Friday, March 23, 2018

A Message from the Big-6 Pesticide Companies to Green Activists: THANK YOU!!!


The Risk-Monger is breaking with tradition and publishing an article he did not write. But he fully supports the content and hopes people give this some thought (and a smile).
The following is a fictional letter from M-Corporation (a fictional American pesticides-biotech company). It was sent to all members of the SPD (Social Democratic Party), B90/GrĂ¼ne (Green Party), Die Linken (Left Party) and the relevant NGOs. Although it is fictional, it reflects the thoughts that must be going through the minds of “Big-6” managers. The longer version in German was sent to all members of the German Parliament on 21 February 2018. The anti-science developments in Germany may be extreme, but it is not unique. This “letter” with its bitter irony may therefore be of interest for people outside this country who believe that political decisions should be based on science rather than populism. 
Dear Politicians, NGOs and those campaigning against Green Biotech,

M-Corporation is one of the six large companies (also called BIG-6) that control 75% of the global market of agrochemicals and 60% of the seeds market. The managers of M-Corporation would like to express our gratitude for your excellent work and hope for further fruitful cooperation. In recent years, M-corporation has been spending 4.5 million dollars a day for research and development. But money alone does not make innovation..........To Read More....

My Take - One thing society should understand.  Large corporations aren't generally liberal or conservative, and may bounce back and forth in their support of positions that will represent one side or the other.  What we need to understand is these companies are at best leaky vessels as allies.  Their view on allies are substantially different than most of our views.  They view all allies as "Allies of Convenience", and we need to recognize that and act accordingly.  They will also abandon any ally if it will impact their quarterly return.  In the political world that's called treason. 

Will the Deep State Break Trump?

Posted: Mar 23, 2018 Pat Buchanan

"It is becoming more obvious with each passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon," wrote David Broder on Oct. 8, 1969. "The likelihood is great that they will succeed again." A columnist for The Washington Post, Broder was no fan of Nixon. His prediction, however, proved wrong. Nixon, with his "Silent Majority" address rallied the nation and rocked the establishment. He went on to win a 49-state victory in 1972, after which his stumbles opened the door to the establishment's revenge...........Not only have journalists given up any pretense of neutrality in this campaign to bring down the president, ex-national security officers of the highest rank are starting to sound like resisters.........To Read More.....

Federal judge dismissed claim of a conspiracy to suppress global warming science

by , 0 Comments 

A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit dismissed a core section plaintiffs brought in the case — oil companies conspired to cover up global warming science.

San Francisco and Oakland filed suit against five major companies, including Exxon and Chevron, demanding money for damages global warming allegedly caused. A core component of their suit is fossil fuel companies “engaged in a large-scale, sophisticated advertising and public relations campaign” to promote fossil fuels while they “knew” their products would contribute to “dangerous global warming.”

The cities’ suits against oil companies, however, do not show an industry conspiracy to suppress climate science from the public, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said, according to journalists who attended the hearing.

Alsup said plaintiffs “shows nothing of the sort” regarding some sort of conspiracy against science, Conservative journalist Phelim McAleer tweeted.

“Alsup dismissing the idea that there was some sort of conspiracy,” environmental journalist Amy Westervelt tweeted.

Cities and oil companies gave Alsup a five hour tutorial on global warming Wednesday, answering eight questions the California judge had given both parties ahead of time. A group of scientists skeptical of man-made warming also submitted briefs for the hearing.

Eight California localities and New York City have filed suit against fossil fuel companies, arguing they should pay for the damages global warming allegedly wrought. New York City’s lawsuit seeks up to $20 billion in compensation, much of which would go toward trial lawyers.

However, all the cities claim fossil fuel companies conspired to suppress global warming science. The claim is largely based on reporting from liberal journalists at InsideClimate News and Columbia University.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller
About the Author:  Michael Bastasch    Michael Bastasch writes on energy, climate and the environment for the Daily Caller.

California’s zero-emissions auto bill would price out the middle class

by , 1 Comment

Proposed legislation in California to ban internal combustion engines in new automobiles would make new cars exclusive toys for the wealthy, price and salary data show. A review of zero-emission vehicle data shows even the least expensive options cost two-thirds of the average American salary.

Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) has introduced legislation that would ban the sale of automobiles with internal combustion engines starting in 2040. The bill expands on Gov. Jerry Brown’s goal of having 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on California roads by 2025.

Zero-emission requirements, however, would price many – and perhaps most – people out of the new-car market. The smallest and least expensive zero-emission vehicles, such as the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt, have a base-model price of approximately $30,000. For context, the median American worker’s salary is approximately $44,000 per year. Similar conventional engine vehicles like the Nissan Versa and Chevy Cruze sell for less than half that price. Moreover, the Chevy Volt’s battery range, for example, is only 51 miles, after which the owner must either engage in a lengthy recharge or switch to the vehicle’s gasoline backup (which would be banned under the proposed bill).

Many Americans already cannot afford the $14,000 or so to purchase a new, small, fuel-efficient vehicle like the Chevy Cruze. Escalating entry-level new car prices above $30,000 would make it extremely difficult for even the middle class to purchase new cars.

Is California Governor Jerry Brown Mentally Ill?

So I guess, according to leftists' perverse way of thinking, that Trump must be crazy, along with the 63 million Americans who voted for him.  Meanwhile, leftists are ignoring glaring reasons to question the sanity of California's governor, Jerry Brown........Read more

South African radical: White farmers should 'leave the keys' when they go

We've been covering the ongoing tragedy for white farmers in South Africa for more than a year, culminating in a law passed by the radical South African parliament that expropriates white farmland that's been in the same family for hundreds of years without compensation...........They may be "white nationalists," but that doesn't mean they should be slaughtered.  But the radical black government claims it's a lie and that white farmers who are now fleeing to Australia should "leave the keys" to their houses and their tractors when they go.............Read more

Republicans Produce a $1.3-Trillion Spending Bill That Funds Democrat Priorities

By Susan Jones | March 22, 2018

( - Republicans rolled out a two-thousand-page-plus omnibus spending bill Wednesday night, which they expect to pass by Friday's deadline, giving no one any real chance to read it.  And while there is much in it for Democrats to like, there is much for conservatives to oppose, as Republicans ignore campaign promises to limit spending and grow government instead.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, appeared on Fox News around 10 o'clock last night, telling host Laura Ingraham that he's read only about 200 pages of the 2,232-page bill, and "this is not about draining the swamp," he said.

"I mean, we continue to fund sanctuary cities. We continue to fund Planned Parenthood. We don't build the wall, but yet we put money in for a tunnel. The last time I checked, when the president was campaigning, he wasn't campaigning for a tunnel between New Jersey and New York........To Read More.....

Congressmen Had 1,000 Minutes to Read 2,232-Page $1.3T Bill

By Terence P. Jeffrey | March 22, 2018

Members of the House of Representatives had 1,000 minutes—overnight—to read a 2,232-page bill that spends $1.3 trillion.  On Wednesday, March 21, the House Appropriations Committee put out a press release headlined “Government-Wide Funding Legislation Released.”

“The bill contains the full legislation and funding for all of the 12 annual Appropriations bills,” said the release. “It totals $1.3 trillion, including $78.1 billion in funding for the Global War on Terror (GWOT)/Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Total base funding, excluding OCO and emergencies, is $1.2 trillion.”........To Read More....

State and Local Income, Sales and Property Taxes All Hit Records in 2017

By Terence P. Jeffrey | March 22, 2018

Real state and local income, sales and property taxes all hit records in 2017, according to data released this week by the Census Bureau.  State and local governments collected a record $404,509,000,000 in individual income taxes in 2017, according to the Census Bureau. Before 2017, the greatest level of individual income tax revenues collected by state and local governments occurred in 2015, when those governments collected $399,933,270,000 in individual income taxes (in constant 2017 dollars converted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator).

State and local governments also collected a record $386,153,000,000 in general sales and gross receipts taxes in 2017. Prior to that, the largest state and local general sales and gross receipt tax collections took place in 2015, when state and local governments collected $385,904,260,000 in those taxes (in constant 2017 dollars).......To Read More.....

Ben Shapiro: GOP’s $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill Is a ‘Crap Sandwich’

By Michael Morris | March 22, 2018

On his daily Facebook Live podcast “The Ben Shapiro Show” Thursday, host and Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Wire Ben Shapiro slammed Congress for its inability to pass appropriations bills, calling the GOP’s $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill a “crap sandwich.”
“[I]t’s time for Congress to pass another crappy omnibus package,” Shapiro stated near the beginning of his daily Facebook Live podcast. “So, there’s a big omnibus package coming up. Congress is no longer capable of actually just passing appropriations bills.
“Here is the problem: The Congress, the House of Representatives will vote for appropriations bills. They will pass through the normal appropriations process. The way that you are supposed to do budgets is you are supposed to fund individual departments, and then you’re supposed to send a bill to the senate. The senate is supposed to fund that individual department, and then the president signs it. Instead, what has happened, because Mitch McConnell does not have a governing majority in the Senate – he has 51 votes, but they’re all fractious – instead they just slap everything today in a crap sandwich of a bill that is 2,232 pages long, and then they give people 48 hours to read it and say we gotta vote.”.........To Read More.....

McMaster Out, Bolton In as National Security Adviser

By Melanie Arter | March 22, 2018

The White House announced Thursday that National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster plans to resign from the Trump administration and will be replaced by former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.  McMaster will serve until mid-April, after which Bolton will take over.  “After thirty-four years of service to our nation, I am requesting retirement from the U.S. Army effective this summer after which I will leave public service. Throughout my career........To Read More....

My Take - Did he really want to retire or is this a way for the President to fire a man without humiliating him?  I think it's the latter.  McMaster and his team's thinking are so closely aligned with leftists I couldn't understand why he was tolerated this long, but Trump didn't come into the office like most Presidents.  He came in without the support of the party and that's where the recommendations for these position come from. 

He's had to keep people who were already there in some cases until he had time to figure out who he could get that would do what needs to be done.  And as far as I can tell - he's had to do that largely on his own.  But now these changes will give him access to others through the people he's now bringing in, and the changes will go faster and be more in line with the America First mentality, including the staff McMaster praises.

Trump’s Choice of Bolton Reflects American Greatness

The political warriors from the Freedom Center’s events are Trump’s newest fighters.

March 23, 2018 Daniel Greenfield  13

 Fifteen years ago, North Korea banned John Bolton from the useless nuclear talks. “Such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks,” its foreign ministry declared.  North Korea had freaked out because then Undersecretary of State Bolton had called Kim Jong Il, a “tyrannical dictator” and life in the socialist hellhole, a “hellish nightmare”.  Bolton would later describe that as one of his proudest moments.

Back then, North Korea had defended the move by pointing out that Bolton’s views differed "from the recent remarks of the U.S. president". And so it could claim that he didn’t represent the United States.  Fifteen years later the game has changed. Kim Jong Il is dead and the President of the United States has called his successor, “little rocket man”, a “madman” and “short and fat”.

John Bolton very definitely does represent the views of this president...........It takes a warrior to pick the political warriors who want to fight to win. And who understand that standing up to bullies, thugs and tyrants is less likely to lead to a fight than surrendering to them.   Bolton and Kudlow are part of a vigorous new wave of picks by President Trump. They’re part of his strategy to remake the administration to better reflect his vision, his strategy and his message..............To Read More.....



John Bolton: The Wisdom of This Choice Is Made Clear in the Panic of Liberals

Mar 23, 2018 Mark Davis

 With one presidential decision, America gained one of its boldest National Security Advisers, and lost one of its best cable news guests.

Roughly an hour after John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., was named as the replacement for the outgoing adviser H.R. McMaster, he appeared on Fox News with “The Story” host Martha McCallum, who was loaded with great questions for a man known for his blunt assessments of the world scene and sharp views on the policies that best serve America.  She learned quickly that the new position changes everything for Bolton..........To Read More....

The Bolton-for-McMaster Change

Why our success -- and survival -- will benefit.

March 23, 2018 Michael Ledeen 3 

Anyone who has held as many hard jobs in Washington as has John Bolton, will have made numerous enemies, whatever his personality. John has plenty of critics, and in this dramatic Bolton-for-McMaster change, there are lots of unhappy officials, not even including the McMaster loyalists at the National Security Council who are surely slated for an early exit.

As the Los Angeles Times puts it succinctly in a headline, “Bolton’s not nice, but he’s good.” Actually, those of us who have known him for a long time would differ on the “not nice” bit. I think he’s very nice. I met him when we were both at the American Enterprise Institute, and truth be told I was not at all enthusiastic about his arrival there.

 I wasn’t a fan of Jim Baker, for whom John had worked at the State Department, and I wondered why AEI wanted a “Baker person.” But I changed my mind as I read the many articles, essays, and even books that John produced. And he was willing to debate issues on which we disagreed, or seemed to disagree. Over the years, we’ve both changed our minds on several policy issues. His Cabinet colleagues will find him thoughtful, a rare quality in any bureaucracy, and even rarer when it comes to foreign policy debates in Washington..........To Read More.....

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Swamp Spending 101: The Omnibus Spending Bill

Veronique de Rugy Posted: Mar 22, 2018

Republicans are once again proving why they actually deserve the label of the biggest swamp spenders. The latest gigantic omnibus spending bill would fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year -- with a price tag of $1.3 trillion. That doesn't include entitlement funding or payments for the interest on our debt -- which continue to grow and drive our debt higher, as Republicans have apparently given up on slowing down spending.

Most Republicans favor the bill as a way to avoid the self-inflicted risk of another government shutdown. Never mind that members have had no time to read the 1,000-page bill and figure out what is actually in it. They just have to take Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's word. He said, "It has some things no one likes, and it has a lot of things not everybody likes but most people like. It was a fair compromise."

Schumer's uncharacteristic cheerfulness about the measure probably had much to do with the $900 million in funding for the Gateway tunnel project, a boondoggle supported by all New York-area lawmakers. It most likely won't be in the final bill, though, because President Donald Trump threatened to veto the bill if the project were to be included. Immigration is another sticky point, but we can all expect it to be resolved at some point by nudging the right people for their support..........To Read More....


California Wants to Secede? Let's Help Them!

Wayne Allyn Root Posted: Mar 22, 2018

Liberals in California want to secede. They are trying to put it on the ballot. They call it “Calexit.” I say, “Glory Hallelujah." Let’s help make it happen.   I propose 63 million Trump voters join the team. Let's work 24/7 to turn their dream into a reality  Millions of illegal aliens live in California; drive in California with official state-issued drivers’ licenses; and of course, use those licenses to vote in California. Millions. That’s precisely how Hillary won California by over 4 million votes.
  • California supports illegal aliens over legal, law-abiding American citizens.
  • They support illegals getting free college tuition, while children of native-born Americans pay full fare.
  • They support illegals over police and ICE. Many liberals in California want to abolish ICE.
  • They want no borders and no immigration law.
The Attorney General of California has warned any business owner who cooperates with ICE will face prosecution by the state of CaliforniaYou heard correctly. California will put the business owner in prison, for cooperating with federal law, to protect the criminal breaking the law.......To Read More......

My Take - Think about this!  If California did secede, why couldn't northern California secede from California, which it really has wanted to do for decades.  That's how West Virginia came into existence.  Northern California would then have two Senators, making it a four-seat change.  Two Democrats out and two Republican in.  Then, we could declare war on Southern California and conquer it in 24 hours or less, make it a territory subject to a territorial or military governor appointed by the President of the United states with no representation in Congress or voting privileges. 

Sounds like a winner to me.

Buckeye Institute Press Release

Contact: Lisa Gates, Vice President of Comms
(614) 224-3255 or
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE     March 21, 2018
The Buckeye Institute: Occupational Licensing
is a Red-Taped Obstacle for Workers
Greg Lawson Testifies Before the Ohio Senate Government
Oversight and Reform Committee on Senate Bill 255
Columbus, OH -- The Buckeye Institute's Greg R. Lawson testified today (see full text below or download a PDF) before the Ohio Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee on Senate Bill 255.
In opening his testimony, Lawson said of Ohio's occupational licensing requirements, "No one denies that state licensing requirements are needed in some cases and industries to ensure public safety...But these concerns fade quickly when applied to auctioneers, travel guides, and hairdressers -- all of whom are subject to Ohio's byzantine licensing requirements."
Lawson also pointed to the state's burdensome occupational licensing as a factor slowing Ohio's economic recovery and impacting Ohio's minority communities, "State permission slip policies that make it harder and more expensive to find work only exacerbate the problem." Going on later to note that that while the state's labor force participation has improved in recent years it remains below the national average and "Occupational licensing hurdles only make Ohio's full recovery more difficult."
The research in support of reducing occupational licensing spans the political spectrum with Lawson highlighting research by the Heritage Foundation, National Bureau of Economic Research, the Brookings Institute's Hamilton Project, and Democratic and Republican administrations. He also highlighted Buckeye's own research, Forbidden to Succeed: How Licensure Laws Hold Ohioans Back and Still Forbidden to Succeed: The Negative Effects of Occupational Licensing on Ohio's Workforce.
In closing, Lawson urged policymakers to reform Ohio's occupational licensing regulations saying, "Senate Bill 255 begins the overdue effort of reforming the state's occupational licensing regime and ending a misguided permission slip policy that has stood in the way of growth and prosperity for far too long.
# # #
Interested Party Testimony on Senate Bill 255
Before the Ohio Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee
Greg R. Lawson, Research Fellow
The Buckeye Institute
March 21, 2018
Chairman Coley, Vice Chair Uecker, Ranking Member Schiavoni, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding Senate Bill 255 and Ohio's need for occupational licensing reform.
My name is Greg R. Lawson. I am the research fellow at The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution -- a think tank -- whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.
Ohioans should not have to ask the state for permission to earn a living. Yet, all too often, Ohio creates permission slip policies that make it harder -- and sometimes impossible -- for Ohioans or would-be Ohioans to pursue their careers and put food on the table for their families. Such policies must end.
No one denies that state licensing requirements are needed in some cases and industries to ensure public safety. Requiring appropriate education and training for physicians, healthcare providers, pilots, and truck drivers, for example, helps safeguard the general public in our hospitals and on our roads and runways. But these concerns fade quickly when applied to auctioneers, travel guides, and hairdressers -- all of whom are subject to Ohio's byzantine licensing requirements.
Consider Jennifer McClellan. A new mother, a long-time professional, and a licensed massage therapist, Jennifer tried moving back to Ohio to be closer to her family, but the Ohio State Medical Board denied her license application because she was 10 days shy of the state's training requirements.[1] The board unduly discounted Jennifer's years of training and work experience, and would not honor the license she had already earned in Minnesota. Jennifer is not alone.
Tragically, such cases plague Ohio's minority communities -- communities already facing daunting employment prospects. Nationally, the unemployment rate among African Americans remains much higher than among other demographics. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the most recent unemployment rate among African Americans was 6.9 percent -- nearly double the 3.7 percent rate for whites.[2] Unemployment confronts 27.2 percent of young African Americans between 16 and 19, compared to the 12.6 percent of young whites.[3] State permission slip policies that make it harder and more expensive to find work only exacerbate the problem, adding insult to injury in our job-deprived minority communities.
Recent scholarship across the political spectrum has highlighted the challenges presented by occupational licensing schemes and has made clear that the burdens created by such bureaucratic requirements must be lifted.
For starters, according to the Heritage Foundation, occupational licensing requirements cost the average U.S. household a staggering $1,033 per year.[4] Even more troubling, however, are the adverse effects that licensing has on interstate mobility and the labor market itself. A new study by professors Janna Johnson and Morris Kleiner of the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, for example, found that the migration rate of workers in occupations with state-specific licensing exam requirements was 36 percent lower than rates for other occupations.[5] By contrast, occupations with national examinations showed no evidence of such a limitation on interstate mobility.[6] Put simply, state-specific licensure makes migration more difficult by closing occupational doors for people who want to move.
In testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Professor Kleiner has stated that he and Alan Krueger, the former head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, had calculated that licensing laws cost between a half and one percent of jobs nationally in 2010.[7] Those seemingly small percentages amount to tens of thousands of jobs across America that never came into existence -- a claim bolstered by research out of the Brookings Institute's Hamilton Project revealing that stringent licensing requirements result in fewer providers of the services subject to the requirements.[8] Fewer providers means fewer employers and fewer available jobs.  
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given Mr. Krueger and Professor Kleiner's findings, the Obama Administration released a detailed report in 2015 calling for nationwide reforms to occupational licensing.[9] Echoing bipartisan support for such measures, the Trump Administration's Secretary of Labor has since said, "Americans want principled, broad-based reform. If licenses are unnecessary, eliminate them. If they are needed, streamline them. And, if they are honored by one state, consider honoring them in your own state. Americans looking to enter the workforce deserve no less than our most ardent efforts to remove regulatory barriers so that they can have a job."[10]
Focusing less on national trends and more on Ohio's own licensing concerns, The Buckeye Institute's report, Forbidden to Succeed: How Licensure Laws Hold Ohioans Back, showed not only that Ohio's licensing burdens are well above the national average, but also that nearly every Ohio license that requires training can be earned in less time in another state.[11]
Our subsequent study, Still Forbidden to Succeed: The Negative Effects of Occupational Licensing on Ohio's Workforce, confirmed the disturbing and stubborn fact that Ohio's licensing requirements erect higher barriers to employment for those most in need of quality jobs: middle-aged and low-income workers, and those without a college degree.[12]
Senate Bill 255 takes several steps toward fixing Ohio's occupational licensure problem. First, for the first time in state history, policymakers would be required to use the least restrictive regulation when displacing competition, and the bill identifies various licensing alternatives -- listed from least restrictive to most restrictive -- that the state could pursue if confronting a verifiable public safety risk. Second, Senate Bill 255 establishes a process for legislative panels to use when weeding through Ohio's overgrown thicket of licensing boards. Under this process, boards that the General Assembly does not proactively reauthorize would simply dissolve. Taken together, these provisions give lawmakers a much-needed tool for uprooting bureaucratic thistles that deprive Ohioans of the potential fruits of their labor.
In addition to its sunset provisions, Senate Bill 255 also creates a sunrise review process to be used whenever a new licensing bill is introduced. This provision will require the Legislative Service Commission (LSC) to assess the potential consequences of any new licensing legislation with respect to employment opportunities, consumer choices and costs, market competition, and costs to the government. Additionally, under S.B. 255, the LSC must assess 20 percent of the occupations regulated by the state each calendar year beginning in 2018, assess all occupations at least once before 2022, and continue such assessments on a five-year rolling basis after 2022.
These are all positive strides for a state still struggling to create new jobs. Ohio still has not rebounded fully from the tech bubble burst and remains down by almost 93,000 private-sector jobs from its peak in March 2000 -- now 18 years ago.[13] The state's labor force participation has improved in recent years, but remains slightly below the national average. Occupational licensing hurdles only make Ohio's full recovery more difficult.
Every licensing requirement raises a new red-taped obstacle for workers to clear before earning a living or starting a new career. Every hour of unpaid training needed to satisfy bureaucratic requirements is an hour not spent earning tips, impressing a boss, serving a customer, or opening a business. Those are hours of lost productivity, hours of opportunity that young, low-income workers sorely need, but that the state continues to take for itself.
Senate Bill 255 begins the overdue effort of reforming the state's occupational licensing regime and ending a misguided permission slip policy that has stood in the way of growth and prosperity for far too long.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I welcome any questions that the Committee might have.

[2] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-2. Employment Status of Civilian Population by Race, Sex, and Age, U.S. Department of Labor (Last visited March 16, 2018)
[3] Ibid.
[4] Salim Furth, Costly Mistakes: How Bad Policies Raise the Cost of Living, The Heritage Foundation, November 23, 2015.
[5] Janna E. Johnson and Morris M. Kleiner, Is Occupational Licensing a Barrier to Interstate Migration?, National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2017.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Morris M. Kleiner, License to Compete: Occupational Licensing and the State Action Doctrine, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, February 2, 2016.
[8] Morris M. Kleiner, Reforming Occupational Licensing Policies, The Hamilton Project, March 2015.
[10] Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta, Speech before the 44th Annual Meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council, U.S. Department of Labor, July 21, 2017.
[11] Tom Lampman, Forbidden to Succeed: How Licensure Laws Hold Ohioans Back, The Buckeye Institute, November 18, 2015.
[12] Orphe Pierre Divounguys, PhD, Bryce Hill, and Greg R. Lawson, Still Forbidden to Succeed: The Negative Effects of Occupational Licensing on Ohio's Workforce, The Buckeye Institute, December 18, 2017.
[13] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ohio Economy at a Glance, U.S. Department of Labor (Last visited March 16, 2018).

# # #
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.
The Buckeye Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, and tax-exempt organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. As such, it relies on support from individuals, corporations, and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. The Buckeye Institute does not seek or accept government funding.

Our Long History of Misjudging North Korea

Victor Davis Hanson Mar 22, 2018

 North Korea has befuddled the United States and its Asian allies ever since North Korean leader Kim Il Sung launched the invasion of South Korea in June 1950.  Prior to the attack, the United States had sent inadvertent signals that it likely would not protect South Korea in the event of an unexpected invasion from the north. Not surprisingly, a war soon followed.   Gen. Douglas MacArthur, after leading a brilliant landing at Inchon in September 1950, chased the communists back north of the 38 parallel. In hot pursuit, MacArthur gambled that the Chinese would not invade, as he sought to conquer all of North Korea and unite the peninsula.........To Read More.....

Don't Go To College

Mar 22, 2018 Kurt Schlichter

“Higher education” is terrible.

Please note the quotation marks, you doofy liberals who will no doubt fill the comments with high-pitched typing about how “Conservatives hate knowing stuff.” What passes for “education” today is nothing of the sort, and what calls itself “academia” is really just a venal trade guild packed with mediocrities desperately trying to keep fooling people into forking over $60,000 a year – usually obtained via ruinous borrowing that ties a financial anchor around the defrauded grads’ necks for the rest of their lives.

Today, academia’s product is largely garbage – gender studies, twisted history, and pointless sociology spin-offs like communications and political science. Yeah, we need more students studying politics when they don’t even know that the Constitution says they can’t shut people up because their feelz has got the hurtz............Academics are the Ivy League version of that Broward County sheriff’s deputy, knowing they should put themselves in harm’s way to protect their students from this ideological assault, but being too cowardly to do it............To Read More......

Dems Go after Gina Haspel with the “Torture” Smear

The real background of Trump's CIA pick.

March 22, 2018 Bruce Thornton 4 

Gina Haspel, Trump’s pick to succeed Mike Pompeo as head of the CIA, is a thirty-year veteran of the agency, one well respected by intelligence professionals from both parties. If confirmed, she will be the first woman to run our most important security agency. But despite this feminist victory, the Dems are likely to muddy the waters at her confirmation hearings by smearing her with allegations she oversaw “torture” at a black site in Thailand in 2002. Typical of what we can expect is the New York Times editorial titled, “Having a Torturer Lead the CIA,” even as the charge about the black site was shown to be untrue.

Once again, the party bereft of ideas and principle resorts to emotional obfuscation and accusation to advance their ideological prejudices. So, once again, it is necessary to lay out the facts and partisan hypocrisy behind the “torture” charge that has damaged our ability to gather the intelligence necessary to defend our safety and security.

Start with the imprecise or even willfully distorted language that always perfumes unsavory ideologies. In everyday use, “torture” can mean anything from a visit to the dentist to the sadistic mayhem of brutal regimes like Iran or North Korea. As a result, indiscriminate, lurid connotations and emotions attend the use of a word like “torture,” which of course is what makes it so useful for partisan smears.........To Read More....

Feel the Bern: Bernie Sides with Iran's Mullahs

The Left's romance with the Islamic Republic ensues.

A Cartoon that Tells You Everything You Need to Know about International Bureaucracies

August 10, 2016 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
Okay, I’ll admit the title of this post is an exaggeration. There are lots of things you should know – most bad, though some good – about international bureaucracies.

That being said, regular readers know that I get very frustrated with the statist policy agendas of both the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
I especially object to the way these international bureaucracies are cheerleaders for bigger
government and higher tax burdens. Even though they ostensibly exist to promote greater levels of prosperity!

I’ve written on these issues, ad nauseam, but perhaps dry analysis is only part of what’s needed to get the message across. Maybe some clever image can explain the issue to a broader audience (something I’ve done before with cartoons and images about the rise and fall of the welfare state, the misguided fixation on income distribution, etc).

It took awhile, but I eventually came up with (what I hope is) a clever idea. And when a former Cato intern with artistic skill, Jonathan Babington-Heina, agreed to do me a favor and take the concept in my head and translate it to paper, here are the results.

I think this hits the nail on the head.

Excessive government is the main problem plaguing the global economy. But the international bureaucracies, for all intents and purposes, represent governments. The bureaucrats at the IMF and OECD need to please politicians in order to continue enjoying their lavish budgets and exceedingly generous tax-free salaries.

So when there is some sort of problem in the global economy, they are reluctant to advocate for smaller government and lower tax burdens (even if the economists working for these organizations sometimes produce very good research on fiscal issues).

Instead, when it’s time to make recommendations, they push an agenda that is good for the political elite but bad for the private sector. Which is exactly what I’m trying to demonstrate in the cartoon,
But let’s not merely rely on a cartoon to make this point.

In an article for the American Enterprise Institute, Glenn Hubbard and Kevin Hassett discuss the intersection of economic policy and international bureaucracies. They start by explaining that these organizations would promote jurisdictional competition if they were motivated by a desire to boost growth.
…economic theory has a lot to say about how they should function. …they haven’t achieved all of their promise, primarily because those bodies have yet to fully understand the role they need to play in the interconnected world. The key insight harkens back to a dusty economics seminar room in the early 1950s, when University of Michigan graduate student Charles Tiebout…said that governments could be driven to efficient behavior if people can move. …This observation, which Tiebout developed fully in a landmark paper published in 1956, led to an explosion of work by economists, much of it focusing on…many bits of evidence that confirm the important beneficial effects that can emerge when governments compete. …A flatter world should make the competition between national governments increasingly like the competition between smaller communities. Such competition can provide the world’s citizens with an insurance policy against the out-of-control growth of massive and inefficient bureaucracies.
Using the European Union as an example, Hubbard and Hassett point out the grim results when bureaucracies focus on policies designed to boost the power of governments rather than the vitality of the market.
…as Brexit indicates, the EU has not successfully focused solely on the potentially positive role it could play. Indeed, as often as not, one can view the actions of the EU government as being an attempt to form a cartel to harmonize policies across member states, and standing in the way of, rather than advancing, competition. …an EU that acts as a competition-stifling cartel will grow increasingly unpopular, and more countries will leave it.
They close with a very useful suggestion.
If the EU instead focuses on maximizing mobility and enhancing the competition between states, allowing the countries to compete on regulation, taxation, and in other policy areas, then the union will become a populist’s dream and the best economic friend of its citizens.
Unfortunately, I fully expect this sage advice to fall upon deaf ears. The crowd in Brussels knows that their comfortable existence is dependent on pleasing politicians from national governments.
And the same is true for the bureaucrats at the IMF and OECD.

The only practical solution is to have national governments cut off funding so the bureaucracies disappear.

But, to cite just one example, why would Obama allow that when these bureaucracies go through a lot of effort to promote his statist agenda?


Climate Change Changes, Changed: Cartoon of the Day

Global Warming: The Evolution of a Hoax

Holy Cross to drop knight mascot because of Christian violence during Crusades

An astonishing example of ignorance, stupidity, and political correctness run amok. The College of Holy Cross is dropping its longtime mascot, the knight, because of its connection to Christians who fought during the Crusades. Fox News:
The College of the Holy Cross announced it would drop its Knight mascot and related imagery to avoid ties to the violence committed by Christian armies during the Crusades. The Massachusetts school's president, Rev. Philip Boroughs, said in a letter to students that "the visual depiction of a knight, in conjunction with the moniker Crusader, inevitably ties us directly to the reality of the religious wars and the violence of the Crusades."
The College of Holy Cross is one of the preeminent centers of Catholic higher education in the country. But holy moly, guys – who's teaching history at that school?  Read more

John Brennan: Deep State Political Hack

March 21, 2018 By Daniel John Sobieski

Considering that John Brennan once proudly admitted that he voted for Communist Party leader Gus Hall and openly supports liars and perjurers like Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, and James Comey, he redefines chutzpah when in a tweet he describes President Trump in words that sound as though they were plagiarized from FBI lead investigator Peter Strzok:
When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.  You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America... America will triumph over you.
The only "disgraced demagogues" in this scenario are John Brennan; James Clapper; Andrew McCabe; James Comey; Peter Strzok; and, yes, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, all parties in a political resistance whose purpose was to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House.  And John Brennan dares to talk about political corruption?.........Read more

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Cartoon of the Day: Tolerant Left

Image result for Craig Rucker, Executive Director, Co-Founder

Hillary Clinton, A Bitter Vetch!

By Rich Kozlovich

Boy-O-Boy, how things change. Remember, it wasn't too long-ago Democrats claimed the nation and the world couldn't survive without Hillary as President of the United States. Now, she's an anchor weighing them down and they want her to shut up and hide somewhere.

Didn’t they notice what a loon she was before? Didn't they notice just about everything she says is a lie?  Didn't they notice how corrupt she and her husband are?  Didn't they notice the "smartest woman on the planet" was as dumb as dirt?  Didn't they notice how vicious and self serving she is? Didn't they notice she never saw a burden so great she couldn't put it on the shoulders of others?

Did they really believe she would be a good President, or for that matter, even a competent President?

And now they want the nation to believe they have the insight and intelligence to fix the budget, fix Social Security, fix the Middle East, fix the North Korea mess, fix problems with Russia and China and fix race relations in the nation.

Now we're expected to believe they're going to fix all the problems they created starting with the FDR administration.  Problems they created but never once did a thing to fix while in power, and in point of fact made all of these problems they created worse.

So, let me think about this.  Well, okay, after dwelling on this for a nanosecond I have a question.

Since progressives, liberals, leftists, communists, socialists, fascists, social misfits and radicals - happily represented by the Democrat Party - are responsible for every one of these problems, and have continued to make worse for decades, why should we believe they want to fix them or know how to fix them now?     

Did I get that right?  Did I miss anything? 

Oh, yes.  I know what I missed.  As I think about this I think I know what they really thought about Hillary. If she doesn't get elected and hide all the criminal activity of the Obama administration, and the politicized deep state, someone was going to go to jail. 

Just a passing thought!

Oh, one more thing.  A bitter vetch is a type of pea that's either just bitter tasting, or potentially toxic.