VIDEO: We Only Resent Inequality When It’s Rigged by Daniel J. Mitchell

In addition to his exemplary work as a Senior Fellow for the Cato Institute, Johan Norberg narrates some great videos for Free to Choose Media. Here are some that caught my eye.

But my favorite video, which I shared back in January, is his concise explanation of why policy makers should focus on fighting poverty rather than reducing inequality. I’m posting it again to set the stage for a discussion on inequality and fairness.

Now let’s dig into the main topic for today.

We Want What’s Fair

study by three academics from Yale’s Department of Psychology concludes that people want fairness rather than equality.

…there is no evidence that people are bothered by economic inequality itself. Rather, they are bothered by something that is often confounded with inequality: economic unfairness. Drawing upon laboratory studies, cross-cultural research, and experiments with babies and young children, we argue that humans naturally favour fair distributions, not equal ones, and that when fairness and equality clash, people prefer fair inequality over unfair equality.

My former grad school classmate Steve Horwitz wrote about the aforementioned study

…what we really care about is something other than inequality per se. We care about upward mobility, or average income overall, or how well the least well off do. …A recent study in Nature argued, with evidence, that what bothers people more than inequality per se is “unfairness.” People will accept inequality if they feel the process that produced it is fair. …when I give talks about inequality. I point out the number of Apple products visible in the room and ask them if they think the wealth Steve Jobs and other Apple founders accumulated over their lifetimes was objectionable. Is that the kind of inequality they object to? Students are usually hard-pressed to articulate why Jobs’ wealth is wrong… I also remind them that economic studies show that only about 4% of the total benefits of innovation accrue to the innovator. The rest goes to consumers.

Steve cites Nozick and Hayek to bolster his argument before then making the key point that markets produce material abundance based on genuine fairness.

As Robert Nozick argued in Anarchy, State, and Utopia: if each step in the evolution of the market is fair by itself, how can the pattern of income that emerges be unfair? …Hayek…observed in The Constitution of Liberty that if we want equality of outcomes, we will have to treat people unequally. If, however, we treat people equally, we will get unequal outcomes. Hayek’s argument was premised on the fact that human beings are not equal in our native intelligence, strength, skills, and abilities. …If people really care about fairness, then supporters of the market should be insisting on the importance of equality before the law. …Equality of outcomes requires that we treat people differently, and this will likely be perceived as unfair by many. Equality before the law corresponds better with notions of fairness even if the outcomes it produces are unequal. …If what appear to be concerns about inequality are, in fact, concerns about unfairness, we have ways of addressing them that demonstrate the power of exchange and competitive markets. Markets are more fair because they require that governments treat us all equally and that none of us have the ability to use political power to protect ourselves from the competition of the marketplace and the choices of consumers. In addition, market-based societies have been the best cure for poverty humans have ever known.

How Much Equality Do We Want?

Writing for CapX, Oliver Wiseman analyzes other scholarly research on equality and fairness.

A 2012 study by behavioural economists Dan Ariely and Mike Norton generated some attention for demonstrating that Americans wanted to live in a more equal country. But more equal is not the same thing as fully equal. …if you let people choose between equal and unequal societies – and then tell them that they themselves will be assigned a level of wealth within it completely at random – most people choose inequality. And that preference is observable across the political spectrum, in different countries and at a range of ages.

But people don’t want undeserved inequality since that is the result of unfair interventions (i.e., cronyism).

This paper’s conclusions help explain much of the outcry over economic inequality in recent years. Occupy Wall Street and the very idea of the “one per cent” emerged just after the financial crisis plunged much of the world into recession, and US and British banks were handed billion-dollar bailouts to steady the ship. The anger didn’t come from the fact that bankers were so well paid. It came from the perception that they’d made that money by piling up risk rather than being particularly clever or hard-working – risk that was now being underwritten by the taxpayer. The wealth wasn’t just distributed unequally, but unfairly. The market mechanisms that most people accepted as the rules of the economic game suddenly seemed rigged. …Voters, in other words, don’t want equality – they want fairness. …As the Soviets found, true economic equality cannot be accommodated within a system that allows people tolerable levels of economic and political freedom. But fairness, by contrast, is something capitalism can – and should – deliver.

Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University cites some additional academic research buttressing the conclusion people don’t object to fair types of inequality.

…most Americans don’t mind inequality nearly as much as pundits and academics suggest. A recent research paper, by Graham Wright of Brandeis University, found that polled attitudes about economic inequality don’t correlate very well with the desire for government to address it. There is even partial evidence, once controls are introduced into the statistics, that talk of inequality reduces the support for doing something about it. …It’s not obvious why such counterintuitive results might be the case. One possibility is that…talk about economic inequality increases political polarization, which lowers the chance of effective action. Or that criticizing American society may cause us to feel less virtuous, which in turn may cause us to act with less virtue. …A variety of other research papers have been showing that inequality is not a major concern per se. One recent study by Matthew Weinzierl of Harvard Business School shows that most Americans are quite willing to accept economic inequality that stems from brute luck, and that they are inclined to assume that inequality is justified unless proved otherwise.

Living in an Unequal Society

Last but not least, Anne Bradley of the Institute for Humane Studies augments this analysis by explaining the difference between ethical market-driven inequality versus unfair cronyist-caused inequality.

The question of whether income inequality is bad hinges on the institutions within that society and whether they support entrepreneurship and creativity or thuggery and exploitation. Income inequality is good when people earn their money by discovering new and better ways of doing things and, through the profit mechanism, are encouraged to bring those discoveries to ordinary people. …Rising incomes across all income groups (even if at different rates) is most often the sign of a vibrant economy where strangers are encouraged to serve each other and solve problems. Stagnant incomes suggest something else: either a rigged economy where only insiders can play, or an economy where the government controls a large portion of social resources, stalling incomes, wealth, and wellbeing.

She includes a very powerful example of why it can be much better to live in a society with high levels of (fair) inequality.

Consider the following thought experiment: knowing nothing other than the Gini index scores, would you rather live in a world with a Gini of .296 (closer to equality) or .537 (farther from equality)? Many people when asked this question choose the world of .296. These are the real Gini scores of Pakistan (.296) and Hong Kong (.537). If given the choice, I would live in Hong Kong without thinking twice. Hong Kong has a thriving economy and high incomes, and it is the world leader in economic freedom. The difference between these two countries could not be more striking. In Pakistan, there might be more income equality, but everyone is poorer. It is difficult to emerge out of poverty in Pakistan. Hong Kong provides a much richer environment where people are encouraged to start businesses, and this is the best hope for rising incomes, or income mobility.

Her example of Hong Kong and Pakistan is probably the most important takeaway from today’s column.

Simply stated, it’s better to be poor in a jurisdiction such as Hong Kong where there is strong growth and high levels of upward mobility. Indeed, I often use a similar example when giving speeches, asking audiences whether poor people are better off in Hong Kong, which has only a tiny welfare state, or better off in nations such as France and Greece, which have bloated welfare states but very little economic dynamism.

The answer is obvious. Or should be obvious, at least to everyone who wants to help the poor more than they want to punish the rich.

(and there are plenty in the latter camp, as Margaret Thatcher explained).

And I’m now going to add my China example to my speeches since inequality dramatically increased at the same time that there was a stupendous reduction in poverty.

Once again, the moral of the story should be obvious. Focus on growth. Yes, some rich people will get richer, but the really great news is that the poor will get richer as well. And so long as everyone is earning money through voluntary exchange rather than government coercion, that also happens to be how a fair economy operates.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

RELEASED: GAO Study on Refugee Screening and Fraud Risks

No time to read it, but thought you should know this new General Accountability Office (GAO) study came out yesterday in Washington.  Let me know if you see anything useful!

My experience with past GAO studies on the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is that, other than media like RRW which could use their findings to confirm a point we have made, they result in not much change in the actual operation of the the program.

Maybe I will be surprised this time.

Click here to read the GAO Study on Refugees. There will be a place to click for the full report.

Click on image to read the GAO Study.

By the way, if you have never looked at it, I have a whole category entitled: ‘where to find information.’ This post is archived there.

Healthcare Debate Gets it All Wrong by Jim Ley

In my former career, I administered the acquisition of healthcare coverage for more than 5,000 employees at a cost of more than $30 million annually. It was one of the fastest growing components of our budget and competed directly with our ability to provide raises to our employees. So I dug into the associated dynamics, looking for strategic leverage to keep some downward pressure on cost growth.

I have some educated sense for this issue. And the problem is not what political leaders have been talking about.

Obamacare or Trumpcare? I don’t care what you call it; only the naïve or those afflicted with partisan bias believe that either has anything to do with better healthcare. Whether it is the Democratic approach or the putative Republican attempt, there is one thing that is so clear that it is hard for me to understand why it is not talked about more.

Insurance is not healthcare

This 10-year conversation is about the movement of money to the benefit of one interest group or another – it is definitively not about my healthcare.

Both “solutions” are nothing more than attempts to increase the amount of federal influence over the movement of money within one sixth of the U.S. economy, the maintenance of the status quo as to how that money flows (at best) and efforts on behalf of a variety of interests to advance the status quo — that is, the flow of money — on their behalf.

If this were about actual healthcare, the patient and the service provider would be the chief interest being served and talked about. That is the system that would be targeted for reforming to the best results. But they are rarely discussed except in some rhetorical fashion that suits the politics of the blabbering head that spews the rhetoric.

Special interests drive the healthcare laws

The real interests that gain from the healthcare laws, in their rough order of influence, are as follows:

  • The health insurance industry
  • The pharmaceutical industry
  • Trial lawyers
  • Congress
  • The hospital industry
  • Medical equipment manufacturers
  • The federal health system (Medicare and Medicaid)
  • (With Obamacare) the State Medicare oligarchy
  • Health experts
  • Those elevated to the status of poor by Obamacare’s Medicare expansion

The interests that are hurt by the healthcare laws, from least to most:

  • Doctors
  • Safety net Medicare patients
  • The employed but uninsured public dependent on the private market
  • Workers insured through their employer

Limited space keeps me from commenting on each of these interests so I’ll just pick a few as examples.

At the top of the heap sits the insurance industry, hiding behind their self-produced rhetoric of risk associated with instability in the system. Not only did they benefit from Obamacare’s requirement that everyone must buy insurance, but in 2009 their industry lobbying arm created enough fear in the political realm that they leveraged a $165 billion subsidy from the Obama administration. No appropriation was ever made by Congress, and to date, this administrative act of appropriation has been declared illegal by the courts.

Note that all you hear on TV is “instability” in the system and the need to maintain an insurance industry subsidy — working hard to include in law what is currently judged illegal. Their talking points, emanating from the mouths of Congressmen and Senators, once again lead the debate and harken for the need for the feds to further mine the taxpayer wallet and remove risk from insurance companies; making them the big winners.

After all it is easier to “sell” you a product with less concern as to a buyer’s normal demand for quality for his/her dollar spent, when someone else, in this case the federal government, creates a product and demands its use without ever having to pay for it. The only worse situation would be if the feds actually paid for a product — with other people’s money in the form of taxes — that they would never use themselves as a consumer. In economic  transactional terms, that is called a third party system, but we would know it as the single-payer proposal.

The most value laden economic transaction is when you buy something for yourself with your own dollar. In that way you consciously make the decision between the quality of the purchase and the dollar spent. These third-party purchasing transactions, read as “single payer,” always produce the least value for the highest cost in any economic transaction. But they do produce some degree of certainty for those interests capable of positioning themselves correctly within the flow of cash.

Broken Medicaid is the example of single payer

Another lunacy created by Obamacare, and now wanting to be protected jealously by state governors who hungrily ate the poison apple, is the expansion of Medicaid.

Here you have what is supposed to be a safety net system, which is indeed structured as a safety net system, trying to become a system of normal healthcare access for an expanded group of consumers who have now been declared “in need.”

The craziness is that — aside from the taxpayer who is paying for this system out of general revenues, unlike Medicare which is supported by a specific tax — the person getting hurt the most is the truly indigent patient who has no other recourse than to use Medicaid.

Medicaid is such a broken system that over half of the doctors in the country will not take Medicaid patients. Adding more patients to an already broken system only ensures that those most in need will be those most hurt. All that the Medicaid bureaucrats can be glad for is that there is another broken federal healthcare system, the Veterans Administration, which sucks up all of the outrage oxygen when it comes to poor patient treatment.

Despite this track record, the Medicaid budget for the U.S has risen from 2% of the federal budget in the early 90s to almost 10% today — a 400% rise. It is often suggested that Medicare works well, and is a good example of a single payer system. Proponents of single payer don’t want to admit that the real model would be Medicaid.

How to know when it is about healthcare

You will know when there is a serious healthcare discussion when patent protection and generic drug time-to-market is seriously discussed. When tort reform is seriously advanced as a necessary component of healthcare reform.

When Medicaid decision making is granted to the states — where healthcare is most efficient and most constitutionally accomplished. When efforts like Health Savings and Health Savings Retirement Accounts are supported by tax credits. When healthcare benefits provided by employers are taxed if tax credits are not given for the Health Savings Accounts. When the days of the $300 aspirin disappear because more first-party purchase transactions keep the system transparent.

Why do you think that it costs dramatically less in inflation adjusted dollars for cosmetic services or veterinary services than it did 30 years ago? Simple, because they cannot hide behind the market-killing fog of second- and third-party transactions as means of obfuscating the corruption in the healthcare pricing system.

When those with preexisting conditions are supported by all of us, through risk pools managed by the states, possibly funded by taxes on employer provided healthcare benefits, you’ll know we’re really talking about healthcare for Americans.

The more that we move toward a direct relationship between the doctor and patient, the better the system will be.

The rhetoric and fear mongering that you hear screaming at you from your TV, radio and newspaper are nothing more than talking points from special interests seeking to prop up their position in this complex system. They are fighting tooth and nail to maintain themselves — not you — as a winner in the movement of almost $3 trillion.

ABOUT JIM LEY

Jim Ley has more than 35 years in public service, the last 25 of which were in top level administrative positions in two of the more dynamic counties in the U.S. Jim served two terms as President of the National Association of County administrators and was a leading “small government” voice in the profession. His administrative focus has been on financial sustainability and accountability to the taxpayer.

Related Healthcare Articles in The Revolutionary Act

Both Parties Want Federal Government Control of Healthcare

A True American Healthcare System

EXPLAINED: Government Healthcare is not Christian

HEALTHCARE REFORM: Freedom Is Its Own Indispensable Goal

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

President Trump: The military will no longer allow transgender people to serve ‘in any capacity’

The Washington Examiner’s Melissa Quinn reports:

President Trump announced Wednesday morning the military will no longer allow transgender individuals to serve in “any capacity” in the military.

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you,” Trump said in a series of tweets that remained unfinished Wednesday morning.

Transgenderism is the “big absurdity.”

Transgenderism and homosexuality are absurdities that have lead to individuals committing atrocities upon themselves, their families and society.

But don’t tell that to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the primary sponsor of the The Teaching Transgender Toolkit (TTT) website. The TTT website states:

The Teaching Transgender Toolkit is a detailed collection of best practices, lesson plans and resources for those who wish to facilitate trainings about transgender people, identities and experiences. The first of its kind, this book translates the authors’ decades of experience leading transgender-related trainings and educational best practices into a guide that can be used by trainers of all levels to provide accurate and effective trainings. Whether you are a novice who has never led a training before, or you are an expert trainer or an expert on transgender identities, the Teaching Transgender Toolkit has something for you!

To become a transgender you need a tool kit.

One has to “train” to become a transgender.

One cannot change their genetic sex, however there are those, like TTT’s sponsors Planned Parenthood, Out for Health a Project of Planned Parenthood and Education, Training and Research (ETR), whose sole purpose is to “teach” boys and girls to believe they are neither a boy or a girl.

In an April 2016 column titled “Transgenderism: Misogyny Writ Large” Judith Reisman, Ph.D, writes:

Adopting “gender uncertainty” policies that permit access to vulnerable women and girls provides predators with greater access to victims. Predators can enter the private spaces of opposite-sex students without detection if they reject their birth sex or dress in opposite-sex clothing. And with the force of law protecting “transgender” students and staff, one is unlikely to report a cross-dressed person for fear of being accused of discrimination. Catch 22. Gotcha!

Read more.

Dr. Reisman warned, “Remember, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights’ “PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY” reports that elementary and secondary students do mimic what they learn, becoming perpetrators. We must revisit the fallout of the obscene sexual revolution in sex ed and pornography. Was it the road to sexual liberation or the road to sexual slavery?”

Thomas D. Williams, PhD, in an August 2016 column titled “Physicians Decry Pseudo-Science of Transgenderism, ‘Absurd’ to Say Anyone is Born Into ‘Wrong Body’” wrote:

The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) has released a position paper denouncing popular approaches to transgender, declaring that the current protocol is founded upon “unscientific gender ideology,” which lacks any basis in real evidence.

The physicians argue that the assumption that gender dysphoria (GD)—a psychological condition in which people experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and their biological sex—is innate contradicts all relevant data and is based on ideology rather than science.

Studies have shown, the authors contend, that the “perspective of an ‘innate gender identity’ arising from prenatally ‘feminized’ or ‘masculinized’ brains trapped in the wrong body is in fact an ideological belief that has no basis in rigorous science.”

“GD is a problem that resides in the mind not in the body. Children with GD do not have a disordered body—even though they feel as if they do,” the doctors note. “Likewise, although many men with GD express the belief that they are a ‘feminine essence’ trapped in a male body, this belief has no scientific basis.”

Transgenderism is a function of nurture not nature.

Whether its a parent, friend, colleague, public school teacher, professor, religion or government that is promoting transgenderism it leads the individual to question their sex when there is no scientific basis for doing so.

Today we are seeing played out what Voltaire wrote, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

RELATED VIDEO: Church Militant Headlines.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

I Was a Transgender Soldier. Gender Dysphoria Poses Real Problems for Military.

Trump Ends U.S. Military’s Transgender Social Experiment

5 Good Reasons Why Transgender Accommodations Aren’t Compatible With Military Realities

I Was Once Transgender. Why I Think Trump Made the Right Decision for the Military.

This Wounded Warrior Just Explained Trump’s Transgender Ban in One Incredible Tweet Thread

Minnesota Is Pushing Gender Identity Debate on Kindergartners

Pomona College Allegedly Knew of LGBT Director’s Anti-White, Anti-Heterosexual Tweets before Hiring Him

Target paints a bull’s-eye on women – www.washingtontimes.com

Man arrested for placing video camera in Target bathroom

10 Examples of Men Abusing Target’s Dangerous Policy

‘Transgender’ male arrested for taking pictures of woman in Target changing room

“Transgenderism: Misogyny Writ Large” – Judith Reisman, Ph.D

Top Twenty Sexual Crimes Committed at Target Stores – www.breitbart.com

Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Policy
Is Dangerous to Women and Children

Sex Offender Tries to Film Woman in Target, So She Films Him as He Runs Away: Viral Video

RESOURCES:

Help for Those Struggling with Sex-Change Regret – www.sexchangeregret.com

INCIDENTS ON RECORD: 

Compiled List of Predators in Women’s Facilities

Some Recent Energy & Environmental News

The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online. To start to balance the incessant Russian “news” stories, below I’ve supplied a few pertinent articles that you won’t see in the mainstream media.

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:

Superior: New EU Proposals Would Kill Solar and Wind

Property and Wind Turbines: A Missing Point in the Discussion

Tourists Shun Areas Hit by Wind Turbine ‘Blight’

Navy: Interference From Wind Farms Dangerous to Military Aircraft

Study: A New Methodology for Investigating Turbine Infrasound Complaints

Wind turbines damage human health says Portuguese scientist

Wind and Solar Energy Are Dead Ends

The Best of Alex Epstein (so far)

73% Of World’s Renewable Energy Is Made By Burning Wood & Dung

The Trump Doctrine on Energy

Environmental Progress: a worthwhile site on nuclear power

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:

How Science Is Losing Its Humanity

Agenda Behind Global Warming Alarmism

A Step Toward Scientific Integrity at the EPA

Study: Temp Adjustments Account for Nearly All of the Climate Warming Data

Most of what you’ve read about Greenland is wrong

Looks Like Global Action On “Climate Change” Is Dead

Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’

EPA plans to challenge climate science in series of debates

Pittsburgh, Not Paris: Explaining the Climate Hysteria

Some Russia and related articles in this issue are:

Short video: Russians Funding US Environmental Groups

Russia’s Propaganda War on Fossil Fuels

Why the Russians Conceived the Global Warming Scam

Russia as Media Manipulator: Nothing New

From Russia With Love

The Nazi Origins of Renewable Energy (and Global Warming)

Ecofascists Needed an Enemy, So They Chose Fossil Fuels

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list,simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Desperate Democrats try re-branding with ‘New Economic Agenda’ for America

In an article titled “‘A Better Deal’: Democrats Plan to Roll Out New Slogan After Realizing ‘Resistance’ Strategy Is Not Working” Adelle Nazarian writes:

The Democrats have a new slogan and economic agenda: “A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages.”

Minority leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have led the charge for this following the absence of a strategy to win back power after realizing that attacking President Donald Trump is not working.

Politico, which first reported on this, suggested the “Better Deal” hearkens back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” which was created in response to the drought and dust storms of the 1930s that escalated into an environmental disaster.

According to Politico, “The slogan, which is still being polled in battleground House districts, aims to convince voters that Democrats have more to offer than the GOP and the self-proclaimed deal-maker in the White House.”

But be advised we have already experienced their Progressive/Socialist/Marxist (PSM not to be confused with PMS) oppressive attack on our free markets as they slowly tried to take total control of our lives under the blitzkrieg of former President Obama – the years 2008 to 2016 were pure misery indeed.

The Democrat Party working closely with some of their republican friends attempted to decimate the United States free market system starting with our health care system, which is 1/5th of the U.S. economy and place it under federal control much like in Communist Cuba and North Korea.

The Democrats on Monday are going to blame corporations for the demise of our capitalist freedoms when in fact all they want is total control of your and my life from birth to death – cradle to grave.

The Democrats are stating that families in America today feel that the rules of the economy are rigged against them. All propaganda of course – without rich successful capitalists creating jobs these bureaucrats would be unemployed.

So the Democrats will demand that more taxes be collected from big business and the middle class which in turn will put more money in the hands of the government and not Americans.

The PSM power grabs under Obama were soundly rejected by the American people and now the Democrats pay the price – their true colors in the spotlight.

The Democrat Party believes it must control the economy of the United States and the velocity of money – to maintain a close control over the lives of Americans.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

The Democrat economic polices and ideas put forth by Communists like Bernie Sanders mirror the economic policies of nations like Venezuela.

A country on the brink of civil war as the people are rising up and are about to remove – by force if necessary President Maduro for his oppressive control over the Venezuelan people.

Democrats want one thing – control over you – just like the governments of Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and the like – REJECT THEM

They hide in the shadows plotting and planning like the slimy worms they are and on Monday they will present their blue print for the take over of the U.S. free market, capitalist system – re written as “helping the poor oppressed Americans” which primarily live in cities controlled by Democrats –

Under the reign of Obama and the weak gutless, spineless GOP Congress we were buried in oppressive legislation from unconstitutional health care to the federal government monitoring how much money you took out of your ATMs under Dodd-Frank.

They want control of your food and water – even the retaining ponds you dig in your back yard on your private property – they want to disarm you 100% and arm the IRS – and other federal agencies like the Social Security Administration to keep their boot on your neck.

They want total control over your children in a federally controlled school system to prepare your children for future allegiance to the Socialist system they pray too.

So on Monday when the Democrats roll out their re-branding of their Party to try and salvage what is left of the swamp they created be advised – it will not be for the good of this nation only for them.

Watch this video exposing rich statists, who are lobbying for higher taxes on the middle class, as complete hypocrites.

The gutless GOP have stood back and allowed the Obama reign of terror to be funded unabated and in 2018 its time to vote in real Americans that will fix this nation and return us back to Constitutional law and order.

As for both the Republican and Democrat parties that have worked for years to dismantle capitalism’s economic freedoms and put us under United Nations New World Order tyranny be advised – this nation is armed to the teeth and any government infringement will be met with total failure.

Let us pray for the success of the Venezuelan people as they fight daily for freedom. The oppression faced in Venezuela is an example of the future government that Democrats represent here.

Its just sad the Venezuelans were disarmed and unable to defend themselves – but they will over come – Salute to their Freedom.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats’ ‘Better Deal’ Proposals Would Make Americans Worse Off

‘A Better Deal’: Democrats Plan to Roll Out New Slogan After Realizing ‘Resistance’ Strategy Is Not Working

Dems to announce ‘A better deal’ economic agenda on Monday: report – The Hill

Not Better: Democrats Hopelessly Adopt New Establishment Slogan: The party persists with marketing campaigns chock-full of empty promises

This Is What Happens When You Ask Pro-Taxers to Pay More

Ideological Tribalism: Graduating Stepford Students

Freedom of speech is foundational. Without freedom of speech there are no other freedoms.

In a stunning new guide to colleges that ranks “a diversity of viewpoints and a culture of free and open discussion” New England colleges and universities are exposed as the most close-minded in a comparison of diversity of political and cultural points of view. Considering that the New England colleges and universities are some of the most prestigious in America and that they graduate future leaders and “authorities,” the study results are particularly disturbing.

Report: New England Colleges Worst in Country for ‘Viewpoint Diversity’

The silencing of Conservative voices on campus is a deliberate strategy to expand the widening echo chamber of left-wing liberal tenets of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism. Parochial schools are very clear in their mission to educate students in the particular tenets, customs, and ceremonies of their chosen religion. Religious schools freely and unapologetically attempt to perpetuate their religions through education. There is informed consent – the parents and students being fully aware of the purpose of their education.

The problem today is in non-parochial schools because parents believe their children are receiving a secular American education not a parochial education. The reality is that American students from pre-school through college are being indoctrinated in left-wing liberalism by their Leftist teachers. Leftism is the new religious orthodoxy of the Democratic Party and the Democrats are busy proselytizing their religion in the classroom. There is no informed consent and no consumer protections. There is only buyer beware.

Slowly parents are beginning to examine the content of the curricula their children are being exposed to and are rightfully alarmed by the anti-American, anti-establishment, anti-democracy lessons being taught. Their children are being propagandized toward anti-American collectivism and socialism every day all day.

Whoever controls the curriculum controls the future. Indoctrination presented as education is an abuse of power.

When liberal professors outnumber their conservative colleagues 28:1 a culture of ideological tribalism is created and freedom of speech ceases to exist. Conservative voices are silenced because the academic and social tyranny of the Left demands conformity. It is an ideological war that demands submission.

Tyranny cannot tolerate freedom of speech because in ideological wars words are the weapons. The Left is engaged in a very undemocratic effort to silence any voices of opposition. The tribal mind focuses on membership in the tribe as the absolute value which explains the malicious shunning and disparaging of anyone who disagrees. To be in the tribe one must demonstrate loyalty to the tribe and adhere to its cultural norms.

Instead of participating in the proud American tradition of open debate the Leftist leadership of the Democratic Party has adopted the tyranny of censorship, intimidation, and intolerance. Instead of encouraging respectful discourse for the merits of ideas to be debated the Left silences its opponents with its tyrannical demand for compliance to its tenets of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism. The Leftist orthodoxy silences any heterodoxy. The Democratic Party has devolved into ideological tribalism where membership in the group is determined by adherence to its orthodoxy.

Outside the classroom the left-wing activists organize campus protests where academic cry-bullies shut down buildings and intimidate speakers to silence opposing voices. They demand safe spaces and Play-doh to calm and “protect” them from opposing ideas. These protesters are not burning books because the curriculum has already been censored and manipulated to eliminate opposing ideas. Instead of an education the students are being indoctrinated in the left-wing liberal orthodoxy of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism designed to produce another generation of Stepford students to join the widening echo chamber of orthodox Leftists who reject any heterodoxy.

Whoever controls the information controls the present. Indoctrination presented as news and information is an abuse of power.

The general public is being similarly indoctrinated because their news and information has been censored to eliminate opposing ideas and to silence opposing voices. The colluding mainstream media moguls of television, movies, print media, and the Internet, all have common cause to participate in the echo chamber of manipulative information designed to indoctrinate the public into accepting their left-wing liberal orthodoxy.

What is the purpose of the ideological tribalism of the Democratic Party? Just like the student curricula the public indoctrination by the leftist Democratic Party is part of the widening echo chamber designed to transform American democracy into socialism.

The Left organizes content designed to break down traditional American cultural norms that encourage individualism, achievement, the meritocracy, and critical thinking skills. The Leftist narrative promotes collectivism and passivity to produce an unaware and compliant public. The Leftist Democratic Party in America supports or is an apologist for Linda Sarsour, BDS, FGM, open-borders, illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, and the fiction that Islam is a religion like any other.

Instead of news and information the general public is being indoctrinated in the left-wing liberal orthodoxy of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism designed to produce an unthinking Stepford population who will join the ever-widening echo chamber of orthodox Leftists who reject any heterodoxy.

Consider the long term effects of their echo chamber that begins in kindergarten, continues throughout college, graduates Stepford students who become leaders and “authorities” in government, politics, academia, Internet, media, statistics, books, art, medicine, law, theater, movies, every sphere that influences American life. WHY?

Because the globalist elite mega-moguls and their mega-corporations have a long term plan. They are using the echo chamber of Leftists as useful idiots to create the social chaos and divisiveness necessary to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism. Socialism’s complete cradle-to-grave government control is the prerequisite for the globalist elite’s own one-world government that features an unrestricted world market for their goods and a binary socio-political system of masters (the globalist elite) and their enslaved population (everyone else).

The ideological tribalism of the Leftist Democrat Party that graduates Stepford students and disinforms the public to become Stepford voters is a boomerang. Ideological tribalism will be used against the useful idiots by the globalist elite who will ultimately impose one-world government and enslave them all. There is no place for Leftist agitators in one-world government – there is only room for Stepford slaves.

Fewer Muslim refugees entering U.S. since President Trump inaugurated

UN camp for DR Congolese ‘refugees’

Pew Research Center has done some useful number crunching using the data available to you as well at Wrapsnet.

DR Congo tops the list!

Here are their findings in two simple graphs.  Readers should know that the flood of refugees coming in from the DR Congo are part of a five year plan agreed to during the Obama Administration to clean out the UN camps housing ‘refugees’ from the DR Congo. We reported this news in June 2013, here.

We agreed to take 50,000 over five years!  As of today we have admitted 40,204!

The group contains many women with mental health issues and children (very costly to the US taxpayer). And, if other UN camp clean outs are any indication, we won’t stop at 50,000!

Last fall we showed you where 33,000 from the DR Congo were placed in America. Most from the DR Congo are not Muslims.

From Pew Research:

I have two categories that might be useful to readers wanting to dig in to data. One is entitled ‘refugee statistics’and the other is Where to find information,‘ but I warn you both are huge.  This post is archived in both.

Coal got knocked out in California, now natural gas is on the ropes…

Donald Trump’s election sent shock waves through the American liberal, progressive (code for European Socialists), and global Elite fraternities. Within days of Mr. Trump’s election a concerted, well organized and funded assault began to render Mr. Trump and his administration ineffective, and even impotent to change the Socialist Agenda seductively introduced since Bush, Sr. took the reins from Ronald Reagan. The percolating socialist/Marxist minions of the Democrat Party have boiled over into a spectacle of considerable venomous hatred since the national elections this past November. No longer even maintaining an appearance of civility, the progressives across America are in full speed ahead mode implementing their agenda; which agenda, is not remotely similar to the beliefs and values of the America many of us have known and loved. The State of California is such an example.

Over the past five months, I have been involved with multiple and complicated dimensions intrinsic to the energy industry; not on the technical side, but bringing together elected and appointed officials, as well as First Nation leaders – all with a common purpose: Save the economies, employment, community fabric, and energy production across the western states. The bullseye is the Navajo Generating Station in Page, Arizona. The environmental cabal targeted the largest coal-fired energy producing plant west of the Mississippi for a total shutdown. Upon closure…five additional plants in Arizona, and then across seven western states are targeted for quick shuttering. The mantra is the same from east coast to west; “coal is bad…coal is a severe pollutant…coal is criminal.”

The answer according to whacked-out environmental ideologues is natural gas, and throw in some solar for good measure. Do NOT concern yourself with the falsehoods of such reason and language just do it, and do it now! This is part of the movement to collapse America’s economy and relocate Americans. These well-funded and rabid environmentalists seek elected officials of the same mind-set to process their agenda through legislation and the governmental system. Do NOT confuse me with the facts of true science and double blind studies, simply listen to my rage and see my tears, and then do it!! Shut down the mines, the coal fired energy producing plants, and all other facets of conventional energy production. These same near out-of-control ideologues shout, “We want gas…we want natural gas…throw in some solar and wind power, and enjoy what we have created!”

Well…look at what now has emerged in California. This is not a laughing matter; although, some of the protesters are quite a site. California elected officials are following a socialist/Marxist script in so very many ways running that once magnificent state into the abyss. Shutting down energy production is one more example of the out-of-control, ideologue only focus, and lack of reasoning people who have gotten their hands on the levers of power.

Pray President Trump is successful returning America to her foundational beliefs and principles. Pray he is able to ride the political storms and withstand the character assassination diatribes, and help make America Great Again! The alternative is way too unimaginable, and we were well on our way to the abyss as a nation, as a people.

Coal got knocked out in Calif. Now, gas is on the ropes

Debra Kahn, E&E News reporter

Energywire: Wednesday, July 12, 2017

A wave of regulatory reconsiderations of natural gas-fired power plants in California has renewables advocates cheering.

The state’s grid operator is expected to release a study next month on whether the Puente Power Project, a gas-fired plant planned for the Southern California coast 60 miles west of Los Angeles, might be supplanted by solar panels, energy storage or demand response.

The California Public Utilities Commission approved Southern California Edison’s contract with NRG Energy Inc. to build the 262-megawatt plant in June 2016 as a replacement for a larger plant on the same site. The Puente plant fit into the state’s goal to boost renewables to 50 percent; as a fast-ramping facility, it could smooth out intermittent wind and solar power, which has a tendency to produce choppy resources.

Now, as politicians are considering moving to 100 percent “zero-carbon” resources by 2045 — as a bill being considered this week in the state Legislature would do — regulators are tapping the brakes on Puente and a number of other gas-fired plants planned for the Southern California region.

Since the state has no coal-fired plants and is already planning on shutting down its remaining nuclear plant, natural gas is the next resource in line to be phased out in favor of renewables.

“In general, it’s going to be renewables in, gas out, so you’ve got that sort of long, slow good-night of lots of gas,” said Jim Caldwell, a senior technical consultant with the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a Sacramento think tank that has been advocating for regulators to reconsider their grid policies to better account for renewables and climate change. “We think Puente is right at the tip of that spear. … The gas industry and the gas generation industry is facing a big problem, and they know it.”

Read more.

Does your state care about voter fraud, people stealing elections? These states don’t…

The PEW Center on the States in a 2012 study titled “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade” found:

  • Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
  • More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
  • Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

PEW researchers estimated at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens are unregistered, or more than 24 percent of the eligible population. In contrast the PEW study noted that “Canada, which uses modern technology to register people as well as data-matching techniques common in the private sector, spends less than 35 cents per voter to process registrations, and 93 percent of its eligible population is registered.”

In a Daily Signal article titled “Some States Have No Interest in Fighting Voter Fraud” John G. Malcolm and Jason Snead report:

It was a simple request—hardly one to stir up controversy.

Kris Kobach, Kansas secretary of state and vice chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, recently sent letters to his fellow secretaries of state requesting “publicly-available voter roll data” and soliciting feedback on ways to secure America’s electoral system against fraud.

Yet the response has been as swift as it is absurd. Liberal activist groups, many media outlets, and politicians—predominantly left-leaning ones—assailed the commission for somehow invading the privacy of American voters.

Some went even further. Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh tweeted that the request was “repugnant.” Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe labeled the commission a “tool to commit large-scale voter suppression.” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla called it a “waste of taxpayer money.”

All three indicated their states will provide no information to the commission. They apparently believe that their voter registration rolls are 100 percent accurate.

They must agree with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who publicly proclaimed voter fraud to be just a “myth”—so why bother investigating it?

Read more.

As Malcolm and Snead note:

According to a provision in Section 20507 of Title 52, part of the National Voter Registration Act (52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)):

Each state shall maintain for at least two years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters …

Federal law (52 U.S.C. §§ 20701 & 20703) also mandates that election officers must “retain and preserve, for a period of 22 months from the date of any general, special, or primary election” for a federal office all records pertaining to “any application” or “registration” to vote.

If Americans want to make sure their votes counts and is not negated by an illegal vote then they should contact their elected representatives and support the Presidential Commission looking at the integrity of our voting system.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

John G. Malcolm

Portrait of John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

Jason Snead

Portrait of Jason Snead

Jason Snead

Jason Snead is a policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Florida Democrat Election Official Admits Noncitizens, Felons Voting

Undocumented immigrant driver’s licenses near milestone in California

My Parents’ Experience With Dictatorships Inspired Me to Fight Voter Fraud

The Atlantic Publishes All You Need to Know About the Left

Meet the Elected Democrat Who Wants to Fight Voter Fraud

RELATED VIDEO: Judicial Watch convened four of the nation’s top experts on election integrity to discuss the very timely topic of voter fraud. Please watch the webcast to understand what’s really going on out there in our election system.

Social Democracy Didn’t Spur Post-War Growth by Tim Worstall

It is obviously going to be difficult to get an economic idea across to Owen Jones – the lad’s a socialist for goodness sake, one who praised Venezuela’s policy loudly for some years – but needs must, eh?

In his latest Guardian column, he tells us that Clem Attlee’s government produced the social democratic nirvana powering post-war growth:

That model – public ownership, high taxes on the rich, strong trade unions – delivered an unparalleled increase in living standards and economic growth. A surge in oil prices, and the collapse of the Bretton Woods international financial framework, helped bring that era to an end.

No, this is not how it worked. That post-war growth was coincident with those policies, as well as other controlling measures such as needing government permission to take your own money out of the country. But they were not the cause of the growth.

One useful hint here is that the burst of growth came in many countries at the same time despite those countries deploying a variety of economic policies. Hong Kong grew using the closest thing to laissez faire in modern times. Sweden was notably more market liberal than the UK in these years and Sweden grew.

It is also remarkably difficult to work out why those policies would, or even could, promote growth. Redistribute it, yes, but cause it? How?

A Flawed Model

Jones’s second point – that the model failed because Bretton Woods fell – is also wrong. The model’s fall was because of the model’s flaws.

So, if it wasn’t economic policy which caused the Glorious 30, as the French call it, then what was it? The absence of economic growth in the preceding two odd decades.

It is a standard of the economic literature that catch-up growth is easier than trying to work out what to do at the technological cutting edge. Bangladesh and India are growing at 6 and 8 percent a year these days mostly because the technologies they need already exist.

Working out how to do the new stuff is much harder and is part of the reason why rich nations struggle along at 2 and 3 per cent growth if they’re lucky.

At which point we should note that there just wasn’t much economic growth post-1929. We can’t use the war years themselves. GDP statistics compiled out of making things to then either be sunk or blown up after sinking or blowing up other things, aren’t a reliable guide to anything other than the ability to sink or blow things up.

It would take a very special level of delusion to try and insist that living standards were higher in 1945 than 1939, whatever the economic statistics say about gross production. And there wasn’t much growth in the period from 1929 to 1939 either. Britain did better than the US largely by devaluing and not bothering with any of the New Deal nonsense. The American performance over that period produced no cumulative net growth at all.

However, and here’s the important part, the technological advance continued apace. Here’s an example of the sort of plane Grandpa crashed in 1928, here’s what he was waving off his airfield in 1945. And in 1950 we’d not really exploited fully the automobile, electricity or transistor, let alone jet aircraft.

And that’s the secret of that post-war growth: there wasn’t much of it in the earlier decades, but technology had continued to move on. Meaning that the economies of almost all nations were inside the technological envelope where growth is much easier.

The Market Approach Produced Better Performance

We have one more proof of the insistence that it wasn’t those taxes, unions and public ownership which produced the growth. For Germany’s performance was rather better than that of Britain. And Germany’s economy was egged on by Ludwig Erhard, using a much more market-liberal approach. He was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, the fount of Hayek and the sort of neoliberalism that drives us at the Adam Smith Institute.

Contrary to Jones’s claim, a less socially democratic and statist set of policies produced a better result. It isn’t, therefore, social democracy that produced the growth. In fact, statist policies hindered it.

Attlee’s controls upon the economy were coincident with good growth, not the cause of it. And that good growth isn’t going to return by bringing back the controls.

We need either a really good depression followed by a war to have those decades of above average growth or, by preference, more of that market liberalism which drove Germany’s outperformance at the time.

Reprinted from CapX.

Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall

Tim is a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London

We are standing for what is right against what is wrong

The title of my op-ed is taken from Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue. It is a dialogue between the Melians and Athenians on liberty versus the imposing of slavery by force by one culture upon another culture. I am writing this on the eve of the celebration of Independence Day 2017. A day when our Founding Fathers found themselves in the same predicament as the Melians, liberty or death.

There is a lesson to be learned: Give war a chance!

According to the Melian Dialogue:

The Athenians also made an expedition against the island of Melos. They had thirty of their own ships, six from Chios, and two from Lesbos; 1,200 hoplites, 300 archers, and twenty mounted archers, all from Athens; and about 1,500 hoplites from the allies and the islanders.

The Melians are a colony from Sparta. They had refused to join the Athenian empire like the other islanders, and at first had remained neutral without helping either side; but afterwards, when the Athenians had brought force to bear on them by laying waste their land, they had become open enemies of Athens.

In the end “the Melians surrendered unconditionally to the Athenians, who put to death all the men of military age whom they took, and sold the women and children as slaves.”

In 1776 American patriots faced an armada of British ships and the choice of liberty versus the imposing of slavery by force by one culture upon another culture.

The Founding Fathers chose liberty, which led to war, the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers gave war a chance to change the course of human history. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, put it succinctly when he wrote, and the Founding Fathers signed, on July 4, 1776:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Many remember this special day by its date rather than by the declaration signed on July 4, 1776. Our Founding Fathers understood that war was the only way to liberty. They understood that God is a man of war in the never ending battle between good and evil.  As Ezekiel 7:25 reads:

Destruction cometh; and they shall seek peace, and there shall be none.

Today is Independence Day. Let none forget the document which was signed on that faithful day in 1776.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire:
Josiah BartlettWilliam WhippleMatthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John HancockSamuel AdamsJohn AdamsRobert Treat PaineElbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen HopkinsWilliam Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger ShermanSamuel HuntingtonWilliam WilliamsOliver Wolcott

New York:
William FloydPhilip LivingstonFrancis LewisLewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard StocktonJohn WitherspoonFrancis HopkinsonJohn HartAbraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert MorrisBenjamin RushBenjamin FranklinJohn MortonGeorge ClymerJames SmithGeorge TaylorJames WilsonGeorge Ross

Delaware:
Caesar RodneyGeorge ReadThomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel ChaseWilliam PacaThomas StoneCharles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George WytheRichard Henry LeeThomas JeffersonBenjamin HarrisonThomas Nelson, Jr.Francis Lightfoot LeeCarter Braxton

North Carolina:
William HooperJoseph HewesJohn Penn

South Carolina:
Edward RutledgeThomas Heyward, Jr.Thomas Lynch, Jr.Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button GwinnettLyman HallGeorge Walton

 

6 Reasons Trump was Right on the Paris Climate Accords

The dystopian world-is-ending crowd had a heyday when President Trump kept his campaign promise to pull out of the accords and protect the American people. They really should have stayed on their meds.

Before we go through the very sound reasons for Trump pulling the U.S. out, it’s worth getting a sampling of just how fevered the reaction has been. Here are a few of the Chicken Little tweets following Trump’s announcement:

  • “Trump just declared war on the very idea of life on earth.” Trita Parsi, Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order Recipient. (TRA translation: You must now stop even thinking about earth or be attacked!)
  • “If Trump pulls the US out of the Paris Agreement he will be committing a traitorous act of war against the American people.” Billionaire and supposed environmentalist Tom Steyer. (TRA translation: Trump is a traitor. Impeach him!)
  • “Pulling out of the Paris Agreement would be a massive step back for racial justice, and an assault on communities of color across the U.S.” ACLU National tweet. (TRA translation: It’s racist.)
  • “If Trump is pulling out of Paris, he is turning his back on the public in every single US state.” Sierra Club. (TRA translation: Trump hates Americans.)
  • “As a species we flunked the collective action problem that is carbon emissions. It’s now adapt or die.” Christopher Mims, Wall Street Journal. (TRA translation: People be stupid.)
  • “Serious question-Can millions of people launch a class action suit if the US pulls out of Paris accord for negligence?” Actress Patricia Arquette. (TRA: Serious answer: Yes. In November 2020. Read your Constitution.)
  • And finally (and enough for now) the Huffington Post’s top headline on the decision: “TRUMP TO PLANET: DROP DEAD” (TRA translation: Trump’s mean. And dumb. And mean.)

Why this is just so much silliness

For all of the hyperbolic screechings of the climate change brood, there were several very sound reasons for the U.S. pulling out.

And what’s important to remember is that every one of these points holds true even if you accept the most dire warnings of the global warming alarmists. But if it is true that the global temperatures are rising quickly as a direct and primary result of human use of fossil fuels, all of these points remain legitimate to the specifics of the Paris Accords.

  • Virtually nothing would be gained on global warming. According to a Heritage Foundation study: “…using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change developed by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures” by 2100. And the accords were only looking at a few percentage point reduction. So, negligible at best. MIT came to the same conclusion. The agreement actually would have almost no impact on global temperatures. So explain the above tweets again?

  • Dramatic U.S. economic damage. The Heritage Foundation study found an overall average loss of nearly 400,000 jobs; an average manufacturing shortfall of more than 200,000 jobs; a total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four; an aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and an increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.

  • The risk-reward ratio for the U.S. was awful. So combine our facts. The economic impact from the accords would be nearly catastrophic to the U.S. Guaranteed. But the benefits would be minimal at best, and the models constructing those benefits are hard to trust as they have been wrong for nearly two decades. It was a reckless set of accords — except for the people safely ensconced in those negotiating rooms in swank hotels around the world, flying in on private jets fueled by fossil fuels.

  • The accords were voluntary and unenforceable. And some of the biggest contributors would never abide by them. China, for instance, signed the accords, but stipulated they would not begin implementing any emission goals until 2030 — not coincidentally the year that the agreement runs out. But they get credit for signing it. In fact, all of the nations that signed on and are the fastest climbing carbon emitters would do nothing to curb their use. But they would gain economic advantage.

  • Risk losing national sovereignty. This agreement — negotiated remember by President Obama with no Senate approval — set the U.S. on the path to allowing a global organization, maybe headquartered in Europe, to control domestic policy. That, of course, spells ultimately the end of the Great American Experiment, and that is not hyperbole. We have no effective Constitution if other countries can set our policies. In his announcement, Trump said: “…our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty. Our constitution is unique among all nations of the world. And it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it…” Absolutely correct.

  • The media coverage is wholly untrustworthy. A whole lot of people are being led to a conclusion, not provided impartial data. Never ever forget the “journalists” who were covering the Paris Accords who spontaneously responded with clapping and dancing and hugging like they were Greenpeace activists. You really have to watch the 13-second clip. So, like many of the climate change scientists, it is impossible for any average or above-average American to trust the climate change journalism gang.

For some great historical context on the untrustworthy combination of science and journalism on this topic, the 1990 Today Show program reported “facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument.” Again, worth watching the short clip.

There is a rational case for convening an impartial  panel — meaning a panel of scientists and others who think the warming is man-made and those who do not and those who think it is overstated — to truly study and verify the data without a one-sided agenda. This panel could include investigating the data we know was corrupted to make it look like there is more warming than there is. And then posting as directly to the web and people as possible to bypass the untrustworthy climate change media.

Without that, too many people are suspicious. And the worthlessness of these accords on global warming only furthers that suspicion.

A no-brainer to pull out

And finally, pulling out of the Paris Accords was a Trump campaign promise. He made promises, was duly elected and has been keeping them. This was one of those. It’s unusual in Washington, but a good thing.

This agreement was all risk for the United States and very little reward for the climate, even accepting the global warming assumptions.

The well-being of the American people was put in grave harm’s way. Any good President should stand against such an agreement. Obama made the agreement, knowing that it harmed the country. Trump removed us, knowing that doing so was good for the country. And there is virtually no harm by the climate models by doing so.

That is such a kicker. Unfortunately, millions persuaded of the horribleness of this deed may never really know that because they are trusting the climate change journalists for information.

Looking at this accord in its entirety suggests there were a lot of countries that were using it as a tool to gain an economic advantage on the United States. It had nothing to do with climate change for them.

Trump was absolutely right to keep his promise and protect the American people by pulling out of it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Government Does Not Belong in Our Showers by Daniel J. Mitchell

When I write about regulation, I usually focus on big-picture issues involving economic costs, living standards, and competitiveness.

Those are very important concerns, but the average person in American probably gets more irked by rules that impact the quality of life.

That’s a grim list, but it’s time to augment it.

Showering with Disapproval

Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education explains that the government also has made showering a less pleasant experience. He starts by expressing envy about Brazilian showers.

…was shocked with delight at the shower in Brazil. …step into the shower and you have a glorious capitalist experience. Hot water, really hot, pours down on you like a mighty and unending waterfall… At least the socialists in Brazil knew better than to destroy such an essential of civilized life.

I know what he’s talking about.

I’m in a hotel (not in Brazil), and my shower this morning was a tedious experience because the water flow was so anemic.

Why would a hotel not want customers to have an enjoyable and quick shower?

The answer is government.

…here we’ve forgotten. We have long lived with regulated showers, plugged up with a stopper imposed by government controls imposed in 1992. There was no public announcement. It just happened gradually. After a few years, you couldn’t buy a decent shower head. They called it a flow restrictor and said it would increase efficiency. By efficiency, the government means “doesn’t work as well as it used to.” …You can see the evidence of the bureaucrat in your shower if you pull off the showerhead and look inside. It has all this complicated stuff inside, whereas it should just be an open hole, you know, so the water could get through. The flow stopper is mandated by the federal government.

The problem isn’t just the water coming out of the showerhead. It’s the water coming into your home.

It’s not just about the showerhead. The water pressure in our homes and apartments has been gradually getting worse for two decades, thanks to EPA mandates on state and local governments. This has meant that even with a good showerhead, the shower is not as good as it might be. It also means that less water is running through our pipes, causing lines to clog and homes to stink just slightly like the sewer. This problem is much more difficult to fix, especially because plumbers are forbidden by law from hacking your water pressure.

Bureaucratic Design

So why are politicians and bureaucrats imposing these rules?

Ostensibly for purposes of conservation.

…what about the need to conserve water? Well, the Department of the Interior says that domestic water use, which includes even the water you use on your lawn and flower beds, constitutes a mere 2% of the total, so this unrelenting misery spread by government regulations makes hardly a dent in the whole. In any case, what is the point of some vague sense of “conserving” when the whole purpose of modern appliances and indoor plumbing is to improve our lives and sanitation? (Free societies have a method for knowing how much of something to use or not use; it is called the signaling system of prices.)

Jeffrey is right. If there really is a water shortage (as there sometimes is in parts of the country and world), then prices are the best way of encouraging conservation.

Now let’s dig in the archives of the Wall Street Journal for a 2010 column on the showerhead issue.

Apparently bureaucrats are irked that builders and consumers used multiple showerheads to boost the quality of their daily showers.

Regulators are going after some of the luxury shower fixtures that took off in the housing boom. Many have multiple nozzles, cost thousands of dollars and emit as many as 12 gallons of water a minute. In May, the DOE stunned the plumbing-products industry when it said it would adopt a strict definition of the term “showerhead”…

A 1992 federal law says a showerhead can deliver no more than 2.5 gallons per minute at a flowing water pressure of 80 pounds per square inch. For years, the term “showerhead” in federal regulations was understood by many manufacturers to mean a device that directs water onto a bather. Each nozzle in a shower was considered separate and in compliance if it delivered no more than the 2.5-gallon maximum.

But in May, the DOE said a “showerhead” may incorporate “one or more sprays, nozzles or openings.” Under the new interpretation, all nozzles would count as a single showerhead and be deemed noncompliant if, taken together, they exceed the 2.5 gallons-a-minute maximum.

You’ve Got to Be Kidding

And here’s something that’s both amusing and depressing.

The regulations are so crazy that an entrepreneur didn’t think they were real.

Altmans Products, a U.S. unit of Grupo Helvex of Mexico City, says it got a letter from the DOE in January and has stopped selling several popular models, including the Shower Rose, which delivers 12 gallons of water a minute. Pedro Mier, the firm’s vice president, says his customers “just like to feel they’re getting a lot of water.” Until getting the DOE letter, his firm didn’t know U.S. law limited showerhead water usage, Mr. Mier says. “At first, I thought it was a scam.”

Unsurprisingly, California is “leading” the way. Here are some passages from an article in the L.A. Times from almost two years ago.

The flow of water from showerheads and bathroom faucets in California will be sharply reduced under strict new limits approved Wednesday by the state Energy Commission. Current rules, established in 1994 at the federal level, allow a maximum flow of 2.5 gallons per minute from a shower head. Effective next July, the limit will fall to 2.0 gallons per minute and will be reduced again in July 2018, to 1.8 gallons, giving California the toughest standard of any U.S. state.

Though “toughest standard” is the wrong way to describe what’s happening. It’s actually the “worst shower” of any state.

P.S. I forget the quality of shower I experienced in South Korea, but I was very impressed (see postscript) by the toilet.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

Steadfast Czechs Fight on Against EU Gun Control

The European Union’s new restrictions on firearms ownership were finalized on May 24, when the misguided changes to the European Firearms Directive were published in the political bloc’s Official Journal. Despite this setback, the Czech Republic has made clear that the country will continue its fight for European firearms freedom.

To quickly recap, following the November 13, 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the EU expedited plans to curtail gun ownership across the political union. Of most concern to European gun owners was a new restriction on the ownership of certain types of semi-automatic firearms. However, the legislation also included more stringent requirements for member state-issued firearms licenses, and measures that implicated gun owner privacy. After significant negotiations between the European Parliament and European Council to reform the European Commission’s flawed draft, the final contours of the legislation were agreed to last December. Since the announcement of the European Commission’s draft proposal, the Czech Republic has been among the harshest critics of the gun control legislation. 

On June 14, Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka announced the country’s intention to challenge the new restrictions in the European Court of Justice. Reporting on the development, Agence France-Presse quoted Czech Interior Minister Milan Chovanec, who stated, “We cannot allow the EU to interfere in the position of member states and their citizens under the guise of fighting terrorism” adding, “I’m not happy about the complaint but we have no other option.”

The move came after deliberation by the Czech government, during which some Czech politicians were reluctant to challenge the new controls. However, throughout the process, Chovanec was adamant about the need to confront the new restrictions. On June 8, the Czech News Agency reported that the Interior Minister viewed the EU’s arguments about thwarting terrorism a “mere pretext” to impose the new controls. Expressing his severe disdain for the EU’s gun controls, Chovanec noted “In my opinion, the directive should not be implemented even if it meant that Europe will sanction the country.”

The Czech Republic has a strong tradition of civilian gun ownership and firearms manufacturing, and in recent years has made significant efforts to protect their proud heritage. In addition to confronting the changes to the European Firearms Directive directly, some Czech politicians have supported a change to the Czech constitution that would guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Further, in July 2016, Czech President Milos Zeman expressed his support for an armed citizenry to confront terrorist threats.

The Czechs have until August 17 to file their formal complaint against the new European Firearms Directive with the European Court of Justice. NRA-ILA will continue to follow the Czechs in their crucial struggle for freedom and apprise U.S. gun owners of any new developments.