Libertarians have a standard set of fundamental criticisms of the welfare state.
Forced charity is unjust. Individuals have a moral right to decide if and when they want to help others.
Forced charity is unnecessary. In a free market, voluntary donations are enough to provide for the truly poor.
Forced charity gives recipients bad incentives. If the government takes care of you, you’re less likely to take care of yourself by work and saving.
The cost of forced charity is high and growing rapidly, leading to a future of exorbitant taxes or financial crisis.
Taken together, I think these criticisms justify the radical libertarian view that the welfare state should be abolished. But this is an extremely unpopular view, so it’s natural for libertarians to consider more moderate reforms like the Universal Basic Income. And when you’re considering moderate reforms, the right question to ask isn’t: “Is it ideal?” but “Is it better than the status quo?”
My claim: The Universal Basic Income is indeed worse than the status quo. In fact, all the fundamental criticisms of the welfare state apply with even greater force.
Some forced charity is more unjust than other forced charity. Forcing people to help others who can’thelp themselves – like kids from poor families or the severely disabled – is at least defensible. Forcing people to help everyoneis not. And for all its faults, at least the status quo makes some effort to target people who can’t help themselves. The whole idea of the Universal Basic Income, in contrast, is of course, to give money to everyone whether they need it or not. Of course, the UBI formula normally reduces the net payment as income rises; but if a perfectly able-bodied person chooses never to work, the UBI gravy train never stops.
The UBI is an extremely wasteful form of forced charity. Helping the small minority of people who can’t help themselves doesn’t cost much. Giving an unconditional grant to every citizen wastes an enormous amount of money. If you were running a private charity, it would never even occur to you to “help everyone,” because it’s such a frivolous use of scarce charitable resources. Instead, you’d target spending to do the most good. And unlike the UBI, the status quo makes someeffort to so target its resources.
Overall, the UBI probablygives even worse incentives than the status quo. Defenders of the UBI correctly point out that it might improve incentives for people who are alreadyon welfare. Under the status quo, earning another $1 of legal income can easily reduce your welfare by a $1, implying a marginal tax rate of 100%. But under the status quo, vast populations are ineligible for most programs. Such as? You guys! If you’re an able-bodied adult, aged 18-64, who doesn’t have custody of any minor children, the current system doesn’t give you much. Switching to a UBI would expand the familiar perverse effects of the welfare state to the entire population – including you. And if taxes rise to pay for the UBI, the population-wide disincentives are even worse.
A politically acceptable UBI would be insanely expensive. Libertarian economist and UBI advocate Ed Dolan has a detailed, fiscally viable plan to provide a UBI of $4452 per person per year. But every non-libertarian I’ve queried thinks it should be at least $10,000 per person per year. Even with a one-third flat tax, that implies that a family of four would have to make $120,000 a year before it paid $1 of taxes. This is pie in the sky.
But doesn’t the UBI give people their freedom? In some socialist sense, sure. But libertarianism isn’t about the freedom to be coercively supported by strangers. It’s about the freedom to be left alone by strangers.
If abolition of the welfare state is extremely unlikely and the UBI is worse than the status quo, does this mean libertarians should accept the welfare state as it is? Not at all. There’s a straightforward moderate path to a freer world: AUSTERITY. Cut benefits. Restrict eligibility. Remind the world of the great Forgotten Man: the taxpayer. We probably can’t convince the majority to end the welfare state. But “Welfare should be limited to genuinely poor people who can’t help themselves” has broad appeal – and unlike the UBI, it’s a clear step in the libertarian direction.
Bryan Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University, research fellow at the Mercatus Center, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and blogger for EconLog. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/universal-basic-income-e1487762623758.jpg367640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2017-02-22 06:23:512017-02-22 06:24:09VIDEO: Universal Basic Income is Even Worse than Welfare by Bryan Caplan
The Canadian Border Security Agency says Quebec is now the flashpoint for “asylum seekers” or double refugees who first entered the U.S. as refugees and are now fleeing there and trying to sneak into Canada over fears that President Donald Trump will have them deported.
The asylum seekers are graciously accepting the warm welcome from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who responded to Trump’s ban by saying they were welcome to Canada.
Trudeau has not paid attention to the fateful, historic mistake Angela Merkel made in her once-enthusiastic welcome of refugees into Germany, which turned out to be disastrous for Germany and for her politically.
“Illegal Refugees Now Streaming Across Quebec-New York Border”, by David Krayden, Daily Caller, February 14, 2017:
Despite all the media reports of refugees illegally entering Canada from the U.S. at remote Manitoba crossings, more are actually getting through along the Quebec-New York border — and it can be just as cold as the temperatures reported along the prairies that have sometimes induced frostbite.
The Canadian Border Security Agency says Quebec is now the flashpoint for “asylum seekers” or double refugees who first entered the U.S. as refugees and are now fleeing there and trying to sneak into Canada over fears that President Donald Trump will have them deported.
The numbers speak for themselves, with 42 asylum claimants showing up at the Quebec border last weekend alone and 452 for January — a 230 percent increase from the year before.
RCMP spokesman Cpl Camille Habel told CBC News that he attributes the popularity of the Quebec border to its relative closeness to major U.S. cities like New York and Washington, D.C. and the fact that international airports are nearby.
“Bigger cities on each side can mean more people trying to cross here.”
The “refugees” are deliberately crossing illegally so they can bypass the Safe Third Country Agreement, which is supposed to prevent people seeking asylum from choosing more than one “safe” destination when the flee their country of origin. The U.S. and Canada are both considered safe under this international legislation. But, paradoxically, the act only applies at legal border crossings; so double refugees are crossing illegally in order avoid their official refugee status from being questioned.
But the agreement only holds at official border crossings, so people crossing illegally into Canada are able to apply for asylum here, even if they arrived in the U.S. first.
Julie Lessard, who specializes in business immigration law, told the CBC that the current illegal flow of refugee claimants that is spreading across the longest undefended border in the world is fast becoming the status quo….
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/canada-refugees-welcome-e1487279383530.jpg380640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2017-02-16 16:09:572017-02-16 16:09:57Problem Solved: Asylum seekers streaming into Quebec to escape Trump order
Honor The Earth (HTE) was established in 1993 by Winona LaDuke and the Indigo Girls music duo, Amy Ray and Emily Saliers. LaDuke has served as the group’s executive director since its inception.
HTE’s twofold mission is to “create awareness and support for Native environmental issues,” and to “develop needed financial and political resources for the survival of sustainable Native communities.” Reasoning from the premise that capitalist economic policies are inherently harmful to the natural environment and to poor people, the organization maintains that “a sustainable world is predicated on transforming economic, social, and political relationships that have been based on systems of conquest, toward systems based on just relationships with each other and with the natural world.” Favoring a blend of socialism and radical environmentalism, HTE aims to “restor[e] a paradigm that recognizes our collective humanity and our joint dependence on the Earth.”
“With climate change quickly becoming a reality,” says HTE, “Indigenous peoples around the globe are feeling the [e]ffects of droughts, floods and other climate catastrophes.” To address these matters, the organization calls for the rapid development of “renewable energy” technologies in the form of wind and solar power, so as to “transform a highly inefficient and exploitative energy production system into one that is safe and clean, a transformation that would signify an era of energy justice.”
HTE condemns “the rise of a highly inefficient American industrial society on our lands,” a reference to mining enterprises in the heart of Anishinaabe territory in the Keewenaw Bay (an arm of Lake Superior) and the Mesabe Iron Range of Minnesota. Noting, in a similar vein, that the regions of Diné Bii Kaya, the Crow Nation, the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, and the Powder River Basin are “home to one-third of all western coal reserves,” HTE complains that “this land has been exploited for over fifty years for coal mining.” HTE also opposes the oil and gas extraction method known as fracking, because “methane and [other] dangerous materials are released” in the process, potentially “pollut[ing] the aquifers that sustain the life of our communities in a way that can’t be fixed.” Describing the United States as a “highly extractive” society whose “highly inefficient” energy policies have rendered the earth irreparably “scorched” and damaged, HTE “is interested in the transition from this destructive economy and way of life, back towards land-based economics,” where “intergenerational and inter-species equity are valued.”
HTE claims that “there is an epidemic of sexual violence being perpetrated [by oil-industry workers] against indigenous women in the Great Lakes region, driven by extreme extraction in the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota and the Tar Sands of Alberta.” The “context” of “this epidemic,” says HTE, is America’s “history of colonization, genocide, and systemic violence against Indigenous peoples, which has always disproportionately affected women and girls.” To address the problem, HTE “is working with a coalition of women’s and Native American organizations to convene ongoing hearings and investigations.” As its first action, this coalition requested a formal intervention by the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Important past campaigns conducted by HTE include the following:
The “Standing Strong for Carbon Regulation in New Mexico” campaign sought to severely restrict the degree to which utility, oil, and gas companies – which were allegedly “taking advantage of New Mexico families, low-income families, and minority communities by poisoning the air” – could “bur[n] coal and other fossil fuels” and thereby “releas[e] mass amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air.” To address the matter, HTE supported a petition that had been filed before the Environmental Improvement Board, calling for a 25 percent reduction (by 2020) in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels.
The “Dooda Desert Rock” campaign aimed to prevent the construction of a proposed 1,500-megawatt mine-mouth plant in the Four Corners Region of the Navajo Reservation. By HTE’s telling, “Desert Rock would … emit 12.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, the primary greenhouse gas causing global warming. Along with greenhouse gases, the plant would emit pollutants associated with asthma, pulmonary disease, increased rates of heart attack and stroke and increased rates of birth defects and developmental delays.”
The “Stop The Tar Sands” campaign called for an end to the extraction of crude oil from the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, on the premise that the extraction process was highly destructive to the environment and to public health. Said HTE: “The downstream Indigenous community of Ft. Chipewyan has unheard-of rates of rare cancers. The fish are not safe to eat, and the land is littered with toxic ponds and craters.”
The “Stop The Big Stone II Plant” campaign pressured the Otter Tail Power Company to withdraw its commitment to the construction of a proposed 580-megawatt coal-fired power plant called “Big Stone II” in South Dakota. By HTE’s telling, the plant’s coal emissions would inevitably “poison the air and water of the nearby Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate [tribes]”
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/honor-the-earth-composit-e1487240748421.jpg368640Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2017-02-16 05:26:012017-02-16 05:55:04Honor The Earth: Trashing Capitalism in the Name of the Environment
On Friday, February 10, 2017, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos sent to state superintendents a letter regarding the formulation of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) plans.
In short, she notes that the ESSA guidance composed under the direction of former US Ed Sec John King could be scrapped by Congress but that states should continue drafting plans knowing that any revised ESSA guide will include fewer requirements, not more.
In her February 10, 2017, letter, DeVos also offers what appears to be an olive leaf to Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) by specifically mentioning education of homeless youth, a major concern of Murray’s. (Prior to DeVos’ confirmation, Murray asked DeVos numerous questions in writing about the care of homeless youth; Murray also voted against DeVos’ confirmation.)
Thank you for the important work you and stakeholders in your State are engaged in to develop new State plans and transition to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). I am writing today to assure you that I fully intend to implement and enforce the statutory requirements of the ESSA. Additionally, I want to provide you with an update on the timeline, procedures, and criteria under which a State Educational Agency (SEA) may submit a State plan, including a consolidated State plan, to the Department. States should continue to follow the timeline for developing and submitting their State plans to the Department for review and approval.
On November 29, 2016, the Department issued final regulations regarding statewide accountability systems and data reporting under Title I of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and the preparation of State plans, including consolidated State plans. However, in accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2017, the Department has delayed the effective date of regulations concerning accountability and State plans under the ESSA until March 21, 2017, to permit further review for questions of law and policy that the regulations might raise. Additionally, Congress is currently considering a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. §§ 801- 808) to overturn these regulations. If a resolution of disapproval is enacted, these regulations “shall have no force or effect.”
In a Dear Colleague Letter dated November 29, 2016, the Department notified SEAs that it would accept consolidated State plans on two dates: April 3 or September 18, 2017. The Department also released a Consolidated State Plan Template that States were required to use if they submit a consolidated State plan. Due to the regulatory delay and review, and the potential repeal of recent regulations by Congress, the Department is currently reviewing the regulatory requirements of consolidated State plans, as reflected in the current template, to ensure that they require only descriptions, information, assurances, and other materials that are “absolutely necessary” for consideration of a consolidated State plan, consistent with section 8302(b)(3) of the ESEA. In doing so, the Department, in consultation with SEAs as well as other State and local stakeholders, will develop a revised template for consolidated State plans that meets the “absolutely necessary” requirement by March 13, 2017. The Department may also consider allowing a State or group of States to work together to develop a consolidated State plan template that meets the Department’s identified requirements through the Council of Chief State School Officers.
The regulatory delay and review, and the potential repeal of recent regulations by Congress, should not adversely affect or delay the progress that States have already made in developing their State plans and transitioning to the ESSA. The Department will be notifying States and the public of the revised template once it becomes available. In the meantime, States should continue their work in engaging with stakeholders and developing their plans based on the requirements under section 8302(b)(3) of the ESEA. In doing so, States may consider using the existing template as a guide, as any revised template will not result in descriptions, information, assurances, or other materials that States will be required to provide other than those already required under the ESEA. The Department will still accept consolidated State plans on April 3 or September 18, 2017.
For your reference, the following programs may be included in a consolidated State plan:
Title I, part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies;
Title I, part C: Education of Migratory Children;
Title I, part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk;
Title II, part A: Supporting Effective Instruction;
Title III, part A: English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act;
Title IV, part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants;
Title IV, part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers; and
Title V, part B, subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School Program.
In addition, pursuant to ESEA section 8302(a)(1)(B), I am designating the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program under subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act as a program that may be included in an SEA’s consolidated State plan.
I appreciate the hard work and thoughtful attention you are giving to implementing the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. I understand that a great deal of work has already gone into the planning and preparation of your State plans, whether that is a consolidated State plan or individual program plans. One of my main priorities as Secretary is to ensure that States and local school districts have clarity during the early implementation of the law. Additionally, I want to ensure that regulations comply with the requirements of the law, provide the State and local flexibility that Congress intended, and do not impose unnecessary burdens. In the near future, the Department will provide more information on its review of existing regulations, as well as additional guidance and technical assistance.
We have a unique opportunity as we implement the ESSA. I look forward to working with you, districts, and parents to ensure every child has the opportunity to pursue excellence and achieve their hopes and dreams.
Still, Trump could not divert the money without Congressional approval. And so far, given her letter included above, there is no indication from DeVos that any Congressional efforts at ESSA Title I defunding is in the works….
This bill repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and limits the authority of the Department of Education (ED) such that ED is authorized only to award block grants to qualified states.
The bill establishes an education voucher program, through which each state shall distribute block grant funds among local educational agencies (LEAs) based on the number of eligible children within each LEA’s geographical area. From these amounts, each LEA shall: (1) distribute a portion of funds to parents who elect to enroll their child in a private school or to home-school their child, and (2) do so in a manner that ensures that such payments will be used for appropriate educational expenses.
To be eligible to receive a block grant, a state must: (1) comply with education voucher program requirements, and (2) make it lawful for parents of an eligible child to elect to enroll their child in any public or private elementary or secondary school in the state or to home-school their child.
HR 610 would also allow states to feed kids less healthy food:
No Hungry Kids Act
The bill repeals a specified rule that established certain nutrition standards for the national school lunch and breakfast programs. (In general, the rule requires schools to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat free milk in school meals; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat in school meals; and meet children’s nutritional needs within their caloric requirements.)
HR 610 is an extreme bill. Whether it gets out of the House Committee of Education and the Workforce remains to be seen.
More likely, Trump and DeVos will issue a joint press release about a much more scaled-down version of a *competition* to entice states in the direction of portability of funding– a *Vouchers to the Top*, of sorts.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/us-doe-logo-e1493157017491.jpg270275Mercedes Schneiderhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercedes Schneider2017-02-14 05:22:152017-02-14 06:06:40U.S. Ed Sec Betsy DeVos’ Letter to State Superintendents Re: ESSA State Plans
President Abraham Lincoln knew what to do with an intransigent bureaucracy bent on sabotage.
Can the Presidency of the United States be sabotaged? The answer is a resounding yes!
The Democrats have without a doubt embarked upon a road to delay Presidential appointments and sabotage him and his agenda whenever and where ever it can. They sponsor mass hostile rallies, disinformation, misrepresentation and vilification in their arsenal and will and are using the Courts to derail the President’s agenda notwithstanding the damage it will do to the Country.
However the Federal bureaucracy is the most dangerous of all because it is is their financial interest to damage Trumps presidency. They fear Trump will reduce the size of government and its bureaucracy.
Politically the bureaucracy is overwhelming hostile to the President.
President Trump will soon discover that federal bureaucrats are far more hostile, destructive, and obstructionist than federal judges.
Ninety-five percent of federal bureaucrats’ donations were for Clinton (99 percent at the State Department, 97 percent at the Department of Justice), so it is clear there will be continuing resistance to President Trump’s policies.
And the intense hostility of the Left will encourage these pro-Clinton bureaucrats to feel noble about undermining and betraying the president.
Eventually, President Trump will be faced with a choice: either dramatically shrink his goals and accommodate the Left or learn from Abraham Lincoln and force bold, deep change on the bureaucracy.
Once he took office, Lincoln fired almost 80 percent of federal employees. This aggressiveness enabled him to replace pro-secession bureaucrats, who would have ensured the North lost the war, with pro-Union enthusiasts who helped him win.
Allen Guelzo, a Henry R. Luce professor of the Civil War era and the director of the Civil War Era Studies Program at Gettysburg College, has written on Lincoln’s experience. The Trump team should meet with Guelzo. He writes:
“Until the 1883 Pendleton Act every federal office-holder – from cabinet secretaries to postmasters – could be removed without cause or explanation by the president. And since federal appointments generally paid better than their private-sector equivalents, competition for these jobs was intense, and tended to be handed out as compensation for political services. In the 19th century, political parties did not command huge campaign chests of their own; political operatives worked largely in the expectation that their time and services would be paid-for by appointment to political office. That, in turn, meant that presidents guarded their appointment powers jealously, since dangling the prospect of federal jobs was the surest way of guaranteeing the loyalty of a political party’s ground-game.
“Lincoln was fully as willing to work the patronage lever when he became president. Lincoln’s White House staffer, William O. Stoddard, remembered that Lincoln hired and fired federal office-holders with dizzying energy. ‘I doubt if ever before there was so general displacement as at the beginning of Mr. Lincoln’s term.’ Partly, this was because patronage appointments remained the principal means of securing political loyalty. But it was also a matter of ‘draining the swamp.’ Lincoln, as the first Republican – and first anti-slavery – president, came to Washington after six decades of almost-uninterrupted Democratic dominance of the executive branch. Successive Democratic presidents, from Thomas Jefferson to James Buchanan, had stocked federal offices with pro-slavery Southern appointees who would not shrink from sabotaging the presidency of Lincoln, ‘the Black Republican.’
“As Stoddard explained, ‘the departments fairly swarmed with the family dependents and connections of the Southern political magnates who then, for so long a time, had controlled the dominant party.’ John Floyd, a Virginian who had been Secretary of War under Lincoln’s predecessor, had actually arranged to ship artillery and munitions to Southern arsenals before leaving office in the expectation that these could then be seized by Southern secessionists. But the possibility of betrayal from within was not limited to Southern Democratic appointees. ‘Many of the men from the North were strong Southern sympathizers,’ Stoddard explained, ‘and so accustomed were they to consider their offices their property that even avowed secessionists considered themselves bitterly injured when required to make way for more loyal men.’
“So, once in office in 1861, Lincoln did not hesitate to purge the executive branch of anything which hinted at disloyalty. Of the 1,520 executive branch positions immediately under Lincoln’s oversight, Lincoln fired 1,195 of their occupants, which amounted to ‘the most sweeping removal of federal officeholders in the country’s history up to that time.’ Lincoln especially ‘liked to provide for his friends, who were often remembered gratefully for services given him in his early struggles in life,’ wrote Noah Brooks, who was himself in line to receive a White House appointment at the time of Lincoln’s death. ‘Sometimes he would ‘break the slate,’ as he called it, of those who were making up a list of appointments, that he might insert the name of some old acquaintance who had befriended him in days when friends were few.’
“Lincoln also cast a keen eye on patronage appointments which were technically under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General. In August, 1861, Lincoln notified James Pollock, the director of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, to find a job for an Illinois political operative at the mint. When Pollock hesitated, Lincoln tartly wrote to him:
My dear Sir, You must make a job of it, and provide a place for the bearer of this, Elias Wampole. Make a job of it with the Collector, and have it done. You can do it for me, and you must. Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN
“As Emanuel Hertz wrote in The Wizardry of Lincoln’s Political Appointments and Party Management, ‘Lincoln never abdicated his power of appointing and filing the appointive position in his administration. He had no general almoner or dispenser of patronage. He looked into every appointment himself and no matter how low were the fortunes of war he was always read to consider the strengthening of the party in one place or another by judicious distribution of patronage.’”
Within a month or two it will be clear that large elements of the federal bureaucracy are dedicated leftists who believe it is their duty to stop the Trump Administration and destroy it if possible.
The challenge to President Trump and his team is going to be real and unavoidable.
RELATED VIDEO: How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of VOX.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-lincoln-1-e1486845288129.jpg360640Robert Hellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Heller2017-02-11 15:34:592017-02-13 07:25:28Presidents Trump and Lincoln and Managing the Bureaucracies
On Monday, the Washington Post reported on a “white paper” written by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Associate Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Ronald Turk that outlines several changes that ATF could make to decrease the burdens placed on gun owners and the firearms industry while maintaining public safety. Titled “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations” and dated January 20, 2017, the document covers a raft of issues that NRA has previously worked to address, and vindicates NRA’s long-held contentions about the dubious efficacy of many firearms regulations. While the white paper does fail to address some of the legitimate concerns of gun owners in certain areas, the majority of document should serve to inform ATF regulatory reform efforts moving forward.
The document correctly concludes that “There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.” And to this end, the paper individually addresses a handful of areas where regulation could be curtailed.
[Click here to read “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations” by ATF Associate Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Ronald Turk.]
Sporting Purposes Test
Under 18 U.S.C. § 925(d), “The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition… is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”
Infamously known as the “sporting purposes test,” this portion of federal law has been used as justification to prohibit the importation of certain types of firearms to the U.S. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush used the sporting purposes test to bar the importation of 43 types of semi-automatic rifles. Unsatisfied with the breadth of the Bush ban, President Bill Clinton used this provision to ban the importation of 58 additional types of semi-automatic rifles. The abuse of the law was so evident that Clinton White House staffer Jose Cerda remarked, “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”
In challenging the legitimacy of the current configuration of the sporting purposes test, the paper notes the increasing use of semi-automatic firearms in the modern shooting sports. Turk explains,
Since the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004, the use of AR-15s, AK-style, and similar rifles now commonly referred to as “modern sporting rifles” has increased exponentially in sport shooting. These firearm types are now standard for hunting activities. ATF could re-examine its almost 20-year-old study to bring it up to date with the sport shooting landscape of today, which is vastly different than what it was years ago. Action shooting sports and organizations such as 3 Gun and the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) have also drastically expanded in recent years.
This would be a departure from ATF policy, which has historically dismissed the modern shooting sports when making sporting purposes determinations. As recently as July 2012, when ATF released an update to their “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns,” the agency rejected arguments by public commenters that practical shooting competitions should come within the definition of sporting purposes. Straining to deny the legitimate sporting uses of many semi-automatic shotguns, ATF compared the number of members of the United States Practical Shooting Association to the obviously much larger total number of licensed hunters in the U.S. The difference, ATF contended, showed that the modern shooting sports should have no bearing on determining whether a firearm is “suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” Turk’s recognition of this folly is a welcome development.
The paper goes on to explain that the import bans do not advance a public policy goal. Turk notes, “Restriction on imports serves questionable public safety interests, as these rifles are already generally legally available for manufacture and ownership in the United States.”
In recent years, NRA has worked to roll back state laws that restrict the possession or use of suppressors. This, and advances in the industry, have led to something of a renaissance in the production and use of firearm suppressors. The increasing popularity of these devices, and their health benefits for shooters, has led NRA, pro-gun lawmakers, and even Donald Trump Jr., to lead an effort to remove suppressors from the registration and tax burdens imposed by the National Firearms Act.
It appears at least some in ATF acknowledge the benefits of suppressors and support their removal from the NFA. The white paper notes, “In the past several years, opinions about silencers have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized.”
The paper goes on to explain the outmoded nature of the current regulation of suppressors and that removing the devices from the NFA poses little public safety risk, as they are rarely used in crime. Turk notes,
While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the [Gun Control Act].
In 1993, President Bill Clinton directed the Treasury Department to further scrutinize Federal Firearms Licensees and applicants in order to reduce the overall number of firearms dealers. These efforts had the effect of significantly reducing the number of FFLs in the country, eliminating many small dealers who operated out of their homes.
The white paper contemplates efforts to loosen some of the business-related requirements for obtaining an FFL. The paper notes,
The marketplace has changed significantly in recent years, and ATF’s guidance to FFLs on these issues has not kept pace with developments in commerce. Classic “brick and mortar” storefronts with an on-hand inventory and set “front-door” business hours often no longer apply in today’s modern marketplace.
This, Turk explains, “would have no negative impact to public safety” and – in his view – might have salutary effects, as it “would encourage more sales and business through a licensee.”
Further, Turk discusses permitting FFLs to conduct sales at gun shows outside of the state in which they are licensed. Permitting such sales, Turk argues, “would have no detrimental effect on public safety.”
Pistol Stabilizing Braces
In recent years firearm owners have increasingly made use of products like Sig Sauer’s SBX or SB15 pistol stabilizing brace. A boon to disabled shooters, the ATF has approved such items for use on pistols. However, in January 2015, ATF issued an open letter explaining that,
[a]ny person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.
According to ATF’s convoluted logic,
“[b]ecause the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.”
In challenging this interpretation of the law, the white paper points out, “ATF has not made another NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a ‘redesign’ of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification.” Turk also suggests that,
To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.
Re-importation of Defense Surplus Firearms
Longtime NRA supporters will be familiar with the long-running effort to repatriate tens of thousands of M1 Garand rifles and hundreds of thousands of M1 carbines from South Korea. NRA has repeatedly worked with our friends in Congress to promote a legislative remedy that would allow for these firearms to be brought home for the benefit of American collectors.
In 2010, Hillary Clinton’s State Department blocked the importation of these rifles, citing public safety concerns. At the time, a State Department spokesperson commented that “The transfer of such a large number of weapons — 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines — could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes.”
Rejecting this rationale, the paper notes,
There is no clear public safety reason why taxpayer-funded US-origin C&R defense articles should be denied re-importation to the American public, while many non-U.S.- origin C&R items are approved. Additionally, these items do not represent any discernable public safety concern, as demand lies with collectors of vintage military firearms.
Turk also points out,
Many M1 Garand rifles have been approved for importation in the past, setting precedence for this to occur. The more recent denials were in part due to perceived potential that they may be used in crimes, for which there is little, if any, evidence for such a concern.
As with most government products, the ATF white paper is not perfect. The document is a bit too dismissive of the concerns of gun owners and dealers regarding some firearm transfer recordkeeping requirements.
In 2011, President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice announced a firearm transfer reporting scheme, the purported purpose of which was to combat Mexican drug cartels. The measure requires gun dealers in the Southwest border states to report to ATF information pertaining to the multiple sale of rifles that are larger than .22-caliber and able to accept a detachable magazine that are made to a single individual within a five-day period. Turk appears to approve of this effort, claiming that it has some beneficial use.
First, regardless of any perceived value the reporting requirement may have, the scheme is a blatant perversion of federal law. Permitting ATF to operate this demand letter scheme allows the agency to circumvent important safeguards in 18 U.S.C. § 923(g) that are meant to protect FFLs from agency harassment. Further, 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) requires FFLs to report multiple sales of handguns to a single buyer within five consecutive days. That Congress did not impose this same requirement for multiple rifle sales makes clear that they did not intend to burden rifle transactions in this manner.
Second, for those who have made lawful purchases of this type, the reporting requirement amounts to gun registration. This scheme not only creates significant privacy concerns for gun owners in the Southwest border states, but also circumvents 18 U.S.C. § 926(a), which prohibits the federal government from creating a firearms registry.
Overall, Turk’s ATF white paper is an important contribution to the development of a more intelligent firearms regulation regime, informed by actual experience in administering ATF regulations. Unsurprisingly, gun control groups, who have little knowledge of how firearms regulations work in practice and are unconcerned with the efficacy of a given rule aside from its ability to burden gun owners and the firearms industry, have been vocal in their condemnation of the paper. ATF should ignore such reflexive comments to this well-considered document and move forward with efforts to free gun owners, the firearms industry, and the agency from regulations that serve no public interest.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/guns-and-ammo-e1486813156459.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2017-02-11 06:39:322017-02-11 06:40:20ATF Associate Deputy Director Pens 'White Paper' on Reducing Needless Firearms Regulations
Why is there so much pushback against Trump’s immigration executive order? Instead of using a simple test of constitutionality on the E.O., a federal judge struck down the order on the grounds that there was no “rational basis” for it. But my question for this judge is this: who is in a better position to decide the “rationality” of an executive action—a judge, or the president who gets national security briefings?
[ … ]
If the judiciary is supposed to be a check on executive overreach, the executive branch is also supposed to be a check on judicial overreach. Sorry, but checks and balances cut both ways. I guess someone has to tell Soros’ hoards of paid rioters.
Here is Mr. D’Sousa being interview by Brian Kilmeade on the need for checks and balances:
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/checks-and-balances-e1486478129446.jpg359640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-02-07 09:35:522017-02-07 09:35:52VIDEO: In A World Of Runaway Judges -- 'Checks and Balances' Cut Both Ways
Someone reminded me that in all of the yakking about the power of the President when it comes to determining which refugees (how many and from where) entering the U.S., the U.S. State Department in 2008 halted all family reunification (the so-called P-3 program) from Somalia and a few other African countries. Why?
Random DNA testing found widespread FRAUD. The so-called family members were lying about who was family!
We first saw the news at the Wall Street Journal in 2008, here. Then we followed the drama as the refugee contractors (among others) tried to stop the State Department from requiring DNA tests for all family reunification.
Here is a post I wrote in 2015with several important links to follow to understand what happened leading up to the FOUR YEAR moratorium on Somalis being able to apply for their ‘family’ members to join them in your home towns!
For ambitious readers, click here for one of my earliest posts in 2008 with updates.
Be sure to read the fact sheet published by the DOS at the time (you will see it in its entirety here).
In recent years, applications to the P-3 program have been overwhelmingly African – primarily Somalis, Ethiopians and Liberians – accounting for some 95% of the P-3 applications.
The rate of fraud discovered varies among nationalities and from country to country, and is difficult to establish definitively as many individuals refused to submit DNA samples. We were, however, only able to confirm all claimed biological relationships in fewer than 20% of cases (family units). The remainder contained at least one negative result (fraudulent relationship) or refused to be tested.
This is what I said based on the numbers:
95% of immigrants using this program are from Africa. 36,000 alone came in the years since 2003 and as high (or higher!) than 80% of those are most likely here illegally.
As far as we know none of the fraudulent entrants were identified and removed. The President through his Department of State does have the power to selectively block certain ethnic groups from entering the US.
I followed the issue closely and I never saw the mainstream media question the Administration’s right to stop these groups of so-called ‘refugees.’
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/usa-logo.jpg359640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2017-02-06 10:27:292017-02-06 10:36:37FLASHBACK: Remembering the African family reunification MORATORIUM that began in 2008
The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, and its affiliated attorney B. Tyler Brooks of Millberg Gordon Stewart PLLC in Raleigh, NC, filed an amicus curia (friend of the court) brief defending the right of state magistrates to opt out of performing marriages based on religious objections. The religious accommodation was contained in North Carolina’s Senate Bill 2, which was passed in 2015 shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage throughout the nation.
Under the North Carolina law, magistrates may recuse themselves from performing all marriages and thereby avoid violating their sincerely held religious beliefs. The law also requires the state to ensure that any couple desiring to wed has access to a magistrate who performs marriages. Additionally, it created an exemption allowing county register of deeds employees to opt out of issuing marriage licenses.
TMLC’s affiliated attorney, B. Tyler Brooks, commented:
“If we are to have a truly tolerant society, government employers must possess the legal ability to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees. Here, even though there is no allegation that this law has prevented any couple from marrying, the plaintiffs are nonetheless fighting to have the federal courts nullify a state legislature’s carefully crafted religious accommodation.”
The lawsuit resulting in the appeal was filed in March 2016 by three couples, including two same-sex couples, against Marion Warren, the Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the religious accommodations contained in the state law violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Federal District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., however, dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked the “standing” required to bring the lawsuit. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA.
In its brief supporting Marion Warren before the Fourth Circuit, the Thomas More Law Center argues that this attack on reasonable religious accommodations constitutes a full assault on the ability of persons of faith to obtain and maintain employment with governmental entities and agencies. The case could even result in an undermining of all religious accommodation laws if the court of appeals revives the suit, thereby further silencing Christians and banishing them from the public square.
The amicus brief filed by TMLC acknowledges that all too often in modern America “the law is used as a bludgeon to punish those who refuse to express ideas inimical to their faith” as various forms of litigation and laws have targeted everything from Catholic hospitals to adoption services and homeless shelters because of their religious teachings, making the need to stop the assault on religious freedom all the more imperative.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/north-carolina-flag-e1486030314240.jpg364640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-02-02 05:14:202017-02-02 05:14:20Law Center Defends North Carolina Law Preserving Religious Freedom
President Trump’s executive orders to build a Mexican border wall and to place a temporary ban on immigration from seven hotbeds of jihad terror have the national and international Left — and its jihadi allies — in an uproar.
How dare he move to protect American citizens?
French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said, during a meeting with German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, that both countries were “concerned” about Trump’s immigration policies:
Welcoming refugees who are fleeing war is part of our duty … his decision can only cause us concern.
A “duty”? According to whom? Wasn’t protecting Ayrault’s own citizens from jihad terrorists known to be entering France among the “refugees” his duty? All of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees.
France apparently found jihad less distasteful than vetting refugees; France now has the option it chose.
We Berliners know better than most the pain caused when a whole continent is split by barbed wire and walls. … I call on the president of the USA not to go down that road to isolation and ostracism.
Müller’s statement has been widely circulated and greeted with joy — among the clueless Left, which is acting as if it opposed the Berlin Wall when it was up. They did not.
Ronald Reagan declared: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”, and they recoiled in horror.
For the young leftist millennials, apparently there wasn’t time in high school to learn about East Germany. They were instead learning the U.S. was founded by white male slave-owners and has a history of oppression, racism, and imperialism. Today’s self-righteous Left largely doesn’t know or care that the Berlin Wall was constructed by a totalitarian Leftist government to keep people in, not out.
The mayor of Berlin — he, of all people, should know better — is putting globalist Leftism above the safety of his own people.
Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani jumped in on the phony Berlin Wall theme, too. Rouhani tweeted:
Let’s help neighboring cultures, not build walls between nations. Let’s not forget what happened to the #BerlinWall.
Unlike the Berlin Wall, Trump’s wall is simply a national security initiative. Perhaps Rouhani, whose regime has ordered its citizens to chant “Death to America” every week in their mosques, shouldn’t have helped create a security threat. With his tweet, note that Rouhani has an obvious vested interest in opposing any step the U.S. takes to defend its citizens.
According to CNN, Iran says it now will:
… ban all U.S. citizens from entering the country in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries.
Who else already had a Spring Break flight booked to Tehran? Guess I’ll hit my second choice, Mogadishu.
While Iran has a great history, as I explain in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran is so repressive and authoritarian — and so hostile to the United States — that American citizens would be foolish to go there.
People who have family in Iran will be hit by Iran’s ban, and that is unfortunate. But there is a grown-up choice to make here — we’re choosing between death and inconvenience. We can inevitably admit terrorists to the United States, or we can inconvenience good people for a temporary period. France chose the former.
Others to be hard-hit by Iran’s new ban are the likes of Carl Ernst, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill pseudo-academic. His work on Islam is so whitewashed, so fawningly apologetic, so complete in its denial of the jihad doctrine and Sharia oppression, that he was given an award in 2008 by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — the genocidal anti-Semite who was at that time president of Iran.
Ernst happily flew to Tehran to accept. The incident was emblematic of how much American academia has degenerated.
The Iranian government’s statement said Trump’s ban was “an obvious insult to the Islamic world and in particular to the great nation of Iran.” Why is it an “obvious insult to the Islamic world” when the U.S. takes steps to defend itself from jihad terrorism? Because any defensive move taken by a non-Muslim entity is always seized upon by Islamic supremacists and jihadis as food for propaganda, which they produce when calling the defensive move an “unprovoked” act of aggression….
RELATED VIDEO: Is Muslim Brotherhood Organizing Travel Ban Protests? CNN video of “Travel Ban” protest organizers exposes those who are sympathetic to Muslim Brotherhood.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/donald-trump-protests-e1485871275205.jpg347640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2017-01-31 09:01:242017-01-31 09:14:17Trump Protects U.S. -- World Enraged
A day or two before the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump on January 20th,2017, I watched a reporter interviewing five attractive, intelligent, articulate women from California, who were all making the long cross-country trip to the Women’s March on Washington on January 21st.
Amazingly, not one woman was able to express a persuasive or even rational reason for the trip, but instead resorted to time-worn platitudes, bromides, and leftist talking points about “unity” and “solidarity” and “getting the message out.” Um… what message?
At the March itself, I was struck by the fact that women who pride themselves on their intelligence resorted to reading their statements, never veering a syllable off the scripts that were clearly written for them—scripts, by the way, that were not only boilerplate and banal, but shockingly blasphemous.
Madonna, punctuating her statement with foul-mouthed obscenities, looked down at her script, then lifted her head to speak into the microphone. “I’m angry.” Pause. Again, she looked at her script, then read: “I’m outraged.” (Very difficult lines to memorize, to be sure). Pause. Again, back to the script where she read about her fantasy of “blowing up the White House.”
Gloria Steinem read from her script. America Ferrara read from her script. Ashley Judd both read and acted out her script. “We’re here to be respected,” she snarled, oblivious to the irony that her ghastly performance evoked the exact opposite.
On and on and on they intoned and screeched and railed, sounding remarkably like barnyard creatures and giving the rest of America the distinct impression that the conceit these women harbor of their superior intellects and evolved moral sensibilities are fantasies borne more of delusions of grandeur than of either objective IQ numbers or developed moral compasses.
But to be fair, they had genuine passion that inspired them to spend thousands of dollars to drive, bus or fly across the country, pay for lodging and food, and then travel back to their homes.
Just kidding. We all know that leftwing activists are notoriously cheap, believers as they are that either government or other benefactors should pay their way.
And sure enough, according to Matthew Vadum’s stunning article, “Soros’s Women’s March of Hate,” billionaire radical George Soros—the same man “who says Communist China’s system of government is superior to our own and that the United States is the number one obstacle to world peace”—was directly involved in funding at least 56 of the March’s ‘partners.’”
Vadum listed a good number of the radical-left and anti-American groups attending the March: Planned Parenthood, the National Resource Defense Council, MoveOn, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, Advancement Project; American Constitution Society; America’s Voice; Arab American Association of New York; Asian Americans Advancing Justice; Center for Reproductive Rights; Color of Change; Communities United for Police Reform; Demos; Economic Policy Institute; Every Voice; Green for All; League of Women Voters; Make the Road New York; MPower Change; NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America Fund; National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum; National Council of Jewish Women; National Domestic Workers Alliance; National Network for Arab American Communities; National Council of La Raza; PEN America; Psychologists for Social Responsibility; Public Citizen; United We Dream; and Voter Participation Center,” et al.
ENEMIES OF AMERICA
Vadum and others also reported that Muslim terrorist supporter Linda Sarsour, an advocate of Sharia law in America, was deeply involved in planning the March-related events. Sarsour, Vadum wrote, “has familial ties to HAMAS and works with the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).”
If you’re not sure what Sharia mandates, here are just a few of the grisly details, which include:
Relegation of women to a status inferior to men.
Testimony of a woman before a judge is worth half that of a man.
Muslim men are given permission to beat their wives and commit marital rape, and rape is not considered a felony.
Women who are raped are accused of adultery.
A woman is not allowed to travel outside the home without the permission of a male.
A Muslim woman who divorces and remarries loses custody of children from a prior marriage.
‘Honor’ killing: a Muslim parent faces no legal penalty under Islamic law for killing his child or grandchild.
Female genital mutilation, while not required by Islam, is the norm in parts many parts of the world, including the Middle East.
Also among the motley crew of attendees at the March was featured speaker Donna Hylton, a convicted felon who, along with several others, kidnapped a man and then tortured him to death.
Then there was Angela Davis, former Black Panther, former fugitive from U.S. justice, former VP candidate for the U.S. on the Communist Party platform, and famous for her speeches praising American traitors, terrorists, and cop killers.
Also making appearances were Obama cronies, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife, Bernadine Dohrn.
On hand, as well, were members of the radical—but ultimately discredited and ineffectual—groups Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
Not to forget that most if not all of the women at the March who vehemently objected to then-candidate Trump’s interview with Access Hollywood’s host Billy Bush—in which Mr. Trump talked about the easy access rich and handsome guys like him had to women and how easy it was to grab them by the crotch—were thunderously silent when Bill Clinton was not only abusing and embarrassing and spitting in his wife’s face for decades on end, and also being routinely “serviced” in the Oval Office by one Monica Lewinsky.
Funny how their moral outrage is always reserved for Republicans. But enough about leftist hypocrisy and the piles of debris they left for others to clean up after the March, not quite as bad as the gross mess Barack Obama’s fans left after both of his inauguration ceremonies. What is it about Democrats and cleanliness?
So there they all were—the hysterical harridans of Hollywood and the music industry and the hate-America-firsters—along with ordinary women and their children, all of whom when interviewed also didn’t quite know why they were there but appeared to be perfectly okay with all those “F” words and women dressed up as the female sex organ.
Writer Vadum goes on to quote Asra Q. Nomani—a former Georgetown journalism professor and Wall Street Journal reporter who described herself as “a lifelong liberal feminist who voted for Donald Trump for president.” Nomani wrote that “the march really isn’t a ‘women’s march.’ It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.”
Nomani was right, but she didn’t zero in on the animating cause of their rage.
THE REAL REASON BEHIND THE RALLY: ABORTION
The Holy Grail of the left is abortion. There is not one subject—including ISIS beheadings, inferior public-school education, unaffordable healthcare, even child pornography—that is more important to leftwing women than unwanted pregnancies, i.e., ending the lives of inconvenient embryos.
But now that science and technology have evolved past the point when feminists like Steinem pronounced embryos “blobs of tissue,” and everyone who views a sonogram can see the vital, heart-beating, active life of the developing baby, let’s review what abortion destroys forever:
At two-to-four weeks of pregnancy, the blueprint for an entire human being is established.
By four weeks, the ball of cells in the womb is already forming into three layers that will later become your baby’s organs and tissues:
In the top layer, the neural tube begins to form, where your baby’s brain, backbone, spinal cord, and nerves will develop. Skin, hair and nails will also develop from this layer.
The middle layer is where the skeleton and muscles grow, and where the heart and circulatory system will form.
The third layer houses the beginnings of what will become the lungs, the intestines and the urinary system.
At six weeks, a baby’s nose, mouth, and ears begin to take shape.
At seven weeks, the baby’s hands and feet are formed.
At eight weeks, the baby is moving.
At 10 weeks, the organs are in place.
At 11 weeks, the baby’s hands can open and close into fists, and tiny tooth buds appear.
At 12 weeks, the heart is beating, urine is being produced, and the baby’s unique fingerprints are being developed.
All of this is miraculous and awe-inspiring. Still, leftwing women—and their cowed and sissified partners—insist that literally killing the baby they’re carrying is more important than every other issue on earth.
That is why they ostracized—literally banned—any pro-life woman from their March, even feminists who agreed with them on this or that social or foreign policy issue. Bottom line, if the pro-life women didn’t believe in killing babies in the womb, the “inclusive,” tolerant abortionistas were psychologically unable to either include or tolerate them.
Did I fail to mention how inherently racist abortion is? An overwhelming 76.5 percent of aborted babies are either black or Hispanic, according to Californian Stephen Frank, a political activist and commentator.
THE BOTTOM LINE
In one of his first acts, President Trump signed an Executive Order to defund the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood. He also issued an executive memorandum reinstating the Mexico City policy, which bars federal funding for overseas groups that provide access to or counseling about abortions. And he has vowed to appoint Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v Wade, the law that legalized abortion in 1973, effectively returning abortion back to the states, “and then the states will make the determination,” he said.
This is what the mass hysteria was all about—the “right” to end the lives of unborn babies.
Happily, the vast majority of Americans “got” the entire meaning of the anti-life March, which included:
The immense hypocrisy of the Left.
The surprisingly large number of leftist mothers who thought it was perfectly fine to hurl vile F-bomb epithets in front of their young children.
The intellectual and moral impoverishment of leftists.
The staggering irrationality of killing in-utero babies instead of waiting a few months and allowing desperate infertile parents to adopt and love them.
All this reinforced to the more than 63-million people who voted for Donald J. Trump for president that his pro-life stance was more timely and powerful than ever!
“Are so many women so shallow?” asks editor and writer Ruth S. King. “They came, they howled, they carried signs and wore stupid ‘pussyhats’ and they accomplished nothing, nada, zilch other than street theater.”
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/womans-march-montage.jpg344640Joan Swirskyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJoan Swirsky2017-01-30 19:55:152017-02-15 16:17:30The March to Nowhere
Department Of Homeland Security Response To Recent Litigation
January 29, 2017
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.
Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.
The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/dhs-e1480069710637.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-01-29 13:20:572017-01-30 11:22:24Department of Homeland Security: President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place
It’s now officially an issue: illegal aliens are voting. President Donald Trump has announced a major investigation into the charges and counter charges surrounding this phenomenon. At Judicial Watch, however, it’s nothing new. We’ve had our eye on this for years, and our Election Integrity Project was active in monitoring polling places in the most recent election.
I was interviewed some time ago (when the issue was first raised around the November election) by Breitbart Daily News about illegal voting, and I want to share that with you. Here is a report at Breitbart on the interview:
On…Breitbart News Daily, SiriusXM host Alex Marlow asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton about a study from the Center for Immigration Studies that revealed that “there could be as many as 43 million non-citizens in the United States right now.” Fitton had previously spotlighted this study on Twitter as evidence of potential voter fraud issues.
“There’s 43 million people who are not citizens and are ineligible to vote, but a good percentage of them do register to vote. And of those that do, some vote,” Fitton explained.
“Most tend to vote Democrat. It’s a fact,” he continued. “There’s been a study out of Old Dominion University that shows it is enough of a vote to sway elections, one way or another. It may have resulted in election, specifically, of Al Franken to the United States Senate, and all the bad things politically or public policy-wise that happened as a result, like Obamacare and things like that.”
“Are we supposed to be so naive as to think that tens of millions of people are here, present in the United States, and none of them are illegally voting?” Fitton asked. “In states where you don’t have voter ID, in states where most voter registration, you’re not required to certify citizenship, other than signing and saying you’re a citizen?”
“It happens repeatedly where you have these voter registrations signed by aliens because they shouldn’t be voting, so they’re registered to vote – and the irony is, once they’re registered to vote, voter ID ain’t gonna protect you,” he noted, “because they have the ID necessary to vote, once they’re registered. So you have many non-citizens voting in elections, and they vote in large numbers in a way to sway elections.”
“The number of non-citizens in the United States are at record proportions – about as big as it’s been in 105 years, according, I think, to CIS, the Center for Immigration Studies,” he observed. “It is looking at U.S. Census data, and there’s just been this massive uptick, just even the last few years.”
“And it’s not just illegal aliens. We’re talking about aliens who are here legally, who are also voting illegally, potentially,” he added. “That’s why we’re gonna be in Virginia, trying to monitor elections, because we know this is an issue. This is one of the issues that can lead to voter fraud and a stolen election.”
But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence – that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud. They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting any investigation into fraud.
“Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud,” said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 – 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats.”
“A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue,” Mr. Fitton said. “It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions? The jig is up.”
President Trump is right. A full-scale, non-partisan federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue. I’m not aware of any systematic federal investigation of voter fraud – ever. Initially, such an investigation would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals.
Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity team, headed up by Robert Popper, former deputy chief of the Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, would be more than happy to help.
In the meantime, you can sample our comprehensive efforts on election integrity here.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/stop_Fraud-e1485684394569.jpg394640Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2017-01-29 05:07:152017-01-29 05:10:48It's Naive to Think Not One of the Millions of Aliens in the U.S. is Voting
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES) announces three new staff hires, Heather Reams, Andrew Bird, and Kelsey Callahan, to increase its collaboration and work with agencies within the Trump administration, Members and staff of the 115th Congress, and state policymakers throughout America.
“CRES had tremendous success supporting congressional GOP candidates in the November elections and is ramping up the team to continue our momentum in 2017,” said CRES Chairman James Dozier. “The expertise of this talented team of Republican operatives will help solidify our leadership to advance conservative clean energy solutions in Washington and in state capitals across the country. Our team looks forward to working with Republican leaders to deliver opportunities for the American people that are in line with our conservative values. This includes free market clean energy solutions that will advance President Trump’s priorities of creating high paying manufacturing jobs and achieving American energy independence, while also helping to preserve our clean air, water, and climate.”
In 2016, CRES formally endorsed 29 House and Senate Clean Energy Champions – all Republicans – and spent more than $1.7 million in support of candidates with a record of advancing renewable energy solutions both in their campaigns and on Capitol Hill. Nearly 90 percent of CRES’ champions were successful as 25 of them won election or reelection. Since 2014, CRES has invested over $3 million electorally in support of clean energy champions in the House and Senate.
“CRES looks forward to working with Congress and the Trump administration to advance clean energy solutions that embrace commonsense, free market principles to help create jobs, strengthen our economy, and protect our nation’s security and environment,” said Heather Reams, CRES Managing Director.
“In November, voters handed Republicans the opportunity to improve the lives of every American household, allow our economy to flourish, and preserve our nation’s beauty,” said Andrew Bird, CRES Director of Federal Affairs. “CRES is excited to help seize this opportunity and deliver long-term solutions utilizing clean energy that is affordable, reliable, and supplied by diverse natural resources.”
ABOUT CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS (CRES)
Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization founded in 2013 to engage Republican policymakers and the public about commonsense, conservative solutions to address our nation’s need for abundant, reliable energy while preserving our environment.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/cres-logo.jpg347640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-01-27 06:35:572017-01-27 06:39:04Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions ramps up team to 'continue momentum'
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL), a self proclaimed civil rights group, is discriminating against non-Muslims at one of their advertised “open to the public” events at the Rosen Center Hotel in Orlando, FL.
The CAIR January 28, 2017 event is titled, “Media Training-How to Interact & Engage with the Media.” The problem is many people who had RSVP’d and were approved for tickets, later had their ticket registrations denied without cause or reason.
My question to you Ms. Rahaman, Rasha Mubarak, and Hassan Shibly – What are you trying to hide from the public?
The Council on American Islamic relations should welcome non-Muslims from the community with open arms of friendship and coexistence, not rejection, secrecy, and intimidation.
CAIR leader Hassan Shibly has a pathological disdain for law enforcement so its only natural that his employees exhibit similar behaviors. Hassan Shibly is so self absorbed he made a selfie video telling all Muslims to ‘Defy’ U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agents in the course of doing their jobs to keep us all safe.
Maybe Rasha Mubarak is afraid this video of her at Lake Eola Park in Orlando, FL with her friends who proudly fly the Hezbollah Flag will get even wider distribution.
This is just one more example of the CAIR organization operating more like the mafia than a civil rights group. CAIR likes to operate from the shadows and with good reason. This report is just a small ray of sunshine on how CAIR conducts itself when they think nobody is watching.
Below is the same registration denial letter myself and several other people around Central Florida have received. I have numerous emails advertising the event saying the training class is “open to the public.” Groups like CAIR who say one thing and do the opposite are forever stained with public shame.
Thank you for registering for CAIR-Florida’s upcoming media training on January 28, 2017. As the host and provider of this event, CAIR-Florida has the right to approve or deny individual registration requests.
You are hereby notified that your registration request has been denied, therefore, you are not allowed to attend the event.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Community Outreach & Events Coordinator
Council on American-Islamic Relations Florida
8076 N. 56th Street
Tampa, Florida 33617
P: 813.514.1414 sRahaman@cair.com| cairflorida.org
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/shibly-florida-flag1.jpg453639Alan Kornmanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAlan Kornman2017-01-26 16:03:012017-01-26 16:19:43VIDEO: CAIR Florida’s Mubarak and Shibly -- What Are You Trying To Hide?