservative, but because it is becoming too conservative for him.
Daniel Greenfield
George Will has left the GOP in a huff while claiming that his departure is on account of his conservatism. But Will’s conservatism has a history of being tethered to very liberal policies.
Especially when it comes to immigration.
Will claimed that only "faux conservatives" opposed amnesty for illegal aliens, not to mention unlimited immigration and guest worker programs. Now that the point of view he advocated has been thoroughly rejected by Republican voters in general and conservatives specifically, Will has departed the GOP while still claiming to be the only authentic conservative.
Will's error is not unique. It is only his fervor in advocating an otherwise discredited cause that has set him apart. Sometimes an idea is fundamentally wrong at its intellectual core. This is not necessarily the case with Will's immigration absolutism. Other times the context has changed so significantly that it is not the idea that is wrong, but its application.........George Will did not leave the GOP because he is a conservative, but because it is becoming too conservative for him......To Read More.....
Daniel Greenfield
George Will has left the GOP in a huff while claiming that his departure is on account of his conservatism. But Will’s conservatism has a history of being tethered to very liberal policies.
Especially when it comes to immigration.
Will claimed that only "faux conservatives" opposed amnesty for illegal aliens, not to mention unlimited immigration and guest worker programs. Now that the point of view he advocated has been thoroughly rejected by Republican voters in general and conservatives specifically, Will has departed the GOP while still claiming to be the only authentic conservative.
Will's error is not unique. It is only his fervor in advocating an otherwise discredited cause that has set him apart. Sometimes an idea is fundamentally wrong at its intellectual core. This is not necessarily the case with Will's immigration absolutism. Other times the context has changed so significantly that it is not the idea that is wrong, but its application.........George Will did not leave the GOP because he is a conservative, but because it is becoming too conservative for him......To Read More.....
Hillary Clinton's Easy Choices
Few books have as misleading a title as Hard Choices. For Hillary Clinton, as this tedious memoir of her years as Secretary of State makes evident, there are no hard choices. The Solutions to all political and economic problems are easy. We must always rely on the directing hand of government, guided by the superior wisdom of our moral and intellectual betters, Hillary Clinton foremost among them.....
Clinton has a high opinion of the effect of her inflated rhetoric about rights. “The ripples created by the speech [about LGBT rights] were bouncing around the globe and back, and my phone was soon crowded with messages. A huge number of people had watched the speech online.”
Her image of herself as one of the world’s moral teachers, correcting the less enlightened, brings to mind a familiar passage from the Bible: “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself: God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are.” (Luke 18:11)......To Read More.....
Shorter Hillary: It's Time For These Republicans and Lyin' Benghazi Families to 'Move On'
Guy Benson
Okay, perhaps that's an uncharitably strident headline, but let's face it: "It's time to move on" has been the de facto Democratic Party slogan on Benghazi from the moment the attack took place. They understood the potential political ramifications of a deadly terrorist attack -- including the assassination of a sitting US ambassador -- on the anniversary of 9/11, so they set out to manipulate the public's understanding of the coordinated terrorist raid, casting it as a spontaneous protest gone tragically awry. It was nothing to the sort, which they knew for a fact almost immediately. Clinton mouthed one story in public, while addressing reality with unambiguous clarity in private. Days after the bloodbath, she lied to the victims' grieving families. They specifically recall her repeating the Internet Video fiction, even as contemporaneous evidence proves she knew she was peddling a falsehood:.......To Read More......
Okay, perhaps that's an uncharitably strident headline, but let's face it: "It's time to move on" has been the de facto Democratic Party slogan on Benghazi from the moment the attack took place. They understood the potential political ramifications of a deadly terrorist attack -- including the assassination of a sitting US ambassador -- on the anniversary of 9/11, so they set out to manipulate the public's understanding of the coordinated terrorist raid, casting it as a spontaneous protest gone tragically awry. It was nothing to the sort, which they knew for a fact almost immediately. Clinton mouthed one story in public, while addressing reality with unambiguous clarity in private. Days after the bloodbath, she lied to the victims' grieving families. They specifically recall her repeating the Internet Video fiction, even as contemporaneous evidence proves she knew she was peddling a falsehood:.......To Read More......
Levin on Benghazi Report: ‘I’ve Never Been a Big Trey Gowdy Fan’
By Michael W. Chapman
Some conservatives were critical of the newly released report by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, claiming that crucial questions were not answered, that administration officials clearly lied about the anti-Muslim video, and, as author and talk-radio host Mark Levin said, “even within the Republican ranks on that committee, they felt [Chairman] Gowdy was too soft.” On a related point, Patricia Smith, the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, told Fox’s Risk & Reward program that Hillary Clinton is a “liar,” and urged the media to “please, do something,” and “don’t just talk” and “just listen to her [Clinton],” but “question it!” (Video below.)............“And you can see Representatives [Jim] Jordan [R-Ohio] and [Mike] Pompeo [R-Kan.] release their own addition to the report,” said Levin. “That tells me that even within the Republican ranks on that committee, they felt Gowdy was too soft.”.....To Read More......
Some conservatives were critical of the newly released report by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, claiming that crucial questions were not answered, that administration officials clearly lied about the anti-Muslim video, and, as author and talk-radio host Mark Levin said, “even within the Republican ranks on that committee, they felt [Chairman] Gowdy was too soft.” On a related point, Patricia Smith, the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, told Fox’s Risk & Reward program that Hillary Clinton is a “liar,” and urged the media to “please, do something,” and “don’t just talk” and “just listen to her [Clinton],” but “question it!” (Video below.)............“And you can see Representatives [Jim] Jordan [R-Ohio] and [Mike] Pompeo [R-Kan.] release their own addition to the report,” said Levin. “That tells me that even within the Republican ranks on that committee, they felt Gowdy was too soft.”.....To Read More......
Bozell: Rep. Gowdy’s Job Was ‘To Get To The Truth’ About Benghazi -- ‘He Punted’
By Michael W. Chapman
In reaction to the report released today by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which was investigating the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were murdered, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell said it was the committee chairman’s job “to get to the truth, and he punted.”
The committee chairman is Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and the select committee was established by Congress in May 2014. Over the last two years, the committee has spent an estimated $7.1 million investigating the Benghazi attack and the administration’s actions concerning that event.
“I am stunned by the GOP’s unwillingness to accomplish anything in Congress, which now extends to resolving investigations,” said MRC President Bozell in a June 28 statement. “Trey Gowdy’s continued admonition that it’s up to the American people to reach their own conclusions about Benghazi is an obfuscation.”
“It was up to him to get to the truth, and he punted,” said Bozell.
“Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked the fortitude to confront those responsible,” he continued. “Who denied the multiple requests for additional security for the compound? No answer. Who is being held responsible for the deaths of these men? No answer.”.......To Read More.....
In reaction to the report released today by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which was investigating the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were murdered, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell said it was the committee chairman’s job “to get to the truth, and he punted.”
The committee chairman is Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and the select committee was established by Congress in May 2014. Over the last two years, the committee has spent an estimated $7.1 million investigating the Benghazi attack and the administration’s actions concerning that event.
“I am stunned by the GOP’s unwillingness to accomplish anything in Congress, which now extends to resolving investigations,” said MRC President Bozell in a June 28 statement. “Trey Gowdy’s continued admonition that it’s up to the American people to reach their own conclusions about Benghazi is an obfuscation.”
“It was up to him to get to the truth, and he punted,” said Bozell.
“Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked the fortitude to confront those responsible,” he continued. “Who denied the multiple requests for additional security for the compound? No answer. Who is being held responsible for the deaths of these men? No answer.”.......To Read More.....
Our five Benghazi conclusions: Pompeo and Jordan
The administration’s promise that “justice will be done” has gone unfulfilled for four years.
Mike Pompeo and Jim Jordan
On Sept. 11, 2012, as fire engulfed the State Department’s temporary mission facility in Benghazi, Libya, the survivors and a CIA security team who had come to their rescue made a desperate dash for a CIA annex located nearby. From there they would fend off a continued and determined jihadist attack. Despite heroic efforts that night, four Americans lost their lives. For the first time in more than 30 years, a U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, was assassinated. Another State Department employee, Sean Smith, was also killed. Two former Navy Seals who worked for the CIA, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, died defending their fellow Americans at the annex.
For nearly two years, questions persisted about the policies and decisions surrounding this tragic event. To ensure that the American people had answers to these questions, in May 2014 the House of Representatives authorized the creation of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya. On Tuesday, the committee released the chairman’s mark of our report on the attack.
We are both members of the Benghazi committee and of committees that have previously investigated the events surrounding the attack. With the benefit of our past experience, and with the benefit of the facts brought to light by the committee, we felt it necessary to write separately to offer our own views to the American people.
Our contribution to the committee’s report draws five conclusions: First, the Obama administration misled the American public about the events in Benghazi. Second, security in Benghazi was inadequate given the risk to the facility, and Secretary Clinton had missed the last clear chance to protect her people. Third, when things went badly, America did not move heaven and earth to rescue our people. Fourth, the administration broke its promise to the American people to bring the terrorists responsible for the attack to justice. Finally, we make note of the disappointing fact that the administration did not cooperate with our committee’s investigation from the very beginning. In fact, they obstructed our work from day one.
It is our belief that many of these failures were the result of the administration’s obsession with preserving a political narrative.
It is clear the administration was deeply committed to its Libya strategy. National security was a major component of the president’s re-election campaign, Secretary Clinton’s legacy, and potentially for her own presidential campaign.
The fact that Benghazi was a dangerous city and that security at the State Department’s facility there was inadequate was an open secret. A diplomatic security agent formerly stationed there referred to it as a “suicide mission” and another said that “everybody back here in D.C. knows that people are going to die in Benghazi, and nobody cares and nobody is going to care until somebody does die.”
When the first wave of the assault in Benghazi started at 9:42 p.m. on Sept. 11, State Department officials in Washington and Tripoli knew almost immediately that it was a sophisticated and coordinated terrorist attack. Eyewitness accountsconfirmed that fact for decision makers at the White House and the Pentagon.
Despite this knowledge, no military assets reached Benghazi during the fight. They did not arrive in Benghazi for nearly 24 hours; no military man or machine (except two unarmed drones) were even launched before the fighting was over.
What did launch before the fighting ended, however, was the political spin.
Mike Pompeo and Jim Jordan
On Sept. 11, 2012, as fire engulfed the State Department’s temporary mission facility in Benghazi, Libya, the survivors and a CIA security team who had come to their rescue made a desperate dash for a CIA annex located nearby. From there they would fend off a continued and determined jihadist attack. Despite heroic efforts that night, four Americans lost their lives. For the first time in more than 30 years, a U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, was assassinated. Another State Department employee, Sean Smith, was also killed. Two former Navy Seals who worked for the CIA, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, died defending their fellow Americans at the annex.
For nearly two years, questions persisted about the policies and decisions surrounding this tragic event. To ensure that the American people had answers to these questions, in May 2014 the House of Representatives authorized the creation of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya. On Tuesday, the committee released the chairman’s mark of our report on the attack.
We are both members of the Benghazi committee and of committees that have previously investigated the events surrounding the attack. With the benefit of our past experience, and with the benefit of the facts brought to light by the committee, we felt it necessary to write separately to offer our own views to the American people.
Our contribution to the committee’s report draws five conclusions: First, the Obama administration misled the American public about the events in Benghazi. Second, security in Benghazi was inadequate given the risk to the facility, and Secretary Clinton had missed the last clear chance to protect her people. Third, when things went badly, America did not move heaven and earth to rescue our people. Fourth, the administration broke its promise to the American people to bring the terrorists responsible for the attack to justice. Finally, we make note of the disappointing fact that the administration did not cooperate with our committee’s investigation from the very beginning. In fact, they obstructed our work from day one.
It is our belief that many of these failures were the result of the administration’s obsession with preserving a political narrative.
It is clear the administration was deeply committed to its Libya strategy. National security was a major component of the president’s re-election campaign, Secretary Clinton’s legacy, and potentially for her own presidential campaign.
The fact that Benghazi was a dangerous city and that security at the State Department’s facility there was inadequate was an open secret. A diplomatic security agent formerly stationed there referred to it as a “suicide mission” and another said that “everybody back here in D.C. knows that people are going to die in Benghazi, and nobody cares and nobody is going to care until somebody does die.”
When the first wave of the assault in Benghazi started at 9:42 p.m. on Sept. 11, State Department officials in Washington and Tripoli knew almost immediately that it was a sophisticated and coordinated terrorist attack. Eyewitness accountsconfirmed that fact for decision makers at the White House and the Pentagon.
Despite this knowledge, no military assets reached Benghazi during the fight. They did not arrive in Benghazi for nearly 24 hours; no military man or machine (except two unarmed drones) were even launched before the fighting was over.
What did launch before the fighting ended, however, was the political spin.
Hillary’s 'Serious Lack of Competence' Cost Lives at Benghazi
But she is only the tip of the iceberg.
Will the Terrorization of Egypt’s Christians 'Never Stop'?
Eighty Christian homes are torched in the latest round of attacks.
Raymond Ibrahim
In a chronically familiar scene, angry, rioting Muslims in Egypt burned down around 80 Christian homes on June 17. In the words of one of the victims, Moses Zarif,
According to the report, rioting Muslims beat the two cousins, attacked the building, destroyed all construction materials, and threw rocks at any Christian trying to intervene. Then they "turned their wrath on the Christian homes adjacent to the building, hurled rocks, looted houses and set fire to any Christian property in their wake."
When the local priest heard what was happening, he rushed to the scene -- only to be attacked while in his car; the Muslims climbed on it, stomped on it, and damaged it.
Currently the Christians of al-Bayda village, where the incident took place, have no church. They have to walk four miles in Egypt's sweltering heat to attend another church.
The Arabic-language news show, "Behind the Scenes," played short video clips of the incident as it transpired, made by phone cameras. The Muslim mob, which appears to have consisted of hundreds of people surrounding the building, included veiled women and children. There were shouts of "Allahu Akbar!"; women in hijabs clapped and whistled and ululated. At one point, almost in unison, the mob can clearly be heard chanting, "We'll burn the church, we'll burn the church.".....To Read More....
Raymond Ibrahim
In a chronically familiar scene, angry, rioting Muslims in Egypt burned down around 80 Christian homes on June 17. In the words of one of the victims, Moses Zarif,
On Friday afternoon, after noon prayers, a large number of Muslims gathered in the front of the new house of my cousin because a rumor had spread in the village that it would be turned into a church. They were chanting slogans against us: “By no means will there be a church here” and “Egypt will remain Islamic!”
When the local priest heard what was happening, he rushed to the scene -- only to be attacked while in his car; the Muslims climbed on it, stomped on it, and damaged it.
Currently the Christians of al-Bayda village, where the incident took place, have no church. They have to walk four miles in Egypt's sweltering heat to attend another church.
The Arabic-language news show, "Behind the Scenes," played short video clips of the incident as it transpired, made by phone cameras. The Muslim mob, which appears to have consisted of hundreds of people surrounding the building, included veiled women and children. There were shouts of "Allahu Akbar!"; women in hijabs clapped and whistled and ululated. At one point, almost in unison, the mob can clearly be heard chanting, "We'll burn the church, we'll burn the church.".....To Read More....
Philadelphia Schools Forced to Pay $2.3 Million for Racism Against White-Owned Business
By Constitution.com/From the Daily Caller News Foundation:
Philadelphia’s public school system was ordered to pay out $2.3 million in damages after a court found it deliberately discriminated against a white-owned business. Security and Data Technologies, Inc. (SDT) was initially chosen by Philadelphia School District (PSD) and then-Superintendent Arlene Ackerman back in 2010 to install surveillance cameras at 19 schools PSD classified as particularly dangerous. After the company began preliminary work, it was abruptly “deselected” and the $7.5 million no-bid contract was then awarded on an emergency basis to IBS Communications, a company not eligible for no-bid contracts.
The abrupt turn of events, it turns out, had a racial motivation. An investigation by The Philadelphia Inquirer discovered Ackerman became fed up that the district kept giving contracts to white-owned companies. SDT is owned by two white men. So, after telling other PSD administrators she would make sure “all these white boys didn’t get contracts,” Ackerman canceled SDT’s contract and diverted it over to IBS, which had black ownership.
After Ackerman’s stunt was publicized, SDT sued, and the six-year legal odyssey finally ended Monday with a victory for the plaintiffs. A jury ruled that the district, along with Ackerman’s estate (she died in 2013), must pay out $2.3 million in damages. The damages cover $2.1 million in lost profits along with a small sum of compensatory damages. “It’s been a long, hard journey. Justice was served,” SDT attorney Michael Homans told the Inquirer......Ackerman was praised by President Barack Obama........To Read More.....
Philadelphia’s public school system was ordered to pay out $2.3 million in damages after a court found it deliberately discriminated against a white-owned business. Security and Data Technologies, Inc. (SDT) was initially chosen by Philadelphia School District (PSD) and then-Superintendent Arlene Ackerman back in 2010 to install surveillance cameras at 19 schools PSD classified as particularly dangerous. After the company began preliminary work, it was abruptly “deselected” and the $7.5 million no-bid contract was then awarded on an emergency basis to IBS Communications, a company not eligible for no-bid contracts.
The abrupt turn of events, it turns out, had a racial motivation. An investigation by The Philadelphia Inquirer discovered Ackerman became fed up that the district kept giving contracts to white-owned companies. SDT is owned by two white men. So, after telling other PSD administrators she would make sure “all these white boys didn’t get contracts,” Ackerman canceled SDT’s contract and diverted it over to IBS, which had black ownership.
After Ackerman’s stunt was publicized, SDT sued, and the six-year legal odyssey finally ended Monday with a victory for the plaintiffs. A jury ruled that the district, along with Ackerman’s estate (she died in 2013), must pay out $2.3 million in damages. The damages cover $2.1 million in lost profits along with a small sum of compensatory damages. “It’s been a long, hard journey. Justice was served,” SDT attorney Michael Homans told the Inquirer......Ackerman was praised by President Barack Obama........To Read More.....
The Worst Smear Site in America
The Southern Poverty Law Center smears patriots and provides cover for the nation's enemies.
Matthew Vadum
The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center relentlessly promotes the Big Lie, wildly popular in the media, that conservative Americans are racists and the real threat to the nation rather than Islamic terrorists. The group claims the principal enemies of the American people are presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, conservatives like David Horowitz, and the Tea Party movement.
The SPLC is a shamelessly hypocritical leftist attack machine funded by radical speculator George Soros and a rogue’s gallery of rich people and established philanthropies that want to fundamentally transform America. The fabulously wealthy 501(c)(3) nonprofit has an astounding one third of a billion dollars ($338 million) in assets, as well as investments in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, two offshore tax havens the Left loves to attack (but only when non-leftists stash cash there).
The Center characterizes all opposition to immigration and open borders as symptomatic of hate and all political expression of those views to be hate speech. In other words, if you disagree with founder Morris Dees and his minions you are evil and worthy of public condemnation. It may take some intellectual toughness to insist that the nation has the right to decide who may or may not cross its borders, but it's not hate.
Following the Islamist massacre at a gay club in Orlando a fortnight ago, the group has played an integral role in the Left's propaganda push aimed at taking the focus away from gay-hating Islam and finding creative ways to blame conservatives and Republicans for the slaughter.......To Read More......
Matthew Vadum
The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center relentlessly promotes the Big Lie, wildly popular in the media, that conservative Americans are racists and the real threat to the nation rather than Islamic terrorists. The group claims the principal enemies of the American people are presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, conservatives like David Horowitz, and the Tea Party movement.
The SPLC is a shamelessly hypocritical leftist attack machine funded by radical speculator George Soros and a rogue’s gallery of rich people and established philanthropies that want to fundamentally transform America. The fabulously wealthy 501(c)(3) nonprofit has an astounding one third of a billion dollars ($338 million) in assets, as well as investments in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, two offshore tax havens the Left loves to attack (but only when non-leftists stash cash there).
The Center characterizes all opposition to immigration and open borders as symptomatic of hate and all political expression of those views to be hate speech. In other words, if you disagree with founder Morris Dees and his minions you are evil and worthy of public condemnation. It may take some intellectual toughness to insist that the nation has the right to decide who may or may not cross its borders, but it's not hate.
Following the Islamist massacre at a gay club in Orlando a fortnight ago, the group has played an integral role in the Left's propaganda push aimed at taking the focus away from gay-hating Islam and finding creative ways to blame conservatives and Republicans for the slaughter.......To Read More......
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Two Heavyweight Republican Leaders Decide to Dump on Trump
By The Common Constitutionalist
Notice the headline to this story didn’t say conservatives – but I’ll get to that.
A couple of Republican heavyweights have bolted on The Donald. Both George Will and W’s former treasury secretary, Henry “Hank” Paulson have jumped ship. More accurately, neither was ever on the good ship Trump and were most likely never to come aboard anyway, so really it’s not a huge loss. But they didn’t just leave. They did so in a less than cordial and highly publicized manner. Of course, being public figures, it would be difficult for either of them to do so under the radar.
It’s not that they left that bugs me. It’s the fact that the American press treats these two establishment darlings as true conservatives. But maybe they are conservatives – just not constitutional conservatives. After all, the definition of a conservative is one who wishes “to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or restore traditional ones, and to limit change.” And they sure do want to do that. They want to preserve the establishment “existing condition,” where big government reigns supreme, but they are in charge......If you inside-the-beltway establishment hacks want to blame anyone for Trump’s rise, look in the mirror........To Read More.....
Notice the headline to this story didn’t say conservatives – but I’ll get to that.
A couple of Republican heavyweights have bolted on The Donald. Both George Will and W’s former treasury secretary, Henry “Hank” Paulson have jumped ship. More accurately, neither was ever on the good ship Trump and were most likely never to come aboard anyway, so really it’s not a huge loss. But they didn’t just leave. They did so in a less than cordial and highly publicized manner. Of course, being public figures, it would be difficult for either of them to do so under the radar.
It’s not that they left that bugs me. It’s the fact that the American press treats these two establishment darlings as true conservatives. But maybe they are conservatives – just not constitutional conservatives. After all, the definition of a conservative is one who wishes “to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or restore traditional ones, and to limit change.” And they sure do want to do that. They want to preserve the establishment “existing condition,” where big government reigns supreme, but they are in charge......If you inside-the-beltway establishment hacks want to blame anyone for Trump’s rise, look in the mirror........To Read More.....
Conservative Pundit Gets Thrown Out From This “Nonpartisan” Event
By Joe Messina
Is Politi-con 2016 a great event? Maybe for others, but I was accused of something I didn’t do. They had no proof of the accusation, yet acted like it was an interrogation from the SS of Nazi Germany.
Politicon states on their website that they are “the quintessential non-partisan event of the year.” Interesting choice of words. “Quintessential” as defined by the dictionary – “representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class.” Remember the words quality and class. The event started on Saturday, June 25th and continued through Sunday, June 26th
This was my second year attending Politicon. The wait in line was quite long. I don’t think they really expected so many people to show up. While I was in the line I struck up a conversation with 2 gentlemen who were excited to be there. After a few minutes it was VERY evident they were Democrats. It started with them bashing Bush the Senior, on to what a disaster Ronald Reagan was, followed by how Republicans were a disaster.......To Read More.....
Is Politi-con 2016 a great event? Maybe for others, but I was accused of something I didn’t do. They had no proof of the accusation, yet acted like it was an interrogation from the SS of Nazi Germany.
Politicon states on their website that they are “the quintessential non-partisan event of the year.” Interesting choice of words. “Quintessential” as defined by the dictionary – “representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class.” Remember the words quality and class. The event started on Saturday, June 25th and continued through Sunday, June 26th
This was my second year attending Politicon. The wait in line was quite long. I don’t think they really expected so many people to show up. While I was in the line I struck up a conversation with 2 gentlemen who were excited to be there. After a few minutes it was VERY evident they were Democrats. It started with them bashing Bush the Senior, on to what a disaster Ronald Reagan was, followed by how Republicans were a disaster.......To Read More.....
Man-Made Climate Change is Political Science Spin, Not Actual Science
The premise that CO2 emissions created by man’s use of Fossil Fuels is significantly driving, or even affecting, the Earth’s ever-changing climate is ‘Falsified by accurate scientific empirical observations,’ proving that it is only supported by political spin, propaganda and abusive political correctness. The premise that increased atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Man-Made or Natural) is the cause of temperature increases is shown to be false by accurate Ice Core Analysis, Satellite and Weather Balloon data from the real-world – today and in the past.....More....Much More.....
Buckeye Institute: Message from the President
Dear Friends,
My headlamp strained to illuminate the icy ground in the pitch-blackness. I was climbing a glacier on Mount Rainier, making the final push for the summit around 2 a.m.
Success lay a short distance in front of me.
When I took the next step, my whole body free fell. The secure-looking ground in front of me was in fact nothing more than snow forming a "bridge" over a deep fissure--a crevasse--in the glacier. To avoid continuing to fall to unknown depths below, I plunged my ice axe forward into solid ice, and was able to pull myself back to safety. There would be no summit this time, I would have to turn back to base camp, but I would be back to fight another day.
Sometimes we give a worthy cause everything we have, rising in the middle of the night to attempt the summit, but are nonetheless handed defeat. Yesterday was such a day. The defeat was not on one of my beloved mountains, but at the United States Supreme Court, where The Buckeye Institute's Legal Center was fighting for you. Let me explain.
The Buckeye Institute works tirelessly to defend the First Amendment rights of citizens to be able to support charitable causes they believe in without being put on a government list. Whether you support free-market or progressive causes; gun rights or gun control; pro-life or pro-choice causes is none of the government's business, thank you very much. This long-acknowledged constitutional right has been under attack in several states, and Buckeye has gone to the courts to defend the privacy of supporters of all causes--from left to right and everything in between.
The most recent abuse came from Delaware, where state law requires charities that publish items (even on the internet) mentioning the name of a candidate within 60 days of an election to report to the government the names, addresses, and contribution amounts of all donors who gave more than $100 to the group--even if the individual gave to the charity for purposes other than the publication. Non-partisan voter guides, policy reports, and summaries of legislation are a few of the kinds of communications that could require charities to make this unconstitutional reporting.
With the able assistance of brilliant attorneys at Jones Day, The Buckeye Institute joined our friends at the Center for Competitive Politics in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Delaware's law in a case called Delaware Strong Families v. Denn. Yesterday, the Court declined to hear the case. As disappointing as this setback is, the Court did not uphold the law either--it simply chose not to make a decision one way or the other.
Yet there is reason for hope.
Like an ice axe sunk deep into a solid glacial ice, Justice Thomas persuasively argued not only that the Court should have heard the case, but strongly suggested that this law is unconstitutional. Thomas observed that "[g]iven the specter of these First Amendment harms, a State's purported interest in disclosure cannot justify revealing the identities of an organization's otherwise anonymous donors." And Justice Alito stated that he would have heard the case as well.
And so, we will be back to fight another day. For you. And for all Americans to be free to support whatever causes you choose without fear of intimidation and the threat of being put on some permanent government list. And next time, we aim to make the summit.
Upward,
Robert Alt
P.S. Won't you join us in continuing the fight? Your contribution helps us to continue our work to support the right of all Americans to support causes without it going on your "permanent record."
P.P.S. Here is a glimpse of a 50-foot deep crevasse that I encountered on the ill-fated Rainier climb (not the one I fell into). As for my own fight, I am going back to climb Mount Rainier in September....
Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution--a think tank--whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.
My headlamp strained to illuminate the icy ground in the pitch-blackness. I was climbing a glacier on Mount Rainier, making the final push for the summit around 2 a.m.
Success lay a short distance in front of me.
When I took the next step, my whole body free fell. The secure-looking ground in front of me was in fact nothing more than snow forming a "bridge" over a deep fissure--a crevasse--in the glacier. To avoid continuing to fall to unknown depths below, I plunged my ice axe forward into solid ice, and was able to pull myself back to safety. There would be no summit this time, I would have to turn back to base camp, but I would be back to fight another day.
Sometimes we give a worthy cause everything we have, rising in the middle of the night to attempt the summit, but are nonetheless handed defeat. Yesterday was such a day. The defeat was not on one of my beloved mountains, but at the United States Supreme Court, where The Buckeye Institute's Legal Center was fighting for you. Let me explain.
The Buckeye Institute works tirelessly to defend the First Amendment rights of citizens to be able to support charitable causes they believe in without being put on a government list. Whether you support free-market or progressive causes; gun rights or gun control; pro-life or pro-choice causes is none of the government's business, thank you very much. This long-acknowledged constitutional right has been under attack in several states, and Buckeye has gone to the courts to defend the privacy of supporters of all causes--from left to right and everything in between.
The most recent abuse came from Delaware, where state law requires charities that publish items (even on the internet) mentioning the name of a candidate within 60 days of an election to report to the government the names, addresses, and contribution amounts of all donors who gave more than $100 to the group--even if the individual gave to the charity for purposes other than the publication. Non-partisan voter guides, policy reports, and summaries of legislation are a few of the kinds of communications that could require charities to make this unconstitutional reporting.
With the able assistance of brilliant attorneys at Jones Day, The Buckeye Institute joined our friends at the Center for Competitive Politics in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Delaware's law in a case called Delaware Strong Families v. Denn. Yesterday, the Court declined to hear the case. As disappointing as this setback is, the Court did not uphold the law either--it simply chose not to make a decision one way or the other.
Yet there is reason for hope.
Like an ice axe sunk deep into a solid glacial ice, Justice Thomas persuasively argued not only that the Court should have heard the case, but strongly suggested that this law is unconstitutional. Thomas observed that "[g]iven the specter of these First Amendment harms, a State's purported interest in disclosure cannot justify revealing the identities of an organization's otherwise anonymous donors." And Justice Alito stated that he would have heard the case as well.
And so, we will be back to fight another day. For you. And for all Americans to be free to support whatever causes you choose without fear of intimidation and the threat of being put on some permanent government list. And next time, we aim to make the summit.
Upward,
Robert Alt
P.S. Won't you join us in continuing the fight? Your contribution helps us to continue our work to support the right of all Americans to support causes without it going on your "permanent record."
P.P.S. Here is a glimpse of a 50-foot deep crevasse that I encountered on the ill-fated Rainier climb (not the one I fell into). As for my own fight, I am going back to climb Mount Rainier in September....
Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution--a think tank--whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: The Tweedledee and Tweedledum of Statism?
June 29, 2016 by Dan Mitchell @ International liberty
It’s not easy being a libertarian, especially in election years.
Let’s start with Trump. On the positive side, he’s proposed a good package of tax cuts. And he’s…….ummm……..errrr……well……(scratch head)……
Actually, in terms of specifics rather than rhetoric, the tax cut is about the only market-oriented policy he’s embraced.
On the negative side, he’s a big fan of protectionism, and that’s definitely not a recipe for prosperity. And he’s rejected much-need reforms to entitlement programs, which therefore makes his big tax cut totally unrealistic.
But mostly it’s impossible to know what he really thinks for the simple reason that he probably doesn’t have deep thoughts about public policy (look at his flailing response to the question of debt). Even when he’s been specific, does anyone think he’s philosophically committed to what he has said while campaigning?
So my assessment, as explained in this interview with Neil Cavuto, is that Trump is a grenade that will explode in an unpredictable fashion.
So if you’re a libertarian and you choose to vote for Trump, just be forewarned that you’ll probably be standing next to the grenade when it explodes.
So what about the alternative? Is there a libertarian argument for Hillary Clinton (other than the fact that she’s not Trump)? Can a politician who has spent decades promoting cronyism and redistributionism actually deliver good policy?
Her husband actually did a good job when he was in the White House, but you can probably sense from this debate with Juan Williams on the Stossel show, I’m not overflowing with optimism that she also would preside over a shift to better policy.
Here are a few additional thoughts on my debate with Juan.
I’d be delighted to have a woman as President if she had the same principles and judgement as Margaret Thatcher. To be colloquial, that ain’t a description of Hillary Clinton.
It’s not easy being a libertarian, especially in election years.
- Do you choose not to vote because you either reject your choices or even the entire principle of majoritarianism?
- Do you vote for the Libertarian Party even though that historically is nothing more than an ineffective way of sending a message?
- Or do you strategically cast a vote for a major-party candidate, fully aware that such a person inevitably will be a disappointment in office?
Let’s start with Trump. On the positive side, he’s proposed a good package of tax cuts. And he’s…….ummm……..errrr……well……(scratch head)……
Actually, in terms of specifics rather than rhetoric, the tax cut is about the only market-oriented policy he’s embraced.
On the negative side, he’s a big fan of protectionism, and that’s definitely not a recipe for prosperity. And he’s rejected much-need reforms to entitlement programs, which therefore makes his big tax cut totally unrealistic.
But mostly it’s impossible to know what he really thinks for the simple reason that he probably doesn’t have deep thoughts about public policy (look at his flailing response to the question of debt). Even when he’s been specific, does anyone think he’s philosophically committed to what he has said while campaigning?
So my assessment, as explained in this interview with Neil Cavuto, is that Trump is a grenade that will explode in an unpredictable fashion.
So if you’re a libertarian and you choose to vote for Trump, just be forewarned that you’ll probably be standing next to the grenade when it explodes.
So what about the alternative? Is there a libertarian argument for Hillary Clinton (other than the fact that she’s not Trump)? Can a politician who has spent decades promoting cronyism and redistributionism actually deliver good policy?
Her husband actually did a good job when he was in the White House, but you can probably sense from this debate with Juan Williams on the Stossel show, I’m not overflowing with optimism that she also would preside over a shift to better policy.
Here are a few additional thoughts on my debate with Juan.
Keynesian economics doesn’t work, either in theory or in reality. And it’s laughable that the excuse for Keynesian failure is always that politicians should have spent more money.
Entitlements will cripple America’s economy if left on auto-pilot. I’ve repeatedly made the point that we’re like Greece 10 or 15 years ago. By claiming at the time that there was no crisis, Greek politicians ensured that a crisis eventually would occur. The same thing is happening here.
I’m skeptical about the claim that climate change is a crisis, but a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the most sensible approach if action genuinely is required. But the left prefers sure-to-fail (but very lucrative to cronies) industrial policy.
Government can help create conditions for prosperity by providing core public goods like rule of law, but that only requires a very small public sector, not the bloated Leviathans that exist today.
Last but not least, I was rhetorically correct but technically wrong about welfare dependency in Hong Kong. I said fewer than 3 percent of Hong Kong residents get public assistance when I should have said that Hong Kong spends less than 3 percent of GDP on redistribution. That’s an amazingly small welfare state, but it does ensnare about 5.5 percent of the population. Which if far lower than the share of the population getting handouts in America, so my point was still very much correct.
Not that any of this matters in the short run since there’s a 99.9 percent probability that America’s next President will be perfectly content to let the country sink further into the swamp of statism.
Thought For the Day!
By Rich Kozlovich
Malcom X believed he was being targeted for death by the Nation of Islam, yet he told his security staff to "stop searching for weapons before his speaking engagements" He was murdered by three Nation of Islam members on February 21, 1965. Apparently he believed his rhetoric would be sufficient to save him as supposedly his last words were: “Hold it! Hold it! Let’s cool it! Let’s be cool, brothers!” Then he was shot. So much for black brotherhood and the idea no one needs guns for protection. After all - you just call the police! Which they did - of course Malcom X was dead by then!
Just a thought!
Malcom X believed he was being targeted for death by the Nation of Islam, yet he told his security staff to "stop searching for weapons before his speaking engagements" He was murdered by three Nation of Islam members on February 21, 1965. Apparently he believed his rhetoric would be sufficient to save him as supposedly his last words were: “Hold it! Hold it! Let’s cool it! Let’s be cool, brothers!” Then he was shot. So much for black brotherhood and the idea no one needs guns for protection. After all - you just call the police! Which they did - of course Malcom X was dead by then!
Just a thought!
Leftist Nightmare: Black Conservatives Running for Office
By Lloyd Marcus
Someone passed on to me the latest video commentary by black conservative AlfonZo Rachel. Awesome! The brother boldly speaks the truth with humor, passion, and intelligence. I first met Zo about seven years ago.
His video caused me to reminisce about how we black conservatives have been out there on the front lines for many years, trying to wake up fellow blacks, encouraging them to liberate themselves from government and Democrat party slavery.
Some blacks are just plain stuck on stupid. Sorry, folks, but that's the truth. I have an idiot relative in mind. No matter what facts I show him about how blacks continue to suffer greatly due to Obama and democrat policies, his reply is I should be ashamed of myself for not supporting our black president.
Liberal mainstream media have done an excellent job keeping black conservatives off American's radar. Leftist's greatest fear is for the masses to hear blacks expressing love for their country; saying they don't hate or resent fellow Americans who are white; blacks who don't believe they are owed anything and believe they can succeed without democrats lowering standards or government intervention.......Read more
Someone passed on to me the latest video commentary by black conservative AlfonZo Rachel. Awesome! The brother boldly speaks the truth with humor, passion, and intelligence. I first met Zo about seven years ago.
His video caused me to reminisce about how we black conservatives have been out there on the front lines for many years, trying to wake up fellow blacks, encouraging them to liberate themselves from government and Democrat party slavery.
Some blacks are just plain stuck on stupid. Sorry, folks, but that's the truth. I have an idiot relative in mind. No matter what facts I show him about how blacks continue to suffer greatly due to Obama and democrat policies, his reply is I should be ashamed of myself for not supporting our black president.
Liberal mainstream media have done an excellent job keeping black conservatives off American's radar. Leftist's greatest fear is for the masses to hear blacks expressing love for their country; saying they don't hate or resent fellow Americans who are white; blacks who don't believe they are owed anything and believe they can succeed without democrats lowering standards or government intervention.......Read more
Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push unintentionally honest in HIllary bio
Hillary Clinton got a warm welcome from Jesse and Jacqueline Jackson as she brought her presidential campaign to Chicago on Monday — but a program put together by Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition for her big speech at McCormick Place wasn’t so kind.
A biography for the former U.S. secretary of state, senator and first lady printed in a glossy program handed to hundreds of attendees at Rainbow/PUSH’s Women’s luncheon noted that Clinton is “the only first lady to have been subpoenaed,” that “her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal of 1998” and added that “overall her role as first lady drew a polarized response from the public.”
Ouch! That’s not the type of sanitized biography typically afforded keynote speakers at public events. Politicos normally have their own offices supply biographies scrubbed clean of any controversy or personal strife, and the first rule of etiquette for anyone hosting Clinton is: Don’t mention Monica Lewinsky.......To Read More...
Why Democrats Are Really Blocking Funding to Fight Zika Virus
Genevieve Wood / @genevievewood / / 45 comments
The hypocrisy of Democrats in Congress when it comes to combatting the Zika virus is not only outrageous, it’s dangerous. The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say there are now over 2,600 cases of the Zika virus confirmed in the United States and its territories. Most cases are occurring in Puerto Rico, but there are at least 162 cases in Florida and 198 in New York. And scariest of all is that over 450 of the reported cases are pregnant women. It is their unborn children for which the disease poses the greatest harm.
Despite the fact there is plenty of money scattered across the federal government that could be used without Congress adding another dime to the debt, Democrats have made the decision to hold hostage the health of the American people until they get more money and until some of those dollars are given to Planned Parenthood. Proof of that is the decision by Senate Democrats this week to block funding of $1.1 billion to fight the Zika virus. These are the same Senate Democrats, by the way, who voted for $1.1 billion of funding just last month.......To Read More......
The hypocrisy of Democrats in Congress when it comes to combatting the Zika virus is not only outrageous, it’s dangerous. The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say there are now over 2,600 cases of the Zika virus confirmed in the United States and its territories. Most cases are occurring in Puerto Rico, but there are at least 162 cases in Florida and 198 in New York. And scariest of all is that over 450 of the reported cases are pregnant women. It is their unborn children for which the disease poses the greatest harm.
Despite the fact there is plenty of money scattered across the federal government that could be used without Congress adding another dime to the debt, Democrats have made the decision to hold hostage the health of the American people until they get more money and until some of those dollars are given to Planned Parenthood. Proof of that is the decision by Senate Democrats this week to block funding of $1.1 billion to fight the Zika virus. These are the same Senate Democrats, by the way, who voted for $1.1 billion of funding just last month.......To Read More......
Good riddance to George Will
By James Lewis
I like and respect George Will, and over the years I've been one of his fans. With the rise of Donald Trump, Will has decided to resign from the GOP, along with Mitt Romney and the other folks we might call "decorative conservatives" -- the people who look good on the outside, but who have none of the fire in the belly that marked Teddy Roosevelt or Lincoln -- not to mention the Founders, who were pretty robust and argumentative.
I believe Mr. Will has a genuine distaste for what may become Trump Conservatism. Trump represents a kind of happy warrior style of American politician, similar to Harry Truman and Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt. It's obviously too low-class for Will, Romney and Jeb Bush, who are all too delicate for the political blood sport that the Left has imposed on our politics. Nothing is too low for the Left. Literally nothing.
The national GOP has been in decline for years, running decrepit candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney -- who actually did flinch in the last debate with Obama, as Trump points out. Candidates like Dole and McCain were picked for their seniority, which is what made them weak and doddering candidates.
On the other side, the hard Left is back in charge of the Democrats, and they are killers. Their purpose is to destroy their opponents. In response, the GOP has run certain losers..... We need a good purge, and I'm not choosy about the label on the box. Let the exodus begin. ........Read more
I like and respect George Will, and over the years I've been one of his fans. With the rise of Donald Trump, Will has decided to resign from the GOP, along with Mitt Romney and the other folks we might call "decorative conservatives" -- the people who look good on the outside, but who have none of the fire in the belly that marked Teddy Roosevelt or Lincoln -- not to mention the Founders, who were pretty robust and argumentative.
I believe Mr. Will has a genuine distaste for what may become Trump Conservatism. Trump represents a kind of happy warrior style of American politician, similar to Harry Truman and Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt. It's obviously too low-class for Will, Romney and Jeb Bush, who are all too delicate for the political blood sport that the Left has imposed on our politics. Nothing is too low for the Left. Literally nothing.
The national GOP has been in decline for years, running decrepit candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney -- who actually did flinch in the last debate with Obama, as Trump points out. Candidates like Dole and McCain were picked for their seniority, which is what made them weak and doddering candidates.
On the other side, the hard Left is back in charge of the Democrats, and they are killers. Their purpose is to destroy their opponents. In response, the GOP has run certain losers..... We need a good purge, and I'm not choosy about the label on the box. Let the exodus begin. ........Read more
America’s Latest Epidemic: Bureaucrats with Guns
June 28, 2016 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
While I dismiss conspiracy theories that presume there’s a plan in Washington to strip away our rights, I do think there’s a natural “public choice” explanation for ever-growing, ever-more powerful government. And that can lead to ever-expanding examples of abusive mistreatment of citizens.
If you don’t believe me, just ask people like Andy Johnson, Anthony Smelley,
the Hammond family, Charlie Engle, Tammy Cooper, Nancy Black, Russ Caswell, Jacques Wajsfelner, Jeff Councelller, Eric Garner, Martha Boneta, Carole Hinders, Salvatore Culosi, and James Lieto, as well as the Sierra Pacific Company and the entire Meitev family.
Here’s something else to worry about, especially considering the way citizens are increasingly mistreated by callous officials.
Former Senator Tom Coburn, along with Adam Andrzejewski of OpenTheBooks.com, wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal about the militarization of the bureaucracy.
And there are other bureaucracies to add to this list, which doesn’t make Corburn and Andrzejewski very happy.
But do we really need armed regulators interacting with the public?
Yes, bureaucrats occasionally have to deal with potentially dangerous people. And even if they’re enforcing rules that shouldn’t exist, I think they have every right to be protected. But in those rare instances, why not simply call up the local cops and ask for an escort? Would that really be asking too much?
Jeff Jacoby is similarly irked by the militarization of the bureaucracy. Here’s some of what he wrote for the Boston Globe.
But the more serious point, which Jeff astutely addresses, is whether militarized bureaucrats send the wrong message.
But I am concerned that a bloated government with vast and growing powers is a recipe for an ugly and unfortunate encounters.
Especially when we have a tax code and regulatory apparatus that make all of us criminals even when we’re trying to obey.
While I dismiss conspiracy theories that presume there’s a plan in Washington to strip away our rights, I do think there’s a natural “public choice” explanation for ever-growing, ever-more powerful government. And that can lead to ever-expanding examples of abusive mistreatment of citizens.
If you don’t believe me, just ask people like Andy Johnson, Anthony Smelley,
Here’s something else to worry about, especially considering the way citizens are increasingly mistreated by callous officials.
Former Senator Tom Coburn, along with Adam Andrzejewski of OpenTheBooks.com, wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal about the militarization of the bureaucracy.
Special agents at the IRS equipped with AR-15 military-style rifles? Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” being trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors? The Department of Veterans Affairs arming 3,700 employees? The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996. …During a nine-year period through 2014, we found, 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.Here are some of the strange example of militarized bureaucracy, along with my speculation as to why the paper pushers ostensibly need heavy weapons.
Perhaps the IRS bureaucrats expected Tea Party groups to fight back after they were suppressed to help Obama’s reelection?The Internal Revenue Service, which has 2,316 special agents, spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. That’s nearly $5,000 in gear for each agent.
The Department of Veterans Affairs, which has 3,700 law-enforcement officers guarding and securing VA medical centers, spent $11.66 million. It spent more than $200,000 on night-vision equipment, $2.3 million for body armor, more than $2 million on guns, and $3.6 million for ammunition. The VA employed no officers with firearm authorization as recently as 1995.Were the VA bureaucrats worried that angry veterans who were put on secret waiting lists might get violent instead of simply dying?
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night-vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote-control helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes and more.I don’t even know what propane cannons and LP gas cannons are, but they sound almost as awesome as a tank, so why not get them if taxpayers are footing the bill?
The Environmental Protection Agency spent $3.1 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. The EPA has put nearly $800 million since 2005 into its “Criminal Enforcement Division.”Is the EPA’s assault on illegal ponds really that dangerous?
The Food and Drug Administration employs 183 heavily armed “special agents.”What’s the point of having milk police if they aren’t well armed?
The University of California, Berkeley acquired 14 5.56mm assault rifles and Yale University police accepted 20 5.56mm assault rifles from the Defense Department. Texas Southern University and Saddleback College police even acquired Mine Resistant Vehicles (MRVs).There are rumors that very dodgy characters sometimes show up on campuses, so who am I to question the need for heavy weapons?
And there are other bureaucracies to add to this list, which doesn’t make Corburn and Andrzejewski very happy.
Other paper-pushing federal agencies with firearm-and-arrest authority that have expanded their arsenals since 2006 include the Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology and many others. …the federal government has become a gun show that never adjourns. Taxpayers need to tell Washington that police powers belong primarily to cities and states, not the feds.By the way, I have no objection to armed guards stationed at federal buildings. There are wackos out there. And I’m completely in favor of armed Energy Department officials guarding nuclear facilities.
But do we really need armed regulators interacting with the public?
Yes, bureaucrats occasionally have to deal with potentially dangerous people. And even if they’re enforcing rules that shouldn’t exist, I think they have every right to be protected. But in those rare instances, why not simply call up the local cops and ask for an escort? Would that really be asking too much?
Jeff Jacoby is similarly irked by the militarization of the bureaucracy. Here’s some of what he wrote for the Boston Globe.
…consider one domestic organization’s fearsome arsenal of military-style equipment. In the space of eight years, the group amassed a stockpile of pistols, shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles, along with ample supplies of ammunition, liquid explosives, gun scopes, and suppressors. In its cache as well are night-vision goggles, gas cannons, plus armored vests, drones, and surveillance equipment. Between 2006 and 2014, this organization spent nearly $4.8 million to arm itself. Yet its aggressive weapons buildup has drawn almost no public attention. …It is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, an agency of the US Department of Agriculture, that has built up such a formidable collection of munitions. And far from being an outlier, it is one of dozens of federal agencies that spends lavishly on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment.I guess the APHIS bureaucrats must run into ISIS terrorists. Or something like that.
But the more serious point, which Jeff astutely addresses, is whether militarized bureaucrats send the wrong message.
Between 2006 and 2014, the report shows, 67 federal bureaus, departments, offices, and services spent at least $1.48 billion on ammunition and materiel one might expect to find in the hands of SWAT teams, Special Forces soldiers — or terrorists. …the arms race has metastasized to federal agencies with strictly regulatory or administrative functions. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, now spends more than $1 million annually on firearms, ammunition, and military gear, double what it was spending a decade ago. Since 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs — which has been sharply criticized for episodes of fatal incompetence in patient care — has poured nearly $11.7 million into guns and ammo. …Incredibly, there are now fewer US Marines than there are officers at federal administrative agencies with the authority to carry weapons and make arrests. …this federal arsenal alarms Adam Andrzejewski, the head of American Transparency’s OpenTheBooks.com, which researched and assembled the new report. “Just who,” he asks, “are the feds planning to battle?”As I said at the start of this column, I don’t think bureaucrats are “planning to battle” anyone.
But I am concerned that a bloated government with vast and growing powers is a recipe for an ugly and unfortunate encounters.
Especially when we have a tax code and regulatory apparatus that make all of us criminals even when we’re trying to obey.
The Bill of Rights Ensures the Government Can’t Do Whatever It Wants
Sen. Mike Lee / @SenMikeLee / / 92 comments @ The Daily Signal
Since the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida, nearly two weeks ago—the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001—Congress has been engrossed in a debate about what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again.
In their grief for the victims, and in their concern about the safety of our communities, many Americans have come to the same conclusion: “something must be done.”
Unfortunately, many of members of Congress believe that those four words—“something must be done”—give the federal government permission to do whatever it wants.
But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances.
The government may not infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” It may not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Nor may it deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
These are just a few of the explicit limitations on government action—a few of Americans’ core civil liberties—listed in the Bill of Rights. They are not negotiable. Yet many of the legislative proposals that have emerged in recent days run roughshod over these basic constitutional rights.
One such measure would give law enforcement agencies power to access Americans’ internet browsing history and email metadata—which can be analyzed to reveal intimate details about a person’s life—without a warrant, probable cause, or judicial review by a federal court.
Another measure, the Terrorist Firearms and Prevention Act, would prohibit individuals on the government’s secret no fly list or selectee list from purchasing firearms.
In defending these measures, some proponents have lamented the difficulty of working around the core civil liberties listed in the Bill of Rights. But this is a feature, not a bug, of our constitutional system.
Americans’ constitutional rights are not nuisances that the government must accommodate. Protecting these rights is the reason that government exists. As we continue consideration of these measures next week, we must work to ensure that Congress fulfills this purpose.
Since the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida, nearly two weeks ago—the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001—Congress has been engrossed in a debate about what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again.
In their grief for the victims, and in their concern about the safety of our communities, many Americans have come to the same conclusion: “something must be done.”
Unfortunately, many of members of Congress believe that those four words—“something must be done”—give the federal government permission to do whatever it wants.
But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances.
The government may not infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” It may not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Nor may it deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
These are just a few of the explicit limitations on government action—a few of Americans’ core civil liberties—listed in the Bill of Rights. They are not negotiable. Yet many of the legislative proposals that have emerged in recent days run roughshod over these basic constitutional rights.
One such measure would give law enforcement agencies power to access Americans’ internet browsing history and email metadata—which can be analyzed to reveal intimate details about a person’s life—without a warrant, probable cause, or judicial review by a federal court.
Another measure, the Terrorist Firearms and Prevention Act, would prohibit individuals on the government’s secret no fly list or selectee list from purchasing firearms.
Americans’ constitutional rights are not nuisances that the government must accommodate.Everyone agrees that terrorists should be prevented from purchasing guns, but this proposal would deny Americans their Second Amendment rights based on a mere suspicion from the FBI that they are engaged in terrorist activity. The denial of a constitutional right should require more proof than a reasonable suspicion—a standard so low that it doesn’t even justify an arrest.
In defending these measures, some proponents have lamented the difficulty of working around the core civil liberties listed in the Bill of Rights. But this is a feature, not a bug, of our constitutional system.
Americans’ constitutional rights are not nuisances that the government must accommodate. Protecting these rights is the reason that government exists. As we continue consideration of these measures next week, we must work to ensure that Congress fulfills this purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)