The Humanitarian Hoax of the Federal Reserve System: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Most Americans do not realize that the Federal Reserve is NOT constitutionally part of the United States Government and is not even a bank! The Federal Reserve is a system. International banker Marilyn Barnewall explains that the Federal Reserve System is a privately held corporation owned by bankers and it is most definitely not part of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve Act that created the Federal Reserve System (Fed) was passed in Congress on December 22, 1913 and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson the next day. Barnewall describes the dramatic effects of its passage.

The Act transferred the right to print currency from the United States Congress to an independent and privately-owned entity calling itself a bank but which is not a bank and changing the Constitution which cannot be changed without Amending it. The Fed is somewhat federal in form, but is very privately owned and operated. President Wilson lived to regret signing The Federal Reserve Act and on his deathbed is quoted as saying:

‘I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.’”

So, who are these men and why was President Wilson so remorseful about signing the Federal Reserve Act? And why is the Federal Reserve System so disingenuously named that the average citizen assumes it is a banking institution and part of the federal government?

Sometimes it is necessary to look back to understand the present and anticipate the future.

Banking in the world has a long history that began with merchant trading. People living in small isolated agricultural communities exchanged pigs for goats or wheat for milk and personal bartering among members of the community was enough to satisfy their survival needs – there was no need for currency or banking. As populations grew and trade between communities began, currency was introduced to make commerce more efficient. Currency was assigned a monetary value and buying and selling with money replaced bartering as the preferred form of commerce.

Determining the value of currency and the relative value of the goats, pigs, wheat, and milk being bought and sold was the beginning of banking. Currency use requires that people trust the banknotes and coins to represent an actual and real valued commodity. Gold was chosen as the standard that backed the currency and banks became repositories for both. Today we use fiat currency – money – as the medium of exchange and it is the taxpayers’ labor that backs it. WHAT?

Think about it. As long as the Federal government can tax its citizen labor force and confiscate their money to pay its debts it is the taxpayers who are actually backing the currency. We the people are the 21st century gold standard!

Banking is and always has been a for-profit business. The Federal Reserve Bank is no exception.

Prior to 1913 there were two central banks in the United States – both non-governmental entities. The First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) was chartered by the First Congress in 1790 and modeled after the Bank of England. Thomas Jefferson opposed the First Bank as an engine for speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption. When its 20 year charter expired it was not renewed.

Its successor bank, the Second Bank of the United States (1816-1836) was also a private bank with public duties and Andrew Jackson, like Thomas Jefferson, opposed the Second Bank as an engine of corruption. Jackson, who became president in 1828, was unable to get the bank dissolved but refused to renew its charter. President Jackson required all Federal land payments be made in gold or silver which produced the Panic of 1837. Runs on the banks,  bank failures, and economic depression followed. The panic unleashed riots and domestic unrest which ultimately resulted in more state policing and more professional police forces.

The depression lasted five years until 1842 when the American economy began to rebound. In 1848 the California gold rush boosted the economy and by 1850 the US economy was booming again. Still, a national system was required to facilitate banking between regions that could avert another financial crisis. When President Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act the current central banking system of the United States was created. 12 United States cities were chosen as locations for one of 12 Federal Reserve District Banks. This is how it happened.

A secret gathering took place on Jekyll Island November 1910 that laid the foundation for the Federal Reserve System in the United States. In attendance were:

• Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee, chair of the National Monetary Commission
• Abram Piatt Andrew, assistant secretary of the US Treasury and special assistant to the National Monetary commission
• Charles D. Norton, president of the Morgan dominated First National Bank of New York
• Frank Vanderlip, president of National City Bank
• Henry P. Davison, senior partner at J.P. Morgan & Co.
• Benjamin Strong, representing J.P. Morgan
• Paul Warburg partner at Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

The clandestine 1910 Jekyll Island meeting produced draft legislation for the creation of the U.S. central bank and the Aldrich Plan was incorporated into the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

Why is the Jekyll Island history so important? Why was the meeting so clandestine? Because the secret meeting at Jekyll Island failed to disclose its connections to the Bank of England.

J.P. Morgan & Co., and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. are the New York representatives of the Rothschilds Bank of England which means that the American Federal Reserve system is under the control of the Bank of England. The howling anti-Semitic memes that Jews control the banking is deliberate and misleading. The Federal Reserve Cartel, the Rothschild (Jewish), Rockefeller (Baptist), and Morgan (Episcopalian) families, are globalist, multireligious, and non-denominational. This is how it works.

The Humanitarian Hoax of the Federal Reserve System is evident in its deliberately deceptive name. There is an enormous public misconception that the Federal Reserve System exists to protect and to serve America. It doesn’t. The Fed is a for-profit corporation of globalist world bankers seeking to internationalize the world for their own power and profit. The Fed is NOT an advocate of American sovereignty or America-first policies. The Fed is not altruistic – it is a hoax.

President Donald Trump is an American patriot committed to American sovereignty and is, therefore, an existential enemy of the Fed.

The globalist elite use our Federal Reserve System to manipulate world economies through their banking malfeasance. By raising interest rates, lowering interest rates, and printing money they control the availability of funds to their member banks that make loans to individuals and businesses. World banking is based on the US dollar, so Fed decisions in America affect inflation, employment, and production worldwide.

When the Fed raises interest rates in America the interest rates go up on consumer credit cards, car loans, and mortgages making it harder for American consumers to get credit. This causes the US economy to shrink in the private sector. Raising interest rates makes business loans more expensive, increases unemployment, and degrades productivity which shrinks the US economy in the business sector. Most threatening is that raising interest rates increases the US national debt and makes it increasingly difficult to service the debt and repay the loans.

Conversely, the Fed can lower interest rates which floods the market with cheap money to artificially stimulate the economy – raising and lowering interest rates both have political consequences.

The power of the Federal Reserve System to collapse the American economy is held by a private corporation of international globalist bankers whose long-range political goals are to internationalize the world and establish a New World Order of one-government ruled by themselves of course.

Individuals who cannot repay their debts go bankrupt – so do countries.

The existential threat to American sovereignty is GLOBALISM. Globalism’s one-world government with one bank, one police force, one army, one flag, one language, one educational curriculum, one currency, one world with one ruling class – the globalist elite. Make no mistake – globalism is a catastrophic return to a master/slave feudal infrastructure.

Globalism is a non-denominational power grab by the globalist elite using anti-Semitism as a strategic sideshow. Sideshows are diverting incidents or issues designed to distract attention away from bigger issues. The Fed is manipulating the world economies while its globalist armies have boots on the ground indoctrinating America to accept collectivism and one-world government via the mainstream media, the educational system, Obama’s Resistance movement, and an unremitting assault on American traditional values.

If the Humanitarian Hoax of the Federal Reserve System continues, our Republic and the Constitutional freedoms our forefathers created will cease to exist. The globalist New World Order will be imposed by the ruling class of globalist elite. The useful idiots who support the globalist elite power grab, including the anti-Semitic memes that reinforce it, will succeed in killing America.

The globalist soldiers are the same useful idiots marching toward slavery in Goethe’s famous quote:

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free as they are marched into servitude.”

Goethe articulates President Woodrow Wilson’s remorse.

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.

Out With the Old Tax Code, in With the New

Say your fond farewells, because this April marks the last year you will have to pay your taxes under the old tax code.

Next year, when you sit down to file your taxes for 2018, you and your family will send less of your paychecks to Washington.

In 2018, the average American will work the first 109 days of the year to earn enough money to pay their full tax bill. This year, thanks to tax reform, we will work three fewer days to pay our taxes than last year. That’s three more days of income you and your family get to keep for yourself.

Each year, the Tax Foundation calculates Tax Freedom Day—the day we are able to begin working for ourselves and our families, rather than Washington. Mark your calendars, Tax Freedom Day 2018 is April 19.

The Treasury Department estimates that next year, about nine out of 10 Americans will have larger paychecks thanks to lower tax rates, a larger standard deduction, and an increased child tax credit. But everyone wants to know exactly how the new tax code will help them, personally.

Luckily, Heritage Foundation research fellow Rachel Greszler crunched the numbers. Here are some examples.

Tom Wong, a single teacher making $50,000, just finished filing his 2017 taxes and paid $5,474 in federal income taxes for 2017. Next year, he can expect to pay $1,104 less to the federal government. His marginal tax rate dropped from 25 percent to 12 percent.

Under the old tax code, John and Sarah Jones, a married couple with combined earnings of $75,000, three children, and a home mortgage, just finished calculating that they will pay $1,753 this year. Next year when they file their taxes, their federal income tax bill will decline by $2,014. In fact, because of the larger $2,000 child tax credit, they will get a refundable credit of $261.

Now that the political rhetoric has subsided, it is clear that families across America can expect a sizable tax cut when they file their taxes next year.

Tax reform did more than cut personal income taxes. It was designed to boost the economy by making it easier for businesses to hire Americans and invest in the United States. The early evidence shows that tax reform is indeed contributing to more new jobs and higher wages for working Americans.

More than 450 companies to date have announced bonuses, pay raises, and better benefits—including American Airlines, AT&T, Bank of America, and Comcast. Americans for Tax Reform is keeping a running list here.

Fiat Chrysler announced it will move some of its manufacturing plants in Mexico back to the United States, invest more than $1 billion in Detroit, and add 2,500 new jobs.

A small Wichita business gave each of the company’s five employees bonuses,ranging from $4,000 to $6,000. Meanwhile, tech giant Apple announced it will invest $350 billion and add 20,000 employees in the U.S. over the next five years.

New lower tax rates for businesses and individuals have made the U.S. competitive again and given Americans much-needed tax relief. For tax reform to succeed, however, Washington must constrain federal spending to reduce pressures to raise taxes in the future.

The true measure of taxes is not what we pay, but what the government spends. If you include 2018’s federal borrowing, Tax Freedom Day—or more aptly, Spending Freedom Day—is 17 days later, on May 6.

Every American who just received a tax cut should be a newly minted deficit hawk. Congress made many of the tax cuts temporary, so without serious spending reforms, there will be continued pressure to let taxes rise again.

To solidify the gains of tax reform, Congress must make the existing tax cuts permanent and bring spending under control. Phase 2 of tax reform is nonnegotiable.

For now, we can bid adieu to the old tax system and welcome 2018 with lower taxes and a healthier economy.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Adam Michel

Adam Michel

Adam Michel focuses on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by DNY59/Getty Images.

Trump Issued a Call for Welfare Reform. Here Are 4 Actions Policymakers Can Take.

President Donald Trump this week signed an executive order calling for reforms in the welfare system to promote work and strengthen marriage.

The president is right to address this pressing issue. Welfare reform is needed.

Today, the welfare system aggressively penalizes marriage among low-income parents and discourages work and self-support. We have spent $28 trillion on welfare programs since the War on Poverty began, yet the ability of the poor to achieve self-sufficiency has actually decreased. Government spends $1.1 trillion annually on the same failed programs while hoping for different results.

Over this same time period, we have seen a decline in marriage that has exacerbated poverty. The proportion of children living in single-parent families has more than tripled since the 1960s. This family context is ripe for continued poverty, as about 80 percent of all long-term child poverty occurs in single-parent homes.

Marriage is one of the two most powerful factors in sustaining adult happiness, and it is the single most important factor in promoting upward social mobility among children. The collapse of marriage in low-income communities, abetted by the welfare system, has directly undermined the well-being of the poor.

In his executive order, the president directed his agencies to report back in 90 days with recommended actions that would implement his pro-work, pro-marriage goals. Here are four specific actions the Trump administration and Congress can take to achieve the president’s objectives and ensure the welfare system helps the people it serves rather than hurting them.

The administration can take these first two steps without legislative action.

1. Provide contract funding based on successful outcomes.

Agencies should insist that federal grants pay for outcomes, not services. Surprisingly, payment based on outcomes achieved by certain programs is almost completely nonexistent in the present welfare system.

Ten percent of spending in welfare goes to programs intended to increase human capabilities. These include drug rehabilitation, child development, educational, and job training programs. Studies show that these programs rarely produce positive outcomes for recipients.

Agencies should fund contracts based on whether a contractor provides successful outcomes. This would make programs more effective and weed out the contractors who produce subpar results.

2. Accurately account for welfare spending.

Additionally, the administration should provide accurate information about poverty and inequality by correctly counting, for the first time, the massive government funding provided to low-income populations.

The government spends $1.1 trillion a year on assistance for poor and low-income people through cash, food, housing, medical care, and other social services. Yet 97 percent of that is not counted by the Census Bureau as income for purposes of measuring either poverty or economic inequality.

It is impossible to accurately evaluate our welfare system without good information about spending and benefits.

To close this information gap, the president’s annual budget should include an aggregate welfare spending figure across all 89 means-tested programs that provide services across 14 government departments and agencies.

Faulty measurements of household income misleadingly give the impression that we spend very little fighting poverty. Despite trillions of dollars of spending, only 3.3 percent of all welfare spending is counted as income in the Census poverty surveys.

The federal government spends more than enough to eliminate all poverty in the United States. Current inaccurate measurements show much higher levels of poverty than actually exist.

3. Strengthen work requirements.

The president rightly recognizes that the goal of any welfare program should be to help move work-capable recipients toward greater self-support. Work requirements are a tested policy that offer a path toward self-sufficiency while still providing care for the truly needy.

Ninety-four percent of Americans believe that able-bodied adults who receive cash, food, housing, or medical care from the government should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving that aid. In the past, work requirements have been successful in reducing welfare rolls and increasing work and self-support.

Policymakers should strengthen work requirements by eliminating waivers that exempt certain counties and states from enforcing the current work requirement on able-bodied adults without dependents.

Sixty-seven percent of able-bodied adults without dependents in the food stamp program are in a waived area and do not have to fulfill any sort of work requirement. Eliminating these waivers will encourage 2.9 million unemployed, work-capable, childless adults who are on food stamps today to re-enter the economy by working, volunteering, or participating in training programs.

4. Stop penalizing marriage.

Marriage is extremely important in combatting poverty and promoting human well-being. When the War on Poverty began, only 7 percent of children were born outside of marriage. Today, the number is over 40 percent.

Children born into homes without married parents are five times more likely to be in poverty—and adults who grew up in single-parent homes are 50 percent more likely to experience poverty than those who grew up in intact married homes.

When compared to children in intact married homes, children raised by single parents are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems, to smoke, drink, and use drugs, to be aggressive, and engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior. They are also more likely to have poor school performance, be expelled, and drop out of high school.

Children raised in single-parent homes are almost five times more likely to experience physical abuse and seven times more likely to suffer childhood sexual abuse when compared to those raised by married biological parents. Children raised without a father in the home are three times more likely to engage in crime and end up in jail.

While marriage is one of the best antidotes to poverty, the current welfare system, ironically, penalizes it. A mother and father with two kids making $20,000 each will lose $6,302 a year in benefits if they marry, which amounts to 15 percent of their total combined earnings.

The president should call on Congress to address these problems immediately, starting by reforming the earned income tax credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to ensure that working adults can marry without a hefty financial penalty.

Long-Needed Reform

The president has issued a bold call to action on a critical problem: Despite its generosity, the welfare system is failing both taxpayers and the poor.

Encouraging self-sufficiency and well-being through work and marriage is the most effective and most compassionate way to approach those in need. A few simple, time-tested reforms would be a great start at improving the system.

Note: This piece has been updated to correct a typo in the amount of money spent on welfare since the War on Poverty began. The number is $28 trillion, not $28 billion.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Mimi Teixeira

Mimi Teixeira is a graduate fellow in welfare policy at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Portrait of Robert Rector

Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty, welfare programs and immigration in America for three decades, is The Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow in domestic policy.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Donald Trump speaking after signing an executive order calling for agencies to recommend policies that would advance pro-work, pro-marriage goals. (Photo: Alex Edelman/UPI/Newscom)

‘Pay Gap’ Myth Ignores Women’s Intentional Job Choices

Tuesday is supposedly “Equal Pay Day,” but what does that mean?

Well, according to outdated, flawed, and incomplete statistics that say women make only 82 cents on the dollar, compared with men, Equal Pay Day signifies how long into the new year women have to work just to catch up to the earnings of their male counterparts from the previous year.

Equal-pay activists have declared April 10 as the approximate Equal Pay Day for 2018, but based on the 82-cent figure, the date should have been March 21.

Regardless of the actual “celebrated” date, if women actually had to work that much longer than men to make the same amount of money, women might as well pack their briefcases and go home. After all, who would really work an extra three months to earn the same pay for the same job as their male counterparts?

That level of pervasive pay gap simply doesn’t exist.

Statistics matter, and they can help households, businesses, and governments make informed decisions. But statistics—particularly selective and incomplete ones—can also be misleading, and even detrimental.

The pay gap is the perfect example of statistics gone awry.

For starters, the data cited in the gender pay gap looks only at the median earnings of full-time wage and salaried workers. It doesn’t differentiate really important factors, such as education, occupation, experience, and hours, which account for nearly all of the differential in earnings between men and women.

It turns out that accounting for all these factors eliminates all but an estimated 3 to 5 cents of the gender pay gap.

Data is also subject to human error. Comparisons between survey data and administrative records reveal substantially underreporting of income within some of the most widely used survey data.

Consequently, the data disregards substantial changes, such as large gains in women’s retirement incomes.

And finally, data isn’t the supreme indicator, because not everything comes with a price tag or pay stub. What is the value of a flexible work schedule; a job with huge upward-mobility potential; particular benefits packages; the ability to tap into flexible, sharing-economy labor platforms, such as Uber and Airbnb; or to access new business platforms, such as Etsy for additional income?

Workers who seek these job characteristics often do so despite lower pay. But those intentional choices don’t show up in the statistics.

If a woman has the exact same job title as a man, but works 30 hours a week instead of 40, and sets her own hours and telecommutes, her paycheck likely won’t match that of the man’s—nor should it.

One of the job qualities that women—particularly mothers—value most is flexibility. Flexibility is a difficult job feature to measure, but that’s exactly what a group of economists recently did using data from the Uber ride-hailing company.

After analyzing data from more than 1 million registered Uber drivers, the authors tagged the average value of being able to set one’s own work schedule on an hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute basis at $150 per week. That’s the equivalent of $7,800 per year, or almost 20 percent of the median earnings of women in the U.S.

In essence, this is the value of choice. It’s not the same value for everyone, but it shows that many workers are willing to sacrifice a lot in terms of pay for more flexibility and choice.

On the opposite side, some employers are willing to pay a high price for flexibility from their employees—to log long hours and to work day or night.

Economist Claudia Goldin has found evidence of “part-time penalties” in certain very high-income fields. This happens when certain companies—those in finance and law, for example—pay employees who work 80 hours a week more than twice as much as they pay those who work 40 hours per week.

This likely has to do with certain employers’ need for employees to respond at all hours or to log double or triple time when needed, coupled with employees’ demand for higher pay when sacrificing so much of their own time and flexibility.

Anecdotal evidence and the choices women and men make suggest that women value job choices more than men and that their preference for greater flexibility accounts for some—if not all—of the remaining pay gap between men and women.

But choice is what legislation such as the Paycheck Fairness Act would squelch. Equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land. Imposing further-reaching policies in an attempt to eliminate pay differences that have little or nothing to do with discrimination could actually backfire.

Pay regimes based on factors such as job titles or “equivalent work” would take away businesses’ freedom to determine the value of their work and undo decades of women’s progress by imposing one-size-fits-all jobs that take away women’s—and all workers’—freedom to negotiate pay in exchange for personal priorities.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler is a senior policy analyst in economics and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read her research.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by julief514/Getty Images.

Fears about Chinese ‘Trade War’ are Late and Dumb

President Trump’s political adversaries and globalists, including the media pundits, are frantically yelping about how the President’s proposed tariffs against Chinese imports would spark a “Trade war.”

In point of fact, concerns about a trade war with China are late — very late — and have nothing to do with Trump’s proposed tariffs.

In reality China has, for decades, engaged in a one-sided “trade war” with the United States that doesn’t involve tariffs but wide-spread and wide-scale theft of intellectual property.

One-sided relationships are not relationships!

Foolishly, a succession of previous administrations have facilitated this outrageous situation.

My previous FrontPage Magazine article, Educating America’s Adversaries focused on the lunacy of the United States hundreds of thousands of  Chinese students to study STEM (Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines and also providing them with optional practical training at U.S. corporations unwittingly providing them with the opportunity to engage in industrial espionage.

My article today is predicated on an April 4, 2018 Justice Department press releaseChinese Scientist Sentenced to Prison in Theft of Engineered Rice, that reported on the sentencing of a Chinese scientist, Weiqiang Zhang, for his crimes that, although not related to military concerns, are related to intellectual property theft (trade secrets), specifically genetically engineered rice seeds with potentially profound implications.

That press release begins with the following sentence:

A Chinese scientist was sentenced to 121 months in a federal prison for conspiring to steal samples of a variety of rice seeds from a Kansas biopharmaceutical research facility.

This excerpt from the press release provides the salient background information:

Weiqiang Zhang, 51, a Chinese national, and U.S. legal permanent resident residing in Manhattan, Kansas, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Carlos Murguia in the District of Kansas. Zhang was convicted on Feb. 15, 2017 of one count of conspiracy to steal trade secrets, one count of conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property and one count of interstate transportation of stolen property.

Evidence at trial established that Zhang worked as a rice breeder for Ventria Bioscience in Junction City, Kansas.  Ventria develops genetically programmed rice to express recombinant human proteins, which are then extracted for use in the therapeutic and medical fields.  Zhang has a master’s degree in agriculture from Shengyang Agricultural University in China and a doctorate from Louisiana State University.

According to trial evidence, Zhang acquired without authorization hundreds of rice seeds produced by Ventria and stored them at his residence in Manhattan.  The rice seeds have a wide variety of health research applications and were developed to produce either human serum albumin, contained in blood, or lactoferrin, an iron-binding protein found, for example, in human milk.  Ventria spent millions of dollars and years of research developing its seeds and cost-effective methods to extract the proteins, which are used to develop lifesaving products for global markets. Ventria used locked doors with magnetic card readers to restrict access to the temperature-controlled environment where the seeds were stored and processed.

Zhang conspired with other citizens of China as noted in this paragraph:

Trial evidence demonstrated that in the summer of 2013, personnel from a crop research institute in China visited Zhang at his home in Manhattan.  Zhang drove the visitors to tour facilities in Iowa, Missouri and Ohio.  On Aug. 7, 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers found seeds belonging to Ventria in the luggage of Zhang’s visitors as they prepared to leave the United States for China.

This case is infuriating on a number of levels.

First of all, Zhang was provided lawful immigrant status, placing him, should he have so desired, on the pathway to United States citizenship.

He also obtained a first-rate education in the United States, having received his Phd from Louisiana State University.

America had opened its heart and doors to Zhang and an opportunity to live the “American Dream.”

Rather than express gratitude for America’s generosity, he betrayed America and the American company for which he worked.

Zhang and his Chinese cohorts saw in America’s kindness and generosity, weaknesses that could be easily exploited.

This specific case calls to mind the statements of Mitt Romney who, during his campaign for the presidency, repeatedly said that when the United States provides foreign students with an education, we should “staple Green Cards on their diplomas so that they don’t go half-way across the world when they graduate.”

Of course Mitt is hardly the only politician to urge the admission of huge numbers of foreign students and call for them to be granted lawful immigrant status upon their graduation from American universities.

The best way of addressing concerns that foreign students will leave the United States upon graduation is to make certain that American students should fill those classrooms, lecture halls and laboratories.  When American students graduate they are likely to go no further than half-way across town, or perhaps, half-way across the United States, but not half-way across the earth.

While it was not disclosed whether Zhang was granted lawful immigrant status before or after he secured his doctoral degree from Louisiana State University, we do know he conspired to send stolen intellectual property, that the genetically modified rice seeds represented, from his U.S. employer half-way around the world his native China, our Most Favored Nation trade “partner.”

Those rice seeds and the methodology used to create them, that Zhang stole, required years of hard work and an investment of millions of dollars.  They can be used for wide-ranging health science applications and will likely generate huge profits in the global marketplace.

This case is, unfortunately, not an isolated case.

Understandably President Trump has decided that “enough is enough” and has proposed to impose tariffs on Chinese imports.  However, the globalists such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have expressed their displeasure at the President’s actions, concerned about a possible “trade war” blithely ignoring that for decades, China’s trade policies and currency manipulation and increasing belligerent conduct is harmful and dangerous to America and Americans.

These globalists and prior administrations also know that China has engaged in massive industrial espionage in the United States and their computer programmers hack corporate and government computers thousands of times.

The ever-increasing scope, magnitude and sophistication of Chinese computer hacking and cyber-espionage are worrying, to say the least.

On October 5, 2017 Newsweek published an article, Cyberwar:  How Chinese Hackers Became A Major Threat To The U.S. that paints a clear and extremely troubling picture about China’s increasing hacking activities that threaten U.S. national security.

Again, the question that must be asked is how many members of the Chinese “Hacking army” were educated in the United States?

Here is a brief excerpt from the Newsweek article:

In its 2015 Global Threat Report, the American cyberintelligence firm CrowdStrike identified dozens of Chinese adversaries targeting business sectors that are key to the Five-Year Plan. It found 28 groups going after defense and law enforcement systems alone. Other sectors victimized worldwide included energy, transportation, government, technology, health care, finance, telecommunications, media, manufacturing and agriculture.

China’s theft of military and trade secrets has been so rampant that editorial cartoonists Jeff Parker and Dave Granlund depicted it as “Chinese takeout.”

On November 27, 2017 the DOJ issued a press release, U.S. Charges Three Chinese Hackers Who Work at Internet Security Firm for Hacking Three Corporations for Commercial Advantage, that began with this statement:

An indictment was unsealed today against Wu Yingzhuo, Dong Hao and Xia Lei, all of whom are Chinese nationals and residents of China, for computer hacking, theft of trade secrets, conspiracy and identity theft directed at U.S. and foreign employees and computers of three corporate victims in the financial, engineering and technology industries between 2011 and May 2017.  The three Chinese hackers work for the purported China-based Internet security firm Guangzhou Bo Yu Information Technology Company Limited (a/k/a “Boyusec”).

While those alleged computer hackers allegedly committed their crimes from China and without entering the United States, questions that were not addressed in the press release include whether any of the indicted alleged hackers were educated in the United States or if any other Chinese citizens may have worked for any of the companies that were targeted for the cyber attack to enable them to more easily gain access to the computer networks that were attacked.

My dad taught me that there are no mistakes in life, only lessons- provided that we learn from those instances when things go wrong.

He also taught me that we teach those with whom we interact as to how they should treat us be demonstrating what we will and won’t accept.

For far too long the United States has refused to stand up to nations such as China, that certainly do not have America’s best interests at heart.

In point of fact, Chinese intransigence has been unaffected by a succession of administrations that provided China with carrots such as conferring upon China Most Favored Nation status but few, if any “sticks.”

Trump’s policies are consistent with my dad’s sage advice and are a welcome change from the spineless approach of past administrations.

President Trump needs to take a hard look at the issuance of student visas to citizens of China, particularly where STEM courses of study are concerned.

RELATED ARTICLE: Progressive Dem: Trump ‘Right to Raise Tariffs’ as America’s China Policy Has Been ‘Schizophrenic’

GOP Should Exercise Fiscal Restraint through the Impoundment Control Act

Background

Passed in 1974, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act establishes a process for cancelling unnecessary funding to executive branch agencies. Under this law, the president may withhold and permanently cancel funding to executive branch agencies passed into law by Congress. This is accomplished only if Congress approves of the president’s special message that includes rescissions specifying the “amount of budget authority” to be rescinded, as well as “all facts, circumstance, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission.” Congress is not required to introduce a rescission bill and can introduce a bill containing fewer rescissions than requested by the President. Once the special message is delivered and a rescission bill is introduced and referred to the relevant committee, the committee has 25 calendar days to report the bill. If the committee fails to report the bill, any member can discharge the bill from committee with one-fifth approval of the chamber vote. Debate on the motion to the recession bill is limited to two hours in the House, ten hours in the Senate, and two hours for a conference report within the period of 45 days of continuous session following delivery of the special message. A rescission bill not included in the president’s special message is subject to the filibuster.

Congress has rescinded a total of only $25 billion in federal spending using the Impoundment Control Act. The last time Congress used the law was in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush. The Impoundment Control Act has seldom been used because it requires Congress to approve cutting funding it recently authorized. The Act can almost be viewed as a weakened version of a line-item veto which allowed presidents to remove certain provisions of a bill before signing them into law. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.

Rescind Omnibus Non-defense Spending

Last month, Congress passed—and President Trump signed into law—a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending package that increased defense spending by $80 billion and non-defense spending by $63 billion over the Budget Control Act. According to congressional Republicans and President Trump, the GOP agreed to the omnibus spending levels because Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster and shutdown the government if Congress increased defense spending without increasing non-defense spending. This is where the Impoundment Control Act comes into play. Section 1017 of this law sets up a rescission process that can be used by Republicans in Congress to cancel the wasteful non-defense spending appropriated in the omnibus bill. That process begins with a special message by President Trump properly outlining his rescission requests. Senate Democrats would not be able to filibuster the President’s request if 218 House Republicans and 50 Senate Republicans can agree to the proposed spending cuts.

Potential Spending Reductions

The Good, Bad, and Ugly of the Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Act, The Heritage Foundation lays out a number of wasteful spending provisions the Trump administration could include in its Impoundment Control Act special message request to Congress. Additionally, in Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2018, The Heritage Foundation lays out billions in non-defense spending cuts the Trump administration could also consider in its request.

The recently-passed omnibus spending package broke the non-defense spending levels established in the Budget Control Act by $63 billion and authorized $100 billion more in non-defense spending than requested in President Trump’s 2018 budget. The President should use these numbers as a starting point in his special message rescission proposal to Congress.

Conclusion

If the Republican Party is truly concerned with excessive spending and debt, the Impoundment Control Act provides the best opportunity to undo the damage of the recently-passed omnibus spending package. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of Americans are “a great deal” or “a fair amount” concerned with federal spending and the budget deficit. By reining in federal spending using the Impoundment Control Act, congressional Republicans can demonstrate to midterm election voters that they will govern responsibly and steward taxpayer dollars if re-elected to the majority. It also gives the GOP leverage in future spending negotiations by neutralizing the threat of a democrat filibuster and government shutdown.

Wesley Coopersmith
Policy Manager
Heritage Action for America

Download PDF

EPA Begins Revision of Obama Climate Regulations for Cars, Trucks

EPA chief Scott Pruitt said Monday that the Obama administration’s fuel economy regulations aren’t appropriate and his agency will help revise them.

Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would begin crafting new greenhouse gas emission and mileage standards for vehicles built in 2022 through 2025.

dcnf-logo

“The Obama EPA’s determination was wrong,” Pruitt said in a written statement about the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. He said:

Obama’s EPA cut the midterm evaluation process short with politically charged expediency, made assumptions about the standards that didn’t comport with reality, and set the standards too high.

The EPA’s revising of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations put the agency on a collision course with California state officials. The Golden State got permissions from the Obama administration to issue its own, higher emissions standards.

Conservative groups have urged Pruitt to repeal California’s waiver, arguing the state can use its influence over automakers to supplant federal standards. The EPA is still examining California’s waiver, but Pruitt seemed critical of continuing the policy as it stands.

“Cooperative federalism doesn’t mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,” Pruitt said. “EPA will set a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions that allows auto manufacturers to make cars that people both want and can afford—while still expanding environmental and safety benefits of newer cars.”

“It’s in everyone’s best interest to have a national standard, and we look forward to working with all states, including California, as we work to finalize that standard,” he said.

The EPA also is moving against former President Barack Obama’s emissions pledge under the Paris climate accord, which he joined in 2016. Obama committed the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

The Obama rules required cars to get 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Officials estimated the rules would cut 540 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers money.

However, automakers missed fuel efficiency targets for model year 2016 cars and light trucks by about 9 grams per mile. The Obama EPA’s own analysis found cars may not meet the 2025 target, likely getting between 50 and 52.6 miles per gallon by then.

COMMENTARY BY

Michael Bastasch

Michael Bastasch is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @MikeBastasch.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

VIDEO: Blacks in Power Don’t Empower Blacks

Between 1970 and 2012, the number of black elected officials rose from fewer than 1,500 to more than 10,000. How has this affected the black community? Jason Riley of The Manhattan Institute answers the question in this video.

EDITORS NOTE: Order Jason Riley’s book today: False Black Power

Environmentalists Reward Rep. Buchanan while Floridians Pay High Energy Costs

Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL District 16) lists on his Congressional website the Ocean Champions Congressional Champion award.

Who is Ocean Champions?

According to its website:

Ocean Champions is a 501(c)(4) organization with a connected political action committee – the first national organization of its kind focused solely on oceans and ocean wildlife. Our goal is to create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority. By helping to elect pro-ocean Congressional candidates and engaging with Congress to pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean.

What does Ocean Champions mean by having a goal to “create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority” and to “pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean?”

Under the Obama administration this meant implementation of the National Ocean Policy on July 19, 2010, known as “Ocean Zoning.” This policy was fully supported by Ocean Champions and twelve other environment groups.

The House Committee on Natural Resources wrote this about the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy:

Restrictive national standards, along with ocean zoning, could slow and potentially stop the permitting of activities such as commercial and recreational fishing and energy production.This will harm the economy and cost jobs.

Both Rep. Buchanan and Ocean Champions are against off shore drilling.

The Big Lie

On his Congressional website Rep. Buchanan has the following policy position under Jobs & Economy:

We need to cut bureaucratic red tape to give businesses the flexibility they need to expand and create jobs.

The Global Energy Institute (GEI) produces an annual report on the cost of electricity by state. Florida does not allow drilling off of its shore lines. Florida’s cost of electricity per kilowatt hour during the past five years according to GEI are:

YEAR     U.S. AVG    FLORIDA AVG

  • 2013          10.08             10.30 cents
  • 2014          10.13             10.86 cents
  • 2015          10.42             10.64 cents
  • 2016          10.28             10.13 cents
  • 2017          10.54             10.65 cents

Texas and Louisiana both drill off of their Gulf of Mexico shore lines. Here are the average costs per kilowatt hour for these two states over the same five years according to the GEI:

YEAR     TEXAS       LOUISIANA

  • 2013         8.77              8.00 cents
  • 2014         8.99              8.11 cents
  • 2015         8.63              7.64 cents
  • 2016         8.28              7.41 cents
  • 2017         8.55              7.75 cents

The Cost to Floridians

Florida’s major industries are dependent on cheap and reliable electricity. Tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, agriculture, healthcare, restaurant, wholesale and retail all need electricity to operate. The higher the cost per kilowatt hour the lower the profits of Florida based companies and the fewer jobs.

Representative Buchanan does not want drilling, even of an exploratory nature, off of Florida’s shorelines. When President Trump lifted the Obama ban on offshore drilling Rep. Buchanan released the following statement in opposition to the Trump administration’s plan to expand offshore drilling operations off the coast of Florida, including the Eastern Gulf of Mexico:

“The Trump administration’s plan to expand oil drilling off Florida’s coastlines is reckless, misguided and potentially catastrophic to Florida,” Buchanan said. “As the state with the longest coastlines in the continental United States, Florida is especially vulnerable to oil spills. Have we forgotten so soon the devastating damage caused by the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010? Our economy, environment and way of life is at stake if restrictions on oil drilling are lifted.”

Rep. Buchanan is correct when he said “our economy and way of life” are at stake. His policy position will put both at great risk.

Healthcare Report 2018: Best & Worst States for Healthcare

Healthcare has been a significant topic in the recent U.S. Presidential election. There is controversy among which form of health care should be implemented. However, it’s likely that this issue will not be sorted for quite some time. As the country is looking forward towards what form of healthcare it should have, many Americans are beginning to research how good America’s healthcare is currently. Is the answer to that is a complicated one. Although all states in America are to be treated equal, they are not. Each state in the U.S. is provided with different healthcare regulations and guidelines. It’s important to understand which states provide excellent healthcare and which don’t.

There are multiple ways to determine if a state has good healthcare. The three main points that define its quality is affordability, availability, and result.

States Healthcare Affordability (2018)Healthcare’s Affordability

Affordability is the piece of healthcare that most people care about. Most people view all healthcare as basically the same thing, and the only thing that is different is the price. This is the wrong way to view healthcare. However, the price of the healthcare is essential because it is the first thing that must be considered. It doesn’t matter if the healthcare is available to everyone, or if it’s useful if people cannot afford it. Seeing if a healthcare system is affordable is very important to ensure its success. If a healthcare is too expensive, people won’t be as interested in even looking at what benefits the system may have.

States Healthcare Availability (2018)Healthcare’s Availability

Availability isn’t a part of healthcare that many people think of. However, it is immensely valuable. Contrary to popular belief, even if healthcare is cheap, it doesn’t mean that you qualify. There are healthcare systems like Hawaii’s that are incredibly cheap. However, many citizens are unable to receive the healthcare because it’s very exclusive. Healthcare is available when it is opening up its benefits to many other people; showing that is it a system that cares about its citizens.

States Healthcare Outcomes (2018)Healthcare’s Results, Outcome

There are healthcare systems out there that are cheap and available, yet are not effective. Some states try to make health care affordable so much that the healthcare setting in place is one that can’t help people to its full extent due to lack of financial resources. This proves to be a significant issue. People may be excited that the healthcare they found is cheap, and they qualify. However, they’d be disappointed to know that the healthcare is one that is not effective in providing healthcare to people.

These three characteristics are the most vital pieces to consider when viewing healthcare. That’s why this ranking has been set in place. It lists each state’s overall healthcare quality in comparison to each other. The results of this ranking of the states have been produced due to the sources listed at the bottom of the article. Most sources are from government sites that display public information on healthcare in individual states.

Best & Worst States for Healthcare 2018

Best States Healthcare (2018)Individual State’s Healthcare

  1. Minnesota: (Affordability 5th, Availability 11th, Result 8th). Minnesota is tied for the second-best healthcare in the country (along with Iowa). Although Minnesota is thriving with pneumonia and frostbite, the state makes it a priority that their citizens can access an effective healthcare at an affordable price.
  2. Iowa(Affordability 2nd, Availability 29th, Result 13th). Ranking 2nd in both cost and overall healthcare quality, Iowa is a magnificent model of a proper healthcare system. Iowa’s primary focus is on making the healthcare affordable, like D.C. However, the outcomes that come from Iowa’s healthcare are better than D.C.’s ranking 13th in results.
  3. Hawaii: (Affordability 3rd, Availability 42nd, Result 1st). Hawaii is arguably the state with the best healthcare. While ranking 3rd in cost and 1st in the outcome, Hawaii appears to be the perfect place for healthcare. However, before people begin to pack their bags and book their flights it’s important to know that it is extremely difficult to attain Hawaiian healthcare. The issue is that the majority of health services are on Oahu. Meaning that due to the geography of the state, many citizens are unable to receive medical aid.
  4. New Hampshire: (Affordability 16th, Availability 4th, Result 7th). New Hampshire’s      healthcare is one that is extremely reliable and available to almost all its citizens. The price of the healthcare is what stops New Hampshire from being the best.
  5. District of Columbia: (Affordability 1st, Availability 6th, Result 37th). It’s no surprise that the capitol of the United States possesses one of the best healthcare systems in the country. It is the most affordable healthcare and is available to most citizens. The downfall of D.C. healthcare is that it produces poor results.
  6. Connecticut: (Affordability 30th, Availability 2nd, Results 5th). Connecticut’s healthcare is an expensive one, yet produces impressive results. Next to Maine, Connecticut is also the state that makes its healthcare most available to citizens.
  7. South Dakota: (Affordability 7th, Availability 5th, Results 24th). Besides being known for Mount Rushmore, South Dakota is known for possessing a great healthcare system. It’s both cheap and available to citizens. However, it proves not to be very useful.
  8. Vermont: (Affordability 20th, Availability 18th, Results 3rd). Vermont is one of those states that provides excellent healthcare to few people. The system focuses on making the healthcare very efficient. However, that does come at a cost, seeing as that healthcare costs more than about 20 other states.
  9. Massachusetts: (Affordability 41st, Availability 3rd, Results 2nd). Massachusetts is the place to go for the wealthy. They provide some of the best healthcare in the country. However, the cost is quite high.
  10. Rhode Island: (Affordability 15th, Availability 13th, Results 10th). Rhode Island is one of the view states that have an excellent all-around system of healthcare. All components (Affordability, availability, and results) place very well in the listings.
  11. Maryland: (Affordability 4th, Availability 22nd, Results 23rd). Opposite of Massachusetts, Maryland is the perfect place to go for the not-so-wealthy. Maryland’s system focusses on making healthcare affordable. Even while the healthcare is cheap, it still provides adequate outcomes and is available to most residents.
  12. Kansas: (Affordability 6th, Availability 15th, Results 21st). Like Maryland, Kansas is excellent at providing affordable healthcare that is decent in delivering results and being available to most citizens.
  13. Colorado: (Affordability 23rd, Availability 20th, Results 4th). Colorado is known for having an incredibly diverse geography. From deserts to snowy mountains, Colorado’s healthcare provides one of the best results in the entire country.
  14. Maine: (Affordability 17th, Availability 1st, Results 26th). While their healthcare does not produce great results, Maine is known for having healthcare that is the most accessible in the country.
  15. Utah: (Affordability 13th, Availability 33rd, Results 6th). Utah’s healthcare is one that is not available to many residents. However, the healthcare produces excellent results.
  16. North Dakota: (Affordability 12th, Availability 21st, Results 18th). North Dakota is an evenly balanced in their healthcare system. They focus on providing adequate pricing, availability, and results.
  17. Nebraska: (Affordability 21st, Availability 10th, Results 19th). Nebraska’s healthcare is slightly above average. The price for the healthcare is definitely worth the results, but there is nothing noteworthy about this state’s healthcare.
  18. Pennsylvania: (Affordability 14th, Availability 8th, Results 31st). Although being known for its gorgeous mountains and lively history, Pennsylvania also has a good healthcare system. The government focusses on providing healthcare to as many citizens as possible.
  19. Illinois: (Affordability 10th, Availability 24th, Results 29th). Illinois’’ healthcare system is one that focusses on making healthcare affordable. However, the healthcare does not produce great results.
  20. Virginia: (Affordability 18th, Availability 30th, Results 20th). Healthcare in Virginia is one that is affordable, yet not that available. The system is one that is not very effective.
  21. Wisconsin: (Affordability 25th, Availability 16th, Results 22nd). Wisconsin’s best part of its healthcare is its availability. With availability ranked as 16th, affordability and results are lacking in comparison.
  22. Ohio: (Affordability 9th, Availability 14th, Results 38th). Being the 7th most populated state, Ohio is a place that should have great healthcare. However, the system focusses on making healthcare affordable and available, but the results are poor.
  23. Delaware: (Affordability 8th, Availability 25th, Results 40th). Delaware’s healthcare is quite like Ohio’s. The healthcare is affordable but produces great results.
  24. New Jersey: (Affordability 29th, Availability 39th, Results 12th). New Jersey focusses on making their healthcare produces great results. However, that does come at a cost.
  25. California: (Affordability 22nd, Availability 48th, Results 9th). Same as New Jersey, California’s healthcare system focusses on producing quality healthcare but is relatively expensive.
  26. Washington: (Affordability 31st, Availability 41st, Results 11th). Located in the Pacific Northwest, Washington produces healthcare that is available to very few people, yet is very useful.
  27. Michigan: (Affordability 19th, Availability 12th, Results 39th). Michigan’s healthcare is focused on providing healthcare to as many people as possible. However, the healthcare produces terrible results.
  28. New York: (Affordability 46th, Availability 9th, Results 25th). While New York’s healthcare is available to most citizens, it is also one of the most expensive healthcare’s in the country.
  29. New Mexico: (Affordability 34th, Availability 28th, Results 27th). New Mexico’s healthcare system seems to be the most mundane healthcare in the country. All three components are placed in the “average” level.
  30. Indiana: (Affordability 26th, Availability 27th, Results 34th). Indiana’s healthcare is very similar to New Mexico’s. The system is focused on making healthcare affordable.
  31. Wyoming: (Affordability 39th, Availability 36th, Results 17th). Wyoming’s healthcare is poorly rated due to it being expensive and not very available. However, the healthcare does produce good results.
  32. Arizona: (Affordability 33rd, Availability 46th, Results 16th). Similar to Wyoming’s, Arizona’s healthcare is expensive and hard to be a part of. However, the healthcare produces great results.
  33. Idaho: (Affordability 36th, Availability 47th, Results 14th). Idaho’s healthcare is one of the most exclusive healthcare’s in the entire country. However, the system provides excellent results.
  34. Oregon: (Affordability 37th, Availability 45th, Results 15th). Oregon’s healthcare is an expensive one. However, the results that Oregon’s healthcare produces are amazing.
  35. Montana: (Affordability 35th, Availability 32nd, Results 32nd). Being a farmland, Montana doesn’t have many people. However, for those who do live there they have to deal with an expensive healthcare system that doesn’t have great results.
  36. Kentucky: (Affordability 11th, Availability 17th, Results 47th). Kentucky’s healthcare produces one of the worst results in the country. However, the healthcare is cheap and easy to access.
  37. Missouri: (Affordability 24th, Availability 23rd, Results 41st). Missouri produces average costs and availability for their healthcare. However, the healthcare provides some of the worst results in the country.
  38. West Virginia: (Affordability 27th, Availability 7th, Results 48th). West Virginia has one of the most available healthcare in the country. However, the healthcare is expensive and produces terrible results.
  39. Oklahoma: (Affordability 28th, Availability 29th, Results 46th). Healthcare in Oklahoma is terrible in comparison to many other states. Its results are terrible, and the healthcare is not cheap.
  40. Tennessee: (Affordability 40th, Availability 26th, Results 44th). Tennessee’s healthcare system is both expensive and produces awful results. While their system is inadequate, the government attempts to make healthcare available to as many people as they can.
  41. Texas: (Affordability 44th, Availability 51st, Results 30th). Texas is ranked the worst state that makes its healthcare available to citizens. Although the Texan healthcare is hard to receive, it is a reasonably efficient system.
  42. Nevada: (Affordability 47th, Availability 50th, Results 28th). Nevada has the second most expensive healthcare next to Texas. However, the healthcare that few citizens receive works well.
  43. Florida: (Affordability 48th, Availability 40th, Results 35th). Healthcare in Florida is a significant issue. Florida has the 4th most expensive healthcare systems, yet has multiple problems. First, it is hard to qualify for the healthcare. And second, the healthcare does not work very well.
  44. Alabama: (Affordability 32nd, Availability 43rd, Results 45th). The healthcare in Alabama is poorly established. The system is expensive, exclusive, and produces poor results.
  45. South Carolina: (Affordability 45th, Availability 37th, Results 42nd). South Carolina’s healthcare is expensive and ineffective. The state does, however, focus on making healthcare available to all citizens.
  46. Georgia: (Affordability 38th, Availability 49th, Results 43rd). Georgia has the 3rd most exclusive healthcare in the country. Most people would think that’s because the state has great healthcare. However, the healthcare is both expensive and does not show excellent results.
  47. North Carolina: (Affordability 50th, Availability 44th, Results 36th). Ranking just two places under its counterpart, South Carolina is a state that has terrible healthcare. The system is the 2nd most expensive one and is not effective at all.
  48. Arkansas: (Affordability 42nd, Availability 34th, Results 49th). Arkansas’ healthcare produces the 3rd worst healthcare outcomes in the country. However, the state is focusing on making the healthcare accessible to as many people it can.
  49. Alaska: (Affordability 51st, Availability 38th, Results 33rd). Healthcare in Alaska is a major issue. The state provides the most expensive healthcare, and the healthcare isn’t even that accessible or effective.
  50. Mississippi: (Affordability 43rd, Availability 31st, Results 51st). While Mississippi does focus on providing healthcare to most of its citizens, it doesn’t have a very effective system. Ranking at 51st in results, Mississippi has the least adequate healthcare in the country.
  51. Louisiana: (Affordability 49th, Availability 35th, Results 50th). Louisiana’s healthcare is by far the worst in the country. While there is the effort made into making the healthcare accessible, there isn’t much for citizens to access. The state has the 3rd most expensive healthcare and has the 2nd least effective one. This is by far the worst healthcare that any state holds.

The state has the 3rd most expensive healthcare and has the 2nd least effective one. This is by far the worst healthcare that any state holds. Healthcare is an essential part of an American’s life. It is critical for everyone to be aware of the quality of healthcare that their country provides, and what can be done to improve it.

United States: A Medical Tourist Destination

Today, United States is a leading medical tourism destination where figures from around the world travel to the United States to pursue the latest healthcare advancements and technology. According to Patients Beyond Borders, the United States is the 3rd leading destination for medical tourism, hosting over 800,000 patients per year. Another medical tourism destination is Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico. Mexico hosts tens of thousands of yearly visitors seeking affordable medical treatments including dental, cancer, weight loss surgery, and more.

More Rankings, Related:

References:

Trump Pushes Death Penalty for Drug Dealers and Cut in Prescription Costs

When campaigning in 2016, President Donald Trump often noted how America was trailing other countries, and vowed to reverse that. On Monday, the president highlighted two specific issues: criminal punishment for drug dealers and the price of prescription medicines.


“Every day, 116 Americans die from an opioid-related overdose,” @POTUS says.


“This scourge of drug addiction in America will stop. It will stop. Every day, 116 Americans die from an opioid-related overdose,” Trump told a crowd in Manchester, New Hampshire. “Failure is not an option. Addiction is not our future. … I want to win this battle. I don’t want to leave at the end of seven years and still have this problem.”

New Hampshire has had the second-highest rate of opioid-involved overdose deaths in the United States since 2014, according to the White House.

Trump also said the White House will have a major announcement next month about slashing the price of prescription drugs.

The Trump plan on combating opioids calls for more evidence-based treatment, greater prevention, reducing the demand for addictive prescriptions, and cracking down on the domestic and international supply in several ways, including with a border wall and increased security.

“Ending sanctuary cities is crucial to stopping the drug addiction crisis,” Trump said.

Trump noted his conversations with other world leaders.

If you look at other countries, I’ve gotten to know the leaders of many countries, I won’t mention names—I go around, ‘How’s your drug problem?’ ‘We don’t have much of a drug problem.’ ‘What do you mean you don’t have a drug problem?’ ‘Well we don’t have one.’ I say, ‘How come?’ ‘We have zero tolerance for drug dealers.’ I say, ‘What does that mean?’ ‘That means we have the death penalty for drug dealers. We don’t have a drug problem.’

Take a look at some of these other countries where they don’t play games. They don’t have a drug problem. We have court cases that last 10 years. Then they get out at the end. We have to be tough. We have to be smart. We have to change the laws. We are working on that right now.

According to the website DrugAbuse.com, the countries that impose the death penalty for selling drugs are Malaysia, China, Iran, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Trump has previously mentioned China and Singapore.

Trump again cited other countries when vowing to lower the price of prescription drugs.

“We pay as a country so much more for drugs because of the drug lobby and other reasons and the complexity of distribution, which is another term for saying how do we get more money,” Trump said. “If you compare our drug prices to other countries in the world, in some cases it’s many times higher for the exact same pill or whatever it is in the exact same package made in the exact same plant. We are going to change that.”

Trump said there will be a major White House news conference in about a month to announce details for lowering prices. He invited Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to take the stage. Azar said:

Last year, the FDA approved more generic drugs than it ever has in its history. That brings prices down for patients, for the system, for everybody. You also changed the rules so that our senior citizens pay less out of pocket for their drugs. That’s $3.2 billion that they are paying less out of pocket for their drugs when they go to the pharmacy. We are going to be rolling out, as you mentioned in about a month, a whole sleight of proposals around how we decrease the price of drugs and how we bring discounts that the middle men right now are getting, those will go to our patients, to individuals.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE The featured image is of President Donald Trump pointing at the crowd after announcing his administration’s plan to combat the opioid crisis at Manchester Community College in Manchester, New Hampshire. (Photo: Matthew Healey/UPI/Newscom)

States Win Another Major Case Against Obamacare

In a decision that has gotten almost no media attention, six states led by Texas have won another round against the Obama administration implementation of Obamacare.

Judge Reed O’Connor, a federal judge in Texas, threw out the Obama administration’s imposition of a federal fee or tax on states as a condition of continuing to receive Medicaid funds. O’Conner ruled March 5 that the fee violates the non-delegation doctrine of the Constitution and the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The 2010 Obamacare law imposed a “health insurance providers fee” on medical insurers to help pay for the subsidies provided by the federal government to individuals purchasing health insurance. However, the law specifically exempted states from having to pay this fee.

Texas and the other states who filed this lawsuit against the federal government in 2015 provide a majority of Medicaid services for their residents by contracting with, and paying a monthly fee to, managed care organizations, which then provide health care to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a component of the Department of Health and Human Services, must approve all such state contracts for health care services. In 2014, the agency promulgated a regulation that requires that states pay managed care organizations an “actuarially sound rate.”

However, the regulation delegates the decision of what is an “actuarially sound rate” to a private organization, the Actuarial Standards Board, which sets practice standards for private actuaries.

Ignoring the statutory exemption from paying the fee that was provided to the states in the Obamacare law, the Actuarial Standards Board enacted a rule stating that the “actuarially sound rate” paid by the states to their Medicaid-managed care organizations must include their portion of the health insurance providers fee.

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services refused to approve any state contract that did not comply with this requirement.

We are talking substantial sums of money here. According to the judge in this case, Texas alone appropriated $244 million to pay this fee in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Other states in the lawsuit “likewise provide Medicaid to millions of their citizens at the cost of a considerable portion of their annual budgets.”

O’Connor found that over “the next decade, the federal government will collect between $13 and $14.9 billion” from all 50 states paying the fee. According to the IRS, Congress placed a moratorium on the fee for 2017 and 2019, but not for 2018. So the fee remains on the books.

While the court found that the health insurance providers fee, which O’Connor labeled a “tax,” is constitutional, the regulation issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that delegated “to a private entity the authority to decide who must pay this tax” violates the non-delegation doctrine.

O’Connor goes through a very interesting and illustrative history of the non-delegation doctrine, which “remains a cornerstone in the constitutional architecture of free government” to the frustration of “modern liberals.”

In essence, the non-delegation doctrine “stems from the very first clause of the Constitution, which reads: ‘All legislative Powers … shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.’” Thus, Congress cannot delegate or transfer to others its “essential legislative function.”

This “structural feature of the Constitution … exists to protect democratic deliberation, executive accountability, and individual liberty.” The framers “enshrined” this doctrine in “our charter because the framers, drawing from the deep wells of their Western heritage, recognized it as an axiom of just government.”

The most difficult determination of whether the non-delegation doctrine has been violated is when courts are reviewing the actions of federal agencies under their authorizing statutes. In those cases, “courts must distinguish between unlawful delegation of legislative power and lawful delegation of policy judgement,” according to O’Connor. It “is inherently difficult to draw this distinction and identify an unlawful legislative delegation by Congress to an executive agency.”

However, this case does not present such a dilemma concluded O’Connor because here, the power to determine whether a tax should be imposed was delegated to a private party. In such cases, “there is not even a fig leaf of constitutional delegation.”

While legislative delegations to executive agencies “threaten liberty by undermining democratic accountability … legislative delegations to private entities are even more dangerous” because they “create a double layer of unaccountability.”

The legislative power of Congress has been passed “to an unelected agency, and then by the agency to an unelected private entity.” And that “private entity is not subject to term limits, appropriations, impeachment, or removal, and neither holds a commission nor takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.”

In addition to this constitutional violation, O’Connor found that the imposition of this tax violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the promulgation of rules and regulations by federal agencies.

According to O’Connor, the tax went beyond the statutory authority of the Obamacare law: “there is no genuine dispute of material fact that [the regulation] is ‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.’”

This ruling wipes out the ability of the federal government to collect billions of dollars from the states that it has been using to subsidize Obamacare. And this is not the end of the story.

A new lawsuit has just been filed—in the same federal court where O’Connor presides—by 20 states alleging that Obamacare is no longer constitutional because the tax cut bill signed into law by President Donald Trump on Dec. 22, 2017, eliminated the tax penalty imposed on individuals who don’t comply with the individual mandate.

Because the Supreme Court only upheld Obamacare as constitutional based on the taxing authority of Congress, the states argue that its constitutional underpinning is gone.

Piece by piece, year by year, Obamacare is slowly being taken apart by both litigation and legislation like the 2017 tax cut bill that eliminated the tax penalty on the individual mandate.

But members of Congress would do well to return to their abandoned effort to repeal Obamacare in its entirety in order to provide Americans with a replacement that supports their needs.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Without the Individual Mandate’s Tax, Obamacare Should Fall Apart in Court

Obamacare Bailouts Will Not Save Money and Lower Premiums, Despite Contrary Claims

White House Millennials Conference to Address Economy, Free Speech, and Opioids

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Podcast: What Larry Kudlow Will Do for the Nation’s Economy

The Heritage Foundation’s Steve Moore joins us today to talk about the announcement that his friend Larry Kudlow, who worked in the Reagan administration and on CNBC, will become director of the National Economic Council. Moore and Kudlow served together on the Trump campaign, and Moore shares what he thinks President Donald Trump and Kudlow do (and don’t) have in common. Plus: We talk about the movie star moving out of the U.S. because of Trump and the school that gave detention to students who participated in the walkout yesterday.

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

7 Signs the Upcoming Farm Bill Will Contain Disastrous Subsidies

Senate May Fund Obamacare Subsidies With This Sneaky Move

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Brendan McDermid/Reuters/Newscom

 

The Government Has Already Tried Universal Basic Income. Here’s What Happened.

How would you like to receive $500 a month, no strings attached?

Stockton, California, a city outside of Silicon Valley, is providing such benefits to a group of its low-income residents in a pilot version of universal basic income.

Universal basic income is a policy that gives all people a set amount of benefits without requirements or stipulations. After a brief stint of popularity in the 1970s, the idea has resurged in the public interest, with backers including innovators Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, union leader Andy Stern, and even libertarian Charles Murray.

The pilot program, called the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, has received initial funding from the Economic Security Project, an advocacy group for universal basic income policies.

There is no official start date for the program, but Stockton’s mayor, Michael Tubbs, has indicated they will be screening applicants through June. Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook, is providing $1 million toward the effort.

To those familiar with the universal basic income debate, the renewed interest in the program is baffling because similar programs have been tested with terrible results.

In the 1970s, the government ran four random control experiments across six states to try the negative income tax, a similar policy proposal that was popular at the time. In each test, the work disincentive effect was disastrous. For every $1,000 in added benefits to a family, there was an average reduction in $660 of wages from work.

There are many reasons universal basic income proposals fail. The policy tends to direct resources to people who do not need them, while increasing dependency and decreasing work across the truly needy population.

The most apparent flaw in the universal basic income proposal is the lack of work requirements. Work requirements are important because they help those in poverty achieve self-sufficiency. Additionally, a vast majority of Americans believe that people should be required to work in exchange for benefits (upwards of 90 percent by The Heritage Foundation’s latest estimates).

Robert Rector, senior welfare policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, spoke recently about universal basic income with The Daily Signal. In the podcast, he suggested expanding the earned income tax credit, a program that rewards work with benefits, as an alternative to universal basic income.

Rector pointed out that the earned income tax credit “has the same effect as a guaranteed minimum income, but it’s linked to positive contributions to society.” To improve it, Rector suggests making the program more generous and supportive of marriage, as well as working to reduce fraud.

Despite the admirable goals of the Stockton proposal, the program is likely to reduce work, increase dependency, and overburden the taxpayer. Instead of overthrowing our current welfare system, it is better to focus on the initiatives that work.

Strengthening work requirements for major programs and reforming the earned income tax credit would be a good start.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Mimi Teixeira

Mimi Teixeira is a graduate fellow in welfare policy at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Boeing Must Produce Iran’s Air Contract to Victims of Iranian Terror

The Trump administration pointedly put national security over trade when it told an Illinois District Court judge it “does not take a position” on whether the Court should shield aerospace giant Boeing Corp from a lawsuit filed by victims of Iranian state terrorism.

The family of Shlomo Leibovitch is seeking to collect on a $67 million judgment against Iran for a 2003 terror attack that killed their seven-year old daughter, and sued Boeing to gain access to what it believed were Iranian assets in Boeing’s possession.

Boeing signed a $16 billion deal in 2016 to sell civilian airliners to the state-owned Iran Air, a defendant in numerous lawsuits by victims of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism. In any airplane deal of that size, the purchaser will make advance payments while the aircraft are being produced.

It was those payments the Leibovitch family was seeking to attach and that Boeing was seeking to conceal.

Chief Judge Ruben Castillo ruled on Tuesday that Boeing must produce the contractual documents to the terror victims, to include financial documents relating to advance payments as well as Boeing’s communications with the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control, which licensed the sale during the final weeks of the Obama administration.

Boeing had argued to keep all details of its commercial and financial dealings with the Iranian regime secret, on the grounds that disclosing them would cause “significant harm to the goals of the United States and its European allies.”

As Judge Castillo noted in his ruling, Boeing claimed that disclosure would “risk destabilizing the purpose of the JCPOA [the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka the Iran nuclear deal] to provide for regional and international peace and security.”

That’s a heavy lift even for Boeing, which specializes in heavy-lifting.

Judge Castillo thought it best to ask the U.S. government if they agreed with Boeing’s claim that disclosure would “interfere with U.S. foreign policy toward Iran.”

The answer, delivered by the U.S. Department “on behalf of the Executive Branch,” was crystal clear – and a stinging rebuke not just to Boeing, but to all major U.S. and international corporations who believe that the Iran deal opened Iran for business.

The Justice Department formally notified Judge Castillo that “the United States does not take a position on whether the Court should order the requested discovery.”

That one line opens up a legal mine field for Boeing, and for any other U.S. corporation seeking to do business with the Islamic regime in Iran.

U.S. courts have awarded victims of Iranian state terrorism 99 separate judgments worth more than $53 billion, nearly half of which are compensatory damages that can be collected against Iranian assets held outside the United States.

“But how to collect?” an appeals court judge stated in an opinion last year. That has been the problem that has devilled not only the Leibovitch family, but each and every one of the hundreds of U.S. citizen holding judgments against Iran.

In his landmark decision, Judge Castillo opened a door that previously had been closed.

The Iran nuclear deal paved the way for corporations around the world to re-enter the Iranian market, shut off for years by multi-lateral sanctions put in place to punish Iran for pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program forbidden it by international law.

Israeli attorney Nitsana Darshana-Leitner filed suit in 2015 against the U.S. Department of State and the Department of Treasury in New York on behalf of the Leibovitch family to block implementation of the Iran nuclear deal, which involved not only the lifting of sanctions but the release of an estimated $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets.

While that suit failed, Judge Castillo ruled that the current case was not about deciding a “political question” outside the purview of the Court, but about “a discovery dispute, plain and simple.”

“[T]he present dispute does not require the Court to consider the wisdom of the [Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act] or the Iran Nuclear deal,” Castillo noted.

Boeing had argued that the Iran nuclear deal required the U.S. government “to actively prevent terror victims holding judgments against Iran from hindering he airplane deal in any manner.”

But the Trump administration swept away that argument, noting that “the JCPOA does not require the United States to take any specific action with respect to efforts by judgment creditors of Iran to pursue post-judgment discovery or other enforcement proceedings.”

The Leibovitch family has not been alone in seeking to put the kibosh on the Boeing aircraft sale to Iran.

Last year, Representative Peter Roskam (R-Il), and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, urging the Justice Department to support the claims of the terror victims over Boeing. Roskam did so even though Boeing is now headquartered in his state.

Corporate lawyers and plaintiff’s attorneys around the world will be following this case closely. With the Boeing sale now potentially in jeopardy, other corporations are sure to wonder if they, too, could be made to pay the price for the terrorist actions of the Iranian regime.