In another striking judicial development, Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee from San Francisco, issued an injunctive order Jan. 9 prohibiting President Trump from moving forward rescinding President Obama’s DACA order.
Although it only applied to established DACA applicants, and left untouched the ban on future applications, the order is offensive nevertheless, and demonstrates the terrible problem plaguing our country resulting from the actions of activist judges.
Essentially, the plaintiffs, which included the State of California, argued that President Trump had acted randomly and capriciously in removing the DACA order because, among other reasons, he did not give notice and did not allow for a period of public commentary prior to issuing his rescindment.
But here’s the thing, neither did Obama.
Obama himself issued his own DACA order single-handedly, without due process, and outside any compliance with any statutory requirements — and after saying he did not have the Constitutional authority to do so. Therefore, when President Trump acted to discontinue the DACA order, he was actually rescinding an illegal act, making Alsup’s ruling even more egregious — and overtly political.
The inescapable conclusion of all these actions is that Judge Alsup was less informed in his ruling by the law, than by his disdain for the President’s policies, and possibly, for the President himself. Relevant to this: Just two weeks before this political ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a different DACA-related Alsup order.
Additionally, the judge applied his order to the whole nation. This latter issue is particularly problematic as it is allowing individuals in the judiciary to paralyze policy decisions on a national scale even though the district of any particular judge does not encompass a large geographical area.
This latter problem is actually one that can be fixed by Congress. Congress has the authority to create and define the powers of the lower courts. As evidenced by the results of this case, it is time for Congress to limit the scope of judicial orders to only the geographical extent of their district.
And as for the greater problem of an overzealous judiciary, it is high time that the American people enact some sort of check on America’s increasingly partisan courts.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/daca.jpg362640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-01-12 16:31:102018-01-12 16:31:10Another Liberal Activist Judge Rules — Congress Can Stop The Madness
Christian Ziegler, State Committeeman representing the Republican Party of Sarasota County, Florida appeared on ABC Channel 7 to discuss President Trump and the “deep state.”
Ziegler notes:
The media is worried about President Trump “purging” the federal government. Excuse me, but If ANY employee of ANY federal agency is actively working to undermine the President, that employee should be FIRED!
The President doesn’t just have a right to do so, he has a DUTY to make sure his entire team – at every agency – is staffed by those who will execute on the President’s priorities.
Watch the debate:
SURVEY
Do you APPROVE or DISAPPROVE of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as President?(Click on a response below to have your voice heard.)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/deep-state-2-e1513121435193.jpg395640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-01-12 16:02:252018-01-12 16:04:37VIDEO: Trump’s ‘Purging’ the Deep State — Do you Approve or Disapprove? Take the survey.
Project 21’s Horace Cooper joined The Daily Signal’s Genevieve Wood to discuss the historic low unemployment rate for black Americans and how the left is co-opting Martin Luther King Jr. Day to protest tax reform and promote action for illegal immigrants covered by the DACA program. Here is an edited transcript of the video.
Wood: Horace, Martin Luther King Day is coming up next week, and there has been a lot of interesting news, especially for the black community on the economic front, in this past week or so. What do you make of the numbers coming out?
Cooper: The news for black America is amazing. It’s phenomenal. We have had three separate records accomplished: In June of 2017, in September of 2017, and in January of 2018, we have set record low unemployment for black Americans. And what’s really exciting, relative to the rest of the country, is black Americans are making much more progress … and that’s, like, really big gains.
Wood: You probably just heard that overflight. We’re very close to the Pentagon right now and Reagan Airport, so you’re going to hear a lot of airplanes. Horace, we talk about historic numbers. This is the lowest black unemployment has been in over 45 years. Why all of a sudden? Is it President Obama’s economy, which is kind of what he claimed in the last few weeks?
Cooper: It was surprising to me to hear the president make these claims.
Wood: The former president.
Cooper: The former [president], Obama, make these claims. It was very surprising because from 2009 to 2015, black America’s unemployment rate turned to the worst numbers that we have seen as a community. It was the very policies that he pushed that caused this disparity.
Here’s the thing: Black American unemployment typically is somewhere between 40 percent and even 100 percent higher than white America’s unemployment. When this [black unemployment rate] number in 2018 reached 6.8 percent, that was the narrowest gap we’ve ever seen. We saw nothing like that during the Obama administration.
And it didn’t surprise me, because the policies of President Obama were more focused on handing out food stamps, and assistance, and government handouts, rather than seeing to it that the most important civil rights of all, your right to be independent, your right to be self-sufficient, [were] being honored with policies of limited government. That’s not Obama’s plan.
Wood: Now, President Trump has been in office only one year. What do you think explains the nosedive in unemployment across the board, but particularly with minority Americans?
Cooper: Any investor, any businessman, any company understands now that America is open for business and if you’d like to do business in the United States, we’re going to say, ‘That’s great.’ Remember what the last president said? ‘You didn’t build that.’ The last president said people that did things, that built things that were consequential, they were the people that we have to go after, to [put in a] stranglehold, a litany of regulations. And by the way, The Heritage Foundation did seminal studies every year, talking about how the last president set records for how many regulatory strangleholds he put on the United States.
This president, President Trump, is doing just the opposite. Two things: One is, he is not bringing new regulations into place, but [two,] he is actually rolling back the bad regulations that we saw before. So businesses are opening up and it turns out the pool of people that are most available right now, because of multiple years of bad regulatory and economic growth, are black Americans. And those people therefore are rushing into the marketplace. This is great news.
Wood: It’s great news. But as you well know, Horace, as we come up to MLK Day you are going to have a lot of folks out there talking about how the Trump administration, the tax reform package that was passed just before Christmas, is bad particularly for black Americans. We know this because they have already said they were going to do it.
[House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi and a lot of others are going to be holding events over the weekend in “honor” of Martin Luther King Jr., kind of hijacking the holiday, I would argue. To go tell black Americans why this is actually a bad economy for them, the complete opposite of all the numbers and evidence.
Cooper: Here’s the irony, what the left wants to tell black America is, ‘Who are you going to believe, them or your lying eyes?’ If you want to look at your bank account, if you want to look at the value of your home, if you want to make that the test, then you’ll look and you’ll say, ‘Wow, the news is amazing. My uncle, my cousin, even my next-door neighbor, they’re getting jobs that they didn’t have.’
A record 2 million fewer people are receiving food assistance under the Trump administration than before. But it is also not a surprise to me. Here’s the thing: When you look at Martin Luther King, most people remember the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. What they don’t recall is that the main reason for the big rally at the Lincoln Memorial [in August 1963] was a jobs program.
Black Americans were worried and concerned that there weren’t a lot of great economic opportunities. And that’s how this [March on Washington in 1963] got organized. The essence of what black America and the civil rights effort was about was letting people be able to get the kinds of things that control their own lives.
Wood: The right to a quality education, the right to good jobs.
Cooper: Absolutely. Right. A great house.
Wood: Not the right to handouts, wanting handouts.
Cooper: Absolutely. But the left, with these teach-ins as you mentioned, it’s cynical what they are doing. They don’t have a program for black America. Black America rejected—people don’t realize this—black America rejected Barack Obama’s program. How do I know this? [In 2008], the highest percentage of black Americans in history voted for the Democrat [Obama].
In 2012, we saw something happen that we have never seen before. Fewer black people voted for the re-election of a president. We haven’t seen that in 120 years. Not with Clinton, not with Nixon, not with Reagan. Every other re-elected president got more black votes than they did the first time around.
Wood: And why do you think that is? Do you think people really made the calculation within the black community, he hasn’t done what he said he was going to do?
Cooper: They absolutely could see that. You can’t show up the day before Election Day and have to wait for a handout, and then on the day after go and say I’m going to vote for this guy because he is making me great. But the Democrats and the left have been very good, and that’s what this teach-in is about.
Wood: Well, you make a point. And I want to talk more about Project 21 because I’m sure a lot of folks watching are going to say, ‘Wow, the news media doesn’t usually go out and find people like Horace Cooper to talk about Martin Luther King Day.’
They want to know where there are more Horace Coopers. And Project 21 is one of those organizations. The release that you all put out talked about, in addition to the teach-in, that while all of that is going on, the liberals are also pushing the DREAM Act and trying to legalize a lot of illegal immigrants.
Cooper: Oh, it’s a classic bait and switch, a beautiful bait and switch. When you don’t have a good program for people—by program, I mean a policy initiative that would be good for them—what you do is you find something to distract them.
What’s ironic is they’re not going to succeed in telling people, in this teach-in that they announced, that ‘You shouldn’t want the tax cuts you are about to get, you shouldn’t want more money in your bank account, you shouldn’t want more flexibility in the kinds of jobs. And that’s what’s coming your way. You don’t want that, that’s bad, we want to make you understand that the Trump regulatory tax policies are bad for you.’
Meanwhile, what they don’t say is ‘By the way, we do have a program, not for you, [but] we have a program. It is primarily focused on illegal immigrants. And in fact, even as late as today, the talk is we’ll shut the government down if we don’t get the ability to get the illegal immigration support policy changes that we want. Hey, black America, look at the teach-ins, that’s what we’ve got for you; but for our new favored class, we’ve got real policy changes that are designed to improve and make their livelihoods better.’
Wood: And in many cases, though, trying to get [illegal immigrants] into the same government programs that got [black Americans] trapped into big government.
Cooper: Well, of course, that’s the ultimate goal.
Wood: Because those folks will often times also turn into voters once they get locked into government. And they become the party of big government.
Cooper: It’s a vicious cycle.
Wood: You’re right, it’s a bait and switch. Let’s talk about Project 21. Tell everybody what Project 21 is, how they can get involved, and how they can learn more about it.
Cooper: Project 21 is an organization made up of black Americans who have rejected the idea that the only way for black Americans to succeed is if the government specifically engages in a series of handouts or preferential treatment. We are people, moderate and conservative, who say that the best way for black Americans to succeed is the same way it is for [all] Americans to succeed: Strong families, hard work. Get a good education, engage in the kind of policies where you personally save your money, you’re not extravagant. Where you make the sacrifice and you hand your children.
We believe in limited government, we believe in family values. We believe the church and the synagoge are the primary place where good values get inculcated. Our organization welcomes any American that believes in those kinds of things and wants to make sure that those are the values that we put forward. That got America started, that got America to succeed, that’s the future for America.
Wood: And that’s a lot of things that Martin Luther King Jr. absolutely stood for.
Cooper: Absolutely.
Wood: Horace, thank you. I’ve known this guy for over 20 years, he is rock-solid. It’s great being on with you. Thanks for coming on and being out here and talking with us.
Cooper: Thanks for having me on The Signal.
Wood: And thank you everybody. Check out Project 21. And thank you for watching us right here on The Daily Signal’s Facebook Live.
Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve. Twitter: @genevievewood.
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/TRUMP-OBAMA.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-01-11 07:46:562018-01-12 17:11:17VIDEO: Black Activist Says Trump Policies, Unlike Obama’s, Create Jobs for Black Americans
America is moving forward in its march toward energy dominance, and the Trump administration just took an important step forward in achieving that goal.
In unveiling its draft five-year Outer Continental Shelf leasing plan on Thursday, the Interior Department is reversing the Obama administration’s “Keep it in the Ground” anti-energy policy.
An abundance of untapped energy lies beneath America’s ground and off the coasts. For six years, America has been the world’s largest petroleum and natural gas producer, supporting more than 10 million jobs and contributing more than $1.3 trillion to the economy.
The increase in energy supplies has lowered prices for households and businesses. Families are saving hundreds, if not more than $1,000 each year on electricity bills and home-heating costs, and paying less at the gas pump.
It also means companies around the country devote less money to paying energy bills and more to investing in labor and capital.
All of these benefits have accrued to Americans, despite the fact that the Obama administration made a majority of America’s coastal waters off-limits to natural resources exploration and production.
In fact, 94 percent of federal offshore acreage is off-limits to development. The United States is the only country in the world that has placed a majority of its territorial waters off-limits to natural resources extraction.
Until now, that is.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s draft plan is the first part of a multiyear process that would make more than 90 percent of the total federal acreage available, which includes 98 percent of the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf.
The Draft Proposed Program … includes 47 potential lease sales in 25 of the 26 planning areas—19 sales off the coast of Alaska, seven in the Pacific region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico, and nine in the Atlantic region. This is the largest number of lease sales ever proposed for the National Outer Continental Shelf Program’s five-year lease schedule.
At several points in time, offshore drilling was not such a partisan issue. When President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, made his 1979 energy speech, he said, “We will step up exploration and production of oil and gas on federal lands.”
As a result, the Carter administration’s Interior Department proposed 36 lease sales. As recently as 2013, both Democratic senators from Virginia offered legislation to open parts of the Atlantic to offshore development.
It’s understandable why.
Offshore drilling is a critical component of the Gulf of Mexico economy, one of the limited areas where offshore activity takes place in federal waters.
Recognizing that offshore resource exploration is systematically safe, the energy industry has a very strong relationship with the seafood and tourism industries. In fact, Louisiana hosts a Shrimp and Petroleum Festival each year.
Despite the Deepwater Horizon incident that adversely affected the Gulf environmentally and economically, there was a broad recognition among these three industries that the blanket drilling moratorium was bad policy and bad for the region as a whole.
The economic benefits of realizing America’s true energy potential could be significant. Opening the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves and the eastern Gulf of Mexico could create more than 800,000 jobs by 2035.
Furthermore, federal and state governments would stand to benefit as well, since increased production would increase revenues from bonus bids (for new leases), royalties, rents, and increased economic activity.
By 2035, the federal government could collect more than $200 billion in revenue. With the country burdened with massive amounts of federal debt, policymakers should welcome the potential for revenue generation.
No one knows where oil prices will be once the Interior Department finalizes the plan. Therefore, it’s difficult to fully project where the industry will invest.
Nevertheless, the market will determine what areas the oil and gas companies will pursue. The federal government should not stand in its way.
It’s encouraging to see Interior take a hatchet to a long-standing barrier to energy dominance and improved economic well-being.
Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: @NiconomistLoris.
A Note for our Readers:
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/OilRig4-1-1250x650-e1515629145715.jpg369640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-01-10 19:07:292018-01-10 19:10:18New Offshore Drilling Plan Will Reverse Obama Restrictions, Unleash U.S. Energy Dominance
Like a lot of pregnant women, the young mom who visited Planned Parenthood in St. Paul last summer wasn’t sure she wanted to have the abortion. Already well into her second trimester, she was started to have second thoughts about whether this was the right decision for her or her baby. But, pressured by doctors to go through with it, she agreed — giving her permission for them to start the painful, two-day procedure. When the time came, she watched in shock as the male abortionist started “jamming that needle in and out” of her stomach. Finally, she was told: he couldn’t reach the baby’s heart to inject it with the fatal drug that would kill it. Panicked that her child might survive the abortion, she asked, “What if the baby was to come out alive?” The female doctor paused and said, “Most likely, we would break the baby’s neck.”
Horrified, she asked them to stop the dilation and went home. Her baby survived. But dozens of unborn children, who cross that same threshold every day, aren’t so lucky. As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, the killing of a tiny child — whether she’s in the womb or breathing on her own — is what “choice” is all about. The decision of destroying a life, they’ve argued, even one who’s lived through the worst our world had to offer, “should be between the patient and the health care provider.” Even if it’s murder. They’ll deliver a baby alive to harvest its organs or they’ll cover up a botched abortion by leaving the little survivor to die. Either way, they’re breaking the law. And Republicans in Congress have had enough.
For more than two years, they’ve held hearings, launched investigations, and turned over reams of damning evidence to the FBI. Now, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) says, it’s time to act. “Next week– the week of the annual March for Life, when tens of thousands of Americans come to Washington to give voice to the voiceless unborn — the House will vote on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act,” he announced. The bill, which easily passed the same House in 2015, never got a vote in the Senate. This time, leaders vow, it will. Although a similar measure was signed into law by President Bush in 2003, it never had the teeth pro-lifers needed to hold the abortion industry accountable. Under this version, the law would not only criminalize people who let newborns die (or actively kill them) but gives moms a private right of action to sue.
“…[I]f a baby is born after a failed abortion attempt, he or she should be given the same medical care as a baby born any other way,” McCarthy explained. “There is absolutely no ambiguity here. This is about protecting babies who are born and alive, and nobody should be against that.” Tell that to Planned Parenthood. They’ve argued that the bill would have a “chilling” effect on the “provision of abortion services.” “I cannot think of a more chilling effect,” Arina Grossu fired back, “than continuing to let abortionists get away with infanticide, the intentional killing of born-alive, breathing babies after an attempted abortion.”
But how often does that happen? According to David Daleiden’s videos, a lot more than we think. Yet even on the stand, under oath, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards denied it. “There was one specific video,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) reminded Richards, “…describing harvesting the brain of a late-term boy. She said she wasn’t sure if the baby was alive since its heart was still beating and she harvested its brain by cutting his head open starting with the chin. Do you recall that?” She said she didn’t. “There is nothing she has ever described,” Richards claimed, “that I could attest to has ever happened.” Based on hours of footage, the findings of the House Select Panel on Infant Lives, and the testimony of this one (out of who-knows-how-many) young Minnesota mother, it does happen. And obviously, the practice is far more widespread than Planned Parenthood, its president, or our former president will ever admit.
Murdering an innocent human being is not, and never has been, a constitutional right. That’s true whether the person is nine seconds old or 90 years old. Join Leader McCarthy, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and 60 of her co-sponsors by calling your House member and supporting the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act. Even one lost baby is too many.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/011018_bornalive_700x400-e1515627240633.png366640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-01-10 18:34:342018-01-10 18:34:34The House’s Born Ultimatum
Most Americans were probably drop-jawed to learn there was a state in the union where government overseers prohibited the people from pumping their own gas. The ultra-progressive and ever-controlling Oregon Legislature had banned this otherwise normal behavior for more than 50 years, ostensibly to provide some form of protection for its residents.
This is the practical reality of the general principle that government coddling creates entitlement, pampered residents with fewer freedoms, and reduced abilities to live independently. Oregon has been telling its residents for generations they are incapable of pumping their own gas, and now there are generations of Oregonians who are terrified at the prospect of doing what more than 300 million other Americans do without a thought.
The first thing that comes to mind are the scenes from the animated Pixar movie Wall-E, where the remainder of earth’s population cruise the galaxy on the spaceship Axiom. The passengers are so dependent on the automated ship that they have become obese, too feeble to walk and incapable of caring for themselves. They definitely would not have been able to pump their own gas.
But now the Oregon Legislature moved partially into the 1980s when it recently passed a law allowing rural gas stations to let people pump their own gas. Portlandians are still safe from the ordeal; government continues to protect them from gas pump handles. But others in the supposed rugged rural areas are outraged at the change (because outrage comes easily these days.)
Take a look at some of these Facebook comments from Oregonians in response to the legislature catching up to 1980 America:
“I don’t even know HOW to pump gas and I am 62, native Oregonian … I say NO THANKS! I don’t like to smell like gasoline!” one woman commented.
“No! Disabled, seniors, people with young children in the car need help,” another woman wrote. “Not to mention getting out of your car with transients around and not feeling safe too. This is a very bad idea. Grr.”
“I’ve lived in this state my whole life and I refuse to pump my own gas. This is a service only qualified people should perform. I will literally park at the pump and wait until someone pumps my gas.”
This is really a thing in Oregon. Most of the rest of the country may laugh and mock them (except big-government nanny state New Jersey, the only remaining state with such a law) but people long relying on government-forced service don’t like losing that service. They believe they have an entitlement.
“I think that we are getting tarnished in social media,” Lizzy Acker, a reporter for The Oregonian, told NPR. Well, yes. There’s sort of a reason for that. But Acker is confident in Oregonians ability to actually pump their own gas. “And I think most Oregonians are self-sufficient enough to figure out how to pump their own gas.”
Just read that statement. There may not be a better example of how progressivism breeds dependency on government — more and more power for government over weaker and weaker people. Not surprisingly — to people who understand how capitalism works — Oregon is one of the most expensive states in the union for a gallon of gas.
Oregon’s 56-year gas-pumping law is a cautionary example of how more government regulation and control immediately limits freedoms and breeds dependence and entitlement.
Perhaps one day, all Americans will be free to pump their own gas. But only if they choose leaders with a vision for freedom over governmental dominion.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/oregon-welcome-sign.jpg356640Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2018-01-10 18:18:312018-01-10 18:18:31Entitlement Kicks in Over Oregon Self-Service Gas Pumps
As the union-backed “Fight for $15” movement has sought to enact mandatory minimum-wage increases in states and localities across the country, tax reform seems to have spurred wage growth using a different approach.
On the day President Donald Trump signed the sweeping tax-reform law, the New Jersey-based OceanFirst Financial Corp. issued a press release announcing “a commitment to increase the bank’s minimum hourly pay rate to $15.00 within 30 days of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” affecting 135 employees.
It’s one of 21 companies that have announced raising their base wage to $15 per hour because of tax reform, on a running list compiled by Americans for Tax Reform that currently shows more than 120 companies have announced raises or bonuses for employees.
Businesses large and small are taking the same action, citing tax reform as the reason, including some of OceanFirst’s much larger national competitors, such as Fifth Third Bancorp, with 13,500 employees, 3,000 of whom will benefit from the boost in base wage to $15, according to a company.
Others include BB&T with 27,000 employees; PNC Bank, with 47,500; U.S. Bancorp, with 60,000; and Wells Fargo, with more than 200,000. All raised their minimum wage to $15 per hour, and credited tax reform for the change.
It isn’t just banks. Connecticut-based insurance firm The Travelers announced that along with $1,000 bonuses for its 14,000 employees, “we have only a small number of U.S.-based employees making less than $15 an hour. We will increase their hourly wage to $15.”
While still early in the wake of enactment of the tax-reform law, the demonstrable results seem to be in stark contrast with the mandatory minimum-wage laws requiring a $15 wage.
After passing such a city ordinance, Seattle commissioned a study by the University of Washington, which found the cost to low-wage workers outweighed the benefits by a 3-1 ratio, and found that on average, low-wage workers would lose $125 per month in lost work hours, lost employment or lost job opportunities because of the law.
“The problem with legislating a $15-per-hour wage is that if productivity is not up to $15 per hour, that person loses their job,” Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist told The Daily Signal. “When you change the regulatory and tax policies, you expand the economy for workers, and productivity can expand for a greater reward.”
The results were predictable, said David Kreutzer, senior research fellow for labor markets and trade at The Heritage Foundation.
“What happens with tax cuts is that demand pulls wages up, and then you don’t have a problem with people losing jobs,” Kreutzer told The Daily Signal. “Without an increase in demand, people will lose their job, or typically don’t get hired. … The fight for $15 is unambitious and impossible. You can’t make people rich through mandates. We want an economy so strong that people can make $20 or $25 per hour because productivity is so strong.”
Of those, California and New York passed laws to eventually raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022 and 2020, respectively. Other states that approved increases to less than $15 were Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
The states of Alaska, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, and South Dakota automatically increased their minimum-wage rates based on the cost of living.
Americans for Tax Reform found that overall, at least 1 million Americans were benefiting from announced pay raises or bonuses as a result of tax reform, and the nonprofit organization thinks that it’s likely more than that, since many companies don’t make public announcements.
In most cases, companies didn’t specify how many of their employees would benefit from the minimum-wage hike.
Companies on Americans for Tax Reform’s list that announced raising the base wage to $15 per hour are, with number of overall employees listed, where announced:
American Savings Bank, 1,100 employees
Americollect, 250 employees
Aquesta Financial Holdings, 95 employees
Associated Bank
Bank of Hawaii, 2,074 employees
Bank of James
Bank of the Ozarks, 2,300 employees
Central Pacific Bank, 850 employees
Comerica Bank, 4,500 “non-officer” employees
First Hawaiian Bank, 2,264 employees
HarborOne Bank, 600 employees
INB Bank, 200 employees
Regions Financial Corp.
SunTrust Banks, 24,000 employees
Territorial Savings Bank, 247 employees
“We didn’t become a prosperous country because our Founding Fathers said, ‘Let’s pass a law to make everybody rich,’” Norquist said. “We became prosperous because they got out of the way to let people trade and invent. This is very helpful in getting out of the way so that more people will earn more than $15.”
A spokesman for the Fight for $15 organization did not respond to comment for this article. While it primarily advocates for laws, the organization doesn’t oppose companies voluntarily raising the wage, noting on its website Target raising the wage for employees as a “big win.”
The AFL-CIO, an umbrella organization for labor unions, supports laws to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, but opposed the tax reform law. An AFL-CIO spokesman did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
The tax-reform law cut the corporate tax rate, previously the highest in the world among developed countries, from 35 percent to 21 percent, putting the U.S. on par with most other industrialized nations. The tax law also cut individual rates and eliminated some loopholes.
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
Governments are prone to abuse, especially when unchecked.
Recently revealed actions by the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency under the Department of Interior charged with managing federal land, are reminiscent of the IRS scandal in which that agency targeted conservative tea party groups for extra scrutiny.
A federal judge ruled Dec. 20 that she was throwing out the Bureau of Land Management’s case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy because the prosecution withheld key facts.
On Monday, the same judge ruled that the case could not be tried again due to the actions of the prosecution, which she said had been “outrageous” and “violated due process rights,” according to azcentral.com.
The story broke before Christmas, but hasn’t received the attention it deserves. It perfectly underscores the pernicious problem of unaccountable agencies and how quickly they can become abusive to citizens.
The trial involved a dispute over grazing rights between Bundy and the federal government, a persistent problem in western states.
The government claimed Bundy owed money for public land use fees going back to the early 1990s, which the Bundy family refused to pay.
After years of trying to recoup the fees, the Bureau of Land Management, working in conjunction with the FBI, tried to impound Bundy’s cattle in 2014.
The story hit national headlines after Bundy, his family, and supporters got into an armed standoff with authorities that fortunately ended without violence. Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan eventually were arrested and chargedwith various offences.
However, the actions of government agents badly damaged the credibility of the case and raised questions about the power of supposedly independent agencies to deliver justice responsibly.
What is particularly worrisome is that the Bureau of Land Management appears to have acted punitively against political and religious groups they simply didn’t like.
An investigative report by one of the bureau’s own special agents revealed that the agents in the Bundy case acted with “incredible bias” and likely broke the law, as The Daily Caller News Foundation reported
The level of malfeasance of which one of its own accused the Bureau of Land Management is stunning.
Dan Love, the Bureau of Land Management law enforcement officer who led the 2014 raid on the Bundy compound in Clark County, Nevada, was fired recently amid charges of corruption. That was something prosecutors denied until pressured to release his fellow agent’s report to the defense.
Worse, an investigative report by one of the bureau’s own special agents revealed that the agents in the Bundy case acted with “incredible bias” and likely broke the law, as The Daily Caller News Foundation reported.
In the memo, lead investigator Larry Wooten explained how agents acted maliciously toward the Bundys. He said the “punitive” and “ego-driven” campaign against the ranchers was all an effort to “command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale, and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.”
Wooten wrote: “The ridiculousness of the conduct, unprofessional amateurish carnival atmosphere, openly made statements, and electronic communications tended to mitigate the defendant’s culpability and cast a shadow of a doubt of inexcusable bias, unprofessionalism, and embarrassment of our agency.”
The agents called Bundy and his supporters “deplorables,” “rednecks,” and “idiots” among many other worse names, Wooten said. They also insulted the Bundy family’s Mormon beliefs.
Their behavior showed clear prejudice toward “the defendants, their supporters, and Mormons,” Wooten wrote.
Wooten claimed that fellow agents put him through a “religious test” of sorts on several occasions.
“You’re not a Mormon, are you?” they asked.
Wooten’s memo suggested that the attitude and ambition of Bureau of Land Management agents led them to inappropriately militarize the operation against the Bundys, even after the FBI had conducted a threat assessment and concluded that the Bundys weren’t dangerous.
The day after U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro’s declaration of a mistrial, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called for an investigation into the matter.
However, there is some frustration over the Navarro’s decision, especially among environmental groups that generally would like to boot ranchers from government-owned western land.
Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, an environmental conservation organization, blasted the mistrial decision in The Hill.
“These federal agencies have been patient and cautious to a fault in their prosecution of the Bundys and their accomplices,” Molvar wrote. “It’s long past time to stop playing games with the prosecution of federal crimes, and instead lay all the facts on the table and let the judicial system work.”
But one doesn’t need to think the Bundys acted appropriately in the dispute to understand why the case had to be thrown out. Nor is it out of line to think it’s worrisome for government agents to act in such an aggressive and abusive manner no matter the guilt or innocence of the citizen.
As columnist Debra Saunders wrote, the disturbing facts that have come to light point “to the sort of federal prosecutorial abuses that give the right cause for paranoia.”
There are better ways of of dealing with Western land. Reducing the federal footprint would certainly help.
Ranchers have been using government land for grazing for many generations, as individuals generally don’t have the financial means to acquire the amount of property necessary to run their business.
But this setup is not a free ride or “welfare,” as some have suggested.
Studies show it is generally more expensive for ranchers to use public land, which, in addition to fees, they are required to maintain, than to use privately leased land. In fact this land use helps the government save a significant amount of money on management costs.
Many ranchers would much rather contract with private entities and pay for services rather than deal with the headache of negotiating with the federal government. In many cases, however, this is impossible.
In Nevada, the federal government owns over 80 percent of the land and creates serious problems for ranchers and others who want and need to use it.
In the past, the federal government was more likely to give ranchers freer use of this land. Government actually encouraged western migration and frontier settlement through policies such as the famed Homestead Act of 1862.
But pressure from environmentalists outside and inside the agencies during the 20th century led to more restrictive policies on how ranchers may use the land.
This resulted in confrontations between the federal government and western farmers and ranchers, most notably the so-called “Sagebrush Rebellion” in the 1970s and 1980s, in which a coalition of westerners demanded that the government privatize land or transfer it to local authorities.
Confrontations and tension between ranchers and the Bureau of Land Management will likely continue as long as the government pursues such tight-fisted policies and insists that it’s more important to close off land use for the needs of the desert tortoise rather than those of ranchers and farmers.
Regardless of policy, Americans have a right not to be targeted by a government created to protect them and mete out appropriate justice.
The unfortunate facts of the Bundy case show how an unaccountable agency can become abusive toward citizens, and strikes at the heart of what we believe about republican government.
The Founders created our institutions to serve us and faithfully uphold the law, not be weaponized to attack individuals and groups in the shadow of darkness.
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/BLM-STANDOFF-e1515504036416.jpg371640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-01-09 08:20:582018-01-09 08:22:41This Case Against Western Ranchers Shows Why Americans Are Right to Fear Government
One million Americans are getting pay increases because of the tax reform package signed into law in December.
“More than one million hardworking Americans have already received a ‘Trump Bonus’ or ‘Trump Pay Raise’ as a result of the historic tax reform package that President Donald J. Trump signed into law just before Christmas,” @PressSec says.
That’s according to Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group that established a running list of companies that have announced bonuses, wage hikes, and charitable donations.
“Just five days into 2018 the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has changed the nation for the better,” Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist said in a statement. “American companies are raising wages, paying bonuses, expanding operations, and increasing 401(k) contributions.”
The website asks for people to provide information if they are aware of other companies providing pay raises because of tax reform.
President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress said the reform would grow the economy, while Democrats argued the corporate tax cuts would not benefit employees.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued a statement Friday night, which said:
More than one million hardworking Americans have already received a “Trump Bonus” or “Trump Pay Raise” as a result of the historic tax reform package that President Donald J. Trump signed into law just before Christmas. President Trump said from the beginning that lowering tax rates, simplifying the complicated tax code, and making our companies more competitive would be the fuel that propels our economy to new heights. The preliminary results show that the president is right, and American workers and families are the big winners. And this is only the beginning. The president remains focused on empowering Americans to build more prosperous lives for themselves and brighter futures for their children.
The new law cut the corporate tax rate from 39.6 percent to 21 percent. It also lowered individual rates and closed loopholes.
Among the employers to give bonuses were AT&T, which gave $1,000 bonuses to its 200,000 employees; American Airlines, which gave $1,000 bonuses to 127,600 employees; BB&T Bank, which gave $1,200 bonuses to its 27,000 employees and raised the base wage from $12 to $15 per hour; Southwest Airlines, which gave $1,000 bonuses for 55,000 employees and $5 million in charitable donations; and Sinclair Broadcasting, which gave $1,000 bonuses for 9,000 employees.
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/MillionBonuses-1250x650-e1515410163639.jpg370640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-01-08 06:16:102018-01-10 08:11:46Analysis Finds 1 Million Americans So Far Getting Pay Raise From Tax Reform
Meaningful border security and effective enforcement of our immigration laws are anathemas to globalists who see in America’s borders impediments to their wealth.
While U.S.-based globalists routinely spout globalist propaganda, often disguised as “news reports” by American journalists, comparable globalist propaganda spewed by foreign journalists is rarely reported in the United States.
On December 18, 2017, Quartz India published an article, under the category of Back In Limbo, “Under Trump, Indian H-1B wives fear becoming second-class citizens again.”
The title of the article was not only illogical but also apparently sought to blur the distinction between American citizens and aliens.
Beneath the title of that article was the image of the hands of a newly naturalized citizen holding an American flag, accompanied by a brief description of the naturalization ceremony where the photo was taken.
There was no explanation, however, as to why the photo taken of an American flag at a naturalization ceremony is somehow to be conflated with a report about nonimmigrant aliens working in the United States.
The obvious question, certainly not asked or answered in the article, is how could any alien, particularly a nonimmigrant alien, complain about “becoming a second-class citizen?”
Simply stated, aliens are not citizens — first-class, second-class, or any class at all.
In point of fact, aliens must be acquire lawful immigrant status in order to ultimately be eligible to come United States citizens provided that they meet a number of prerequisites. Nonimmigrant aliens, by definition, are aliens who are admitted into the United States for a temporary period of time and must, after the period of admission expires, return to their native countries.
H-1B and H-4 visas, the focus of the Quartz India grievance, are nonimmigrant visas.
Furthermore, it is a crime for an alien to claim to be a United States citizen. Under the law (18 U.S. Code § 911) any alien who makes a false claim to being a United States citizen is committing a felony that carries a maximum penalty of up to three years in prison.
Use of misleading language is a major element of the campaign waged by immigration anarchists and globalists who seek to eradicate America’s borders.
In the Orwellian world of immigration Newspeak, aliens who enter the United States without inspection are referred to as entering “undocumented” a fabricated term to obfuscate the truth that these aliens are illegally present in the United States.
By eliminating the term “alien” from the vernacular where any discussions or debates about immigration are concerned, a tactic initiated by President Jimmy Carter during his administration, set the stage for the bogus assertions that anyone who believes in securing our nation’s borders against the entry of criminals, terrorists, and other aliens who would pose a threat to best interests of America and Americans are deemed to be “anti-immigrant” when, in reality their position should be referred to as “pro-immigration law enforcement.”
This use of language to control the debate was the topic of my recent article, “Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny is Paved With Language Censorship.”
The article published by that publication, complaining that their citizens are not being treated in a manner equal to United States citizens, is simply yet another step along the path to immigration anarchy and the destruction of American sovereignty by confounding logic and reasoning in pursuit of a political agenda.
Bad as the title of that piece was, the article itself goes on to hammer the United States for its policies, and we have Obama’s anarchistic immigration policies to thank for this.
Consider the opening paragraph of the article:
Rashi Bhatnagar gave up her career as a journalist when she left India in 2009 and moved to the US on an H-4 dependent visa. For years, she struggled with frustration because her visa status did not allow her to work in the US. But in 2015, she saw a sliver of hope after the erstwhile Barack Obama administration allowed the spouses of H-1B workers awaiting green card approval to apply for work permits of their own.
The article then noted that on December 14 of this year the Trump administration announced that it would reconsider the Obama policy of permitting certain H-4 aliens to be granted employment authorization and how unfair this was.
The alien referenced in the first paragraph of the article came to the United States voluntarily knowing full well, before she even set foot on U.S. soil, that she would not be permitted to work in the United States. Nevertheless, she willingly came here and found the conditions to be what she knew that they would be before she boarded the airliner.
Many of Obama’s globalist policies ended the day that he left office and still more of his policies are under review by President Trump so that he can truly put America and Americans first, a clear and unequivocal element of his campaign for the presidency.
Providing tens of thousands of aliens, who were admitted with H-4 nonimmigrant visas, with employment authorization runs contrary to the best interests of American workers by enabling these nonimmigrant aliens to compete with American and lawful immigrants for jobs.
It is to be expected that President Trump would take a hard look at this program and, hopefully, terminate these policies.
Of course citizens of India and other countries could not care less about the well-being of America or Americans.
Incredibly, adding to this problem is the fact that for decades we have had a succession of administrations that apparently shared their disdain for Americans. Mr. Obama, undoubtedly led the charge creating policies that eroded American sovereignty that undermined national security and public safety.
Furthermore, the problems with the employment of these nonimmigrant aliens also has an economic component. Money earned by aliens is wired out of the countries by foreign workers, whether they are legally or illegally working in the United States. That money is permanently lost to the U.S. economy and contributes to our national debt and to an adverse balance of trade.
On October 3, 2017, the World Bank issued a report, “Remittances to Recover Modestly After Two Years of Decline.” It included this paragraph:
Among major remittance recipients, India retains its top spot, with remittances expected to total $65 billion this year, followed by China ($63 billion), the Philippines ($33 billion), Mexico (a record $31 billion), and Nigeria ($22 billion).
India has been leading the charge of countries receiving remittances sent home by their citizens who are working in countries around the world. Of course, not all of the money remitted to these countries came from the United States, but America is a leading country where the flow of remittances is concerned.
The egregious article upon which my commentary today is predicated also addressed the issue of remittances and quoted Poorvi Chothani, managing partner at an immigration law firm LawQuest.
Chothani had the unmitigated chutzpah to whine that Trump policies would prevent these nonimmigrant aliens from realizing their “American Dream.”
The “American Dream” for nonimmigrant aliens?
Incredibly, the term “American Dream,” and one that has become over the past several decades, ever more elusive and indeed, illusory for American citizens, has been misappropriated by globalists to purportedly justify providing millions of illegal aliens with lawful status and a pathway to U.S. Citizenship under the failed “DREAM Act” and now apparently for nonimmigrant aliens who voluntarily enter the United States on nonimmigrant visas.
Additionally, the article makes a contrived claim that since, according to the article, 90 percent of the H-4 visa holders are women, the Trump policies are unfair to women. And while the H-1B visa holders may be sending remittances back to India, their wives who cannot work in the United States are unable to send money to support their families because the wages paid to the H-1B spouses are insufficient to meet all of their needs, in the United States and back home to help their families.
Of course the law firm is likely concerned that their profits will suffer if the number of aliens who would come to the United States is reduced because of President Trump’s policies of putting American workers first.
It’s easy to see the damage that has been done to America — just follow the money.
Because of the globalist policies of the Obama administration and previous administrations, the globalists have been literally and figuratively “making out like bandits.”
Thankfully, since the election of Donald Trump, there is truly a new sheriff in town.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on NewsMax.com.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/H-4-Visa-e1514940426131.jpg320641Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2018-01-02 19:47:162018-01-02 19:47:16Trump Should Rescind Work Authorization for H-4 Visas
It’s only weeks away from the day in January last year when Donald J. Trump ascended to the presidency and took his oath of office as the 45th President of the United States of America.
In only 12 months, it’s fair to say that he has already had an extraordinary presidency—more bold, courageous, and revolutionary than any American president since the Founding Fathers almost two-and-a-half centuries ago.
I use the adjectives spectacular and extraordinary not only to describe the sheer ebullience and optimism the president exhibits every day at his impossibly daunting job—and in spite of the non-stop vilification of the angry, bitter, jealous left—but mostly because his accomplishments in both domestic and foreign affairs have been so stupendous for the American people.
Haven’t you been reading the papers and watching TV?” the pathetic Never Trumpers grouse. “If you had,” they insist, “you would have seen clearly that the president has had just about no accomplishments!”
Of course, if I depended on the media whores at CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and The Washington Post, The New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR)—the list is long—I would be forced to believe the avalanche of fake news which consistently fails to give even passing mention to the president’s laudable achievements.
But one of the genius things candidate Trump accomplished before he was elected and entered the Oval Office was identifying the colossal phoniness of the so-called mainstream media.
Jim Hoft, proprietor of Gateway Pundit reports that according to Wikileaks, at least 65 mainstream-media reporters met and coordinated with top Hillary Clinton advisors during the 2016 presidential campaign. Below is only a tiny sampling of what a friend of mine calls partisan prostitutes:
All of these shills worked closely with the Clinton campaign, were invited to top elitist dinners with Hillary Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Chief Campaign strategist Joel Benenson, and in every case were given an “off-the-record” agenda which was blatantly and fawningly pro-Hillary. NOTE: significantly, no fair-and-balanced Fox News reporters made the list.
It wasn’t only fake news that militated against candidate Trump. It was also the leftist polling companies that consistently reported “fake” numbers right up until 8 p.m. on election night.
But whaddaya know—in spite of a massive coordinated blitz of negative reporting, candidate Trump’s message resonated with the entire country, which promptly awarded him the presidency!
FORGING AHEAD
Last May, I wrote about “The Juggernaut and the Jerks” in which I described the formidable inroads the juggernaut president had made on behalf of America, as opposed to the drumbeat of negative “press” he received from the jerks in the media.
Three months later, covering President Trump’s second quarter in office, I wrote about “The Unstoppable Trump Train,” again cataloging how the chief executive was slashing the mountain of wasteful government spending, getting rid of strangulating regulations, establishing strong ties with foreign leaders, and initiating measures designed to improve American lives forever.
Now that the November 8th date has passed since Donald J. Trump’s historic upset election, and President Trump is approaching the one-year date of his inauguration on January 20th, 2018, it is fitting that I close out my assessment of his first year in office.
THE SUPER-HUMAN FACTOR
There is a very good reason why President Trump, long before he ever contemplated a run for the presidency, became a multi-billionaire in the real-estate industry and one of the most successful TV stars of the 20th century. It is simply because he’s smarter than most people—definitely than most politicians—and he has that X factor of charisma that is missing in most of the nearly eight-billion people on earth.
Brains and charisma, in his case, equal the ability to get Big Things accomplished, combined with the charm to convince even his rivals that what they originally thought was a bad idea is, in fact, a good idea. And this is not to omit President Trump’s ability to play the kind of hard ball that eclipses the NY Yankees’ 27 World Series championships!
Case in point. The President just proclaimed that Jerusalem was the official capital of Israel, after just about every president since 1948 campaigned on this promise and never delivered. Most people know this instinctively, since Jews have lived in the Holy Land for over 3,000 years and Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible over 600 times, in dramatic contrast to the Muslim’s holy book, the Koran, which mentions Jerusalem NOT ONCE!
Following the president’s pronouncement, 128 ofthe corrupt, tin-pot-dictators in the United Nations condemned the declaration.But unlike past presidents, especially the poseur “president” Barack Obama, who had a peculiar fetish for those anti-Semitic dictators, President Trump said, really? You don’t want to vote with the country that supports you to the tune of billions of dollars every year? Okay… it’ll cost you. Hard ball!
Meanwhile,within days, the president ofGuatemala, Jimmy Morales, announced that he would move his country’s embassy to Jerusalem. And shortly after, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, Tzipi Hotovely, announced that at least 10 more countries joined the growing list of those who intend to move their embassies to Jerusalem.
I credit each and every one of them with helping me compile the following list of President Trump’s mind-boggling first-year accomplishments. But because of space constraints, it is only possible for me to mention a tiny percentage of the smashing successes the president has brought about since his inauguration.Believe me, this is only the proverbial drop in the bucket!
ECONOMY
In contrast to Breitbart writer John Nolte’s description of Mr. Obama’s “anti-growth policies and anti-free market rhetoric,” President Trump, he says, has taken “complete ownership of the American economy”—including:
The enactment of the massive tax cuts and jobs-creation law which eliminates the Obamacare mandate and provides “incentives for corporations to repatriate trillions stashed overseas to avoid America’s unnecessarily high tax rates” and consumers to have greater choice in healthcare options.
A Latino unemployment rate that is has hit a record low in the 45-year history of government tracking,
A black unemployment rate hitting a 17-year low—after nearly two decades of double-digit unemployment,
An unexpectedly high growth rate of 3.3 percent in the third quarter of 2017…with projections for the fourth quarter edging into the magic number of 4 percent,
The unemployment rate hitting a 17-year low, the lowest since 2000,
Mortgage applications for new homes rise to a seven year high,
Lowest gas prices in more than 12 years,
A boom in manufacturing jobs, with 171,000 having been created under President Trump, in stark contrast to the 16,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the poseur “president’s final year, and the manufacturing unemployment rate just 2.6 percent, the lowest in history.
In addition, a booming stock market, with a gain of more than $4 trillion in wealth, the DOW over 24,000, and for the first time ever, rising 5,000 Points in one year, and the S&P and NASDAQ setting all-time highs,
A decrease in the U.S. debt by $101-billion dollars! (In his first five months, the poseur “president” Barack Obama increased the U.S. debt by $771-billion dollars).
The president convinced companies such as Ford, Chrysler and Carrier Air Conditioners to manufacture and build plants in the United States and Corning announced it was investing $500 million in new U.S. production, creating 1,000 new jobs. Foxconn, the world’s largest contract electronics manufacturer, which makes the iPhone, announced in July it was investing $10 billion in Wisconsin to build a factory that will employ 3,000 workers directly and up to 22,000 workers indirectly.
According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, international business editor of the London Telegraph, “American companies have stashed trillions of dollars overseas in what amounts to the greatest cash reserve in the world,” and President Trump, as part of his tax reform, is not bringing that money back to the U.S.
POTUS reversed the Dodd-Frank Act, financial-regulation legislation in which regulators were given too much power and big banks were given special treatment.
Refused his $400,000 a year salary as president, took just one dollar, and donated to the Park Service, Veterans Affairs.
Signed Executive Order for an Apprentice program to train skilled works to fill six-million open positions.
Reduced White House payroll by $22 million.
FOREIGN POLICY
Bruce Thornton, of frontpagemag.com, notes that Pres. Trump “has begun to repair the damage to our international prestige wrought by” the poseur president’s “one-world, naïve internationalism favored by progressives, who want to diminish America’s global clout…” In that regard, POTUS has:
Increased the sanctions on Iran and refused to recertify Obama’s disastrous agreement with the nuke-hungry mullahs,
Bombed a Syrian airfield and destroyed a fifth of Assad’s jet fighters,
Took the gloves off our military and ended ISIS’s “caliphate,”
Rolled back Obama’s cringing concessions to Cuba,
Put Russia on notice by recommitting to the Magnitsky Act and increasing sanctions on regime oligarchs,
Unleashed U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley on “the anti-American pygmy states infesting that ‘cockpit in the Tower of Babel’ (the United Nations),
Under Trump, Thornton says, “America seems to be getting its international mojo back.”
In addition, according to journalist and author Matthew Vadum, the president’s 11-day Asian trip—to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Tokyo, Japan; Seoul, South Korea; Beijing, the People’s Republic of China; Danang, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; and in Manila, the Philippines—succeeded in bolstering “resolve to combat North Korean nuclear adventurism and Islamic terrorism, and to promote his signature ‘America First’ trade policies… after eight years of pathetic servility, weakness, and apology tours” by the poseur president.
During the trip, Pres. Trump scuttled the Trans-Pacific Partnership, saying: “We will no longer enter into large agreements that tie our hands, surrender our sovereignty, make meaningful enforcement practically impossible,” and produce “unfair trade practices and enormous trade deficits for the United States.”
VP Mike Pence announced that the U.S. will quit funding refugee programs carried out by the United Nations, given its failure to protect Christian [and other] minorities “in the wake of genocide and the atrocities of terrorist groups.”
MILITARY
Pres. Trump removed the poseur president’s crushing Rules of Engagement in combat, which tied the hands of our military and resulted in both greater combat and civilian casualties. And heempowered military leaders to “seize the initiative and win,” reducing the need for a White House sign off on every mission.
According to James Lewis of The American Thinker, when President Trump dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) in Afghanistan…“a hundred or more of the worst human beings since Hitler died in one big explosion,” and both our allies and our enemies knew there was a powerful new sheriff in the United States. “Obama would never even name the enemy,” Lewis says, and he “never, ever seemed to get that basic point of morality, nor did Hillary, nor did any other Democrat. Trump and Mattis obviously understand it…”
Journalist Rick Moranreminds us that today, ISIS has lost 98 percent of its territory and that now, fewer than 1,000 ISIS fighters remain in Iraq and Syria. And Fox News reports that number is down “from a peak of nearly 45,000 just two years ago. U.S. officials credit nearly 30,000 U.S.-led coalition airstrikes and regional partners on the ground for killing more than 70,000 jihadists.
In addition, President Trump signed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, which approves one of the largest defense spending increases in the past 30 years. The NDAA does the following:
Increases the size of our forces for the first time in 7 years,
Authorizes funds for the continued defeat of ISIS and to cover critical missile defense capabilities to confront the threat posed by North Korea,
Takes concrete steps to rebuild U.S. military readiness
Approves a 2.4 percent pay raise for our troops—the largest in 8 years!
VETERANS
Signed the Veterans Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act to allow senior officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs to fire failing employees and establish safeguards to protect whistleblowers,
Authorized $2.1 billion in additional funds for the Veterans Choice Program in healthcare; allowed private healthcare choices for veterans,
Launched an online “Access and Quality Tool” providing veterans with a way to access wait time and quality of care data,
THE BEST IS YET TO COME
Conservatives like me knew one thing after observing the poseur president Obama after his very first month in office, i.e., that the worst was yet to come.
Sure enough, for eight long years we witnessed a remarkable avalanche of apologies for America, non-stop race baiting, the evisceration of our military, and a virtual devolution of everything positive America stood for.
After the big-hearted people of America gave a community organizer with not one microsecond of executive or foreign affairs experience a chance to lead the greatest, strongest, most generous country on earth, those same big-hearted people regained their sanity and voted for an American patriot with vast executive experience to seize the reins of power and—literally—to save both America and Western civilization!
For those of us who value safety, a strong military, a booming economy, high employment, a belief in the sanctity of life, and a reverence for the U.S. Constitution, the election of Donald J. Trump was a godsend.
And we fervently believe that under his leadership, the best, indeed, is yet to come!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-president-1-e1514678684436.jpg401639Joan Swirskyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJoan Swirsky2017-12-30 19:04:012018-01-02 07:54:08A Year of Spectacular Accomplishments for President Trump
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/jerry-brown-california-governor-e1477568289790.jpg393640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-12-29 18:16:282017-12-30 06:45:02VIDEO: What Happens When Democrats Run Your State?
Internet currencies do not claim to replace state currencies, but even if the phenomenon is realized only partially, it is hard to dismiss the idea that it could deprive states and financial establishments that control the global financial system of their exclusive hold over means of payment. In the long term, if this phenomenon spreads and is not regulated, it could also have implications for internal stability. At present, regulatory bodies such as central banks in the West as well as in Israel appear fairly indifferent to internet currencies and their impact on various fields of activity, because they are not a familiar official currency, security, or asset. Israel would do well to accelerate the process of defining its approach to internet currencies, with an integrated examination of the subject by all the regulatory bodies involved, including cyber teams, and in collaboration with other elements worldwide.
An established financial system is critical to states and their citizens in all areas of life, and it is one of the characteristics of sovereignty. The development of means of payment and financial systems outside the control of states arouses much interest, including with reference to national security, in both the narrow and broader senses of this term. The issues include funding terrorist activity, raising capital by organizations committing terror and sabotage, bypassing sanctions, making secret payments for sensitive and prohibited materials and technologies (nonconventional WMD, surface to surface missiles, cyber capabilities), undermining established financial systems, interfering with tax collection, committing cyber and ransom crimes, laundering money, paying bribes, and damaging public funds. This article deals with this aspect of the phenomenon of virtual decentralized currencies, such as Bitcoin, Atrium, and others (hereafter: “internet currencies”).
Internet currencies are based on an advanced technology – “blockchain” – which enables them to exist on a secure internet network, in encrypted form, with no supervision by governments or central banks. Supporters of internet currencies point to their basic advantages compared to national currencies: they can be used for fast, reliable, and continuous money transfers at any time, without the intervention of a central entity. Proponents are encouraged by the growth of bitcoin usage in several countries, representing the breakthrough of virtual decentralized currencies. For example, since April 2016 Japan has recognized bitcoin as an official means of payment, and in December 2017, Chicago launched a “futures” market in Bitcoin. At the same time, senior economists around the world and heads of financial systems generally believe that investing in Bitcoin (and similar currencies) is a speculative gamble and that their rise in value relative to state currencies is simply a bubble.
There are several parameters regarding virtual currencies: the various types of decentralized virtual currencies (internet currencies), the phenomenon of internet currencies itself, virtual currencies in general (not only decentralized), and the new technology. There is broad consensus regarding the innovation represented by the blockchain technology, its value, and its potential future implementations, including within established financial systems and other areas.
Internet currencies can be used to pay for goods and services, conversion to other currencies, and investment. However, public access to and involvement in internet currencies is still low, their status is at this stage unclear, and they are subject to speculative investment. The sharp fluctuation in their exchange rates (against state currencies) makes it hard to see them as useful for commerce. All these factors work to restrain their wider use in business. Some of these features, such as high volatility, could also make it more difficult for hostile elements to exploit them (as described below), although the actual situation in this area is unknown and these features could change in the future. The big test for decentralized virtual currencies, as negotiable currency and as financial instruments, will come when there is regulation in this field, and if and when the behavior of these “currencies” is suitable in terms of stability, accessibility, the quantity of “money,” and so on. The question of user confidence is central, and therefore these currencies are very sensitive to risks, such as technical hitches, manipulations, fraud, insider trading, and cyber attacks, which could undermine this trust.
True, internet currencies do not claim to replace state currencies, but even if the phenomenon is realized only partially, it is hard to dismiss the idea that it could deprive states and financial establishments that control the global financial system of their exclusive hold over means of payment, just as the internet deprives states and the media of their exclusive control of information. With the existing systems, it is hard for the state to track “new money” and its usage, so the main risk posed to states by these currencies is the fact of financial activity moving beyond the state’s knowledge or reach. This includes the financial activity of terrorist and criminal organizations, which can use virtual currencies to pay their activists, acquire weapons on the black market, buy forbidden substances, launder money, and move money from country to country with no supervision. In the future, this currency system could also be used to bypass sanctions imposed on countries and hostile elements, including the purchase of banned substances and technologies, since it is a separate global financial system that is not controlled by states or banks.
In the long term, if this phenomenon spreads and is not regulated, it could also have implications for internal stability. These extra-state systems could enable private and business elements to operate outside the reach of state institutions within their own countries, or even without their knowledge, to avoid paying taxes, to take money out of bank accounts, and so on. These actions could also be done by individuals seeking to maintain the value of their money in countries where the local currency is subject to decline, where there are severe restrictions on foreign currency transactions, or where there is internal instability. Countries that feel threatened could take various defensive actions, such as banning the use of internet currencies and blocking access to trading sites and “digital wallets.”
At present, regulatory bodies such as central banks in the West as well as in Israel appear fairly indifferent to these currencies and their impact on various fields of activity, because they are not a familiar official currency, security, or asset. This phenomenon has apparently exposed a gap in the state regulatory system. Some regulators are not yet worried due to the limited scope of the phenomenon, relative to the vast global extent of commercial markets, capital, and supervised money, and because the internet currency system is separate from the established financial system. For example, on December 13, 2017, US Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said that bitcoin is “a highly speculative asset” and “not a stable store of value,” is solely intended for speculation, accounts for a very marginal part of the payments system, and poses no risks for market stability. In other words, it does not replace the state currency, and if the “bubble” should burst soon, the resulting shockwaves will not be very strong. Nevertheless, it is clear that if the “bubble” continues to inflate, the extent of the damage will rise accordingly. China is following developments closely; in early December, Pan Gongsheng, a deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China, warned investors, saying: “There is only one thing we can do: sit by the river bank and one day we will see bitcoin’s body pass by.” Concern for the implications of bitcoin for the general public has also been expressed in South Korea, where the government is introducing regulation.
Israel is still formulating its position, although it has been aware of the phenomenon for several years. In an open letter of February 2014, the Bank of Israel warned the public about the dangers of using decentralized virtual currencies, and stressed that they were not legal tender, even though they were called “currencies.” The Bank said that “this is an activity with a high-risk factor with regard to money laundering and funding of terror,” since it facilitates anonymous financial transactions that bypass regulated systems. The position of the income tax authorities in Israel is that virtual currencies are not currencies or securities under the laws of the state, and therefore the sale of a virtual currency will be taxed like the sale of an asset, and the profit will be subject to capital gains tax. Shmuel Hauser, head of the Israel Securities Authority, characterized the recent rise in bitcoin rates as a “bubble” and brought up the need for a regulatory position on stock exchange companies dealing with these currencies.
Israel would do well to accelerate the process of deciding on its approach, with an integrated examination of the subject by all the regulatory bodies involved, including cyber teams, and in collaboration with other elements worldwide. At this stage, since the world has not yet reached firm decisions about internet currencies, state authorities should adopt a conservative approach. If the dangers embodied by internet currencies become clear, legislative and enforcement steps at the state level could indeed be an important part of the response. A fundamental solution will require international consensus. If extensive fraud is discovered, the system will collapse in any case. Yet even now it is important to promote, as much as possible, the formulation of responses to the various risks, including the prevention of “crime and terror funds.” It is also advised to make the most of the opportunity provided by the innovative technological aspects of these systems, as this could also make a contribution to established systems.
NOTE: *The article was written in the framework of the Economics and National Security Program at INSS. It should not be seen as recommending investment or commercial use of the phenomenon examined here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bitcoin-2007912_640-e1514462000765.jpg392640The Institute for National Security Studieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Institute for National Security Studies2017-12-28 06:53:412017-12-28 06:53:41Internet Currencies and National Security
(b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.
There are four reports giving criminal data on aliens, both legal and illegal. Each report details how aliens, both legal and illegal, are in federal prisons for serious crimes including: murder, drug trafficking, smuggling and money laundering. These reports also give an indication of the cost to taxpayers to incarcerate criminal aliens at the federal and state level.
For example, the Government Accountability Office released two unsettling reports in 2005 on criminal aliens who are in prison for committing crimes in the United States, and issued an updated report in 2011.
The first report (GAO-05-337R) found that criminal aliens (both legal and illegal) make up 27 percent of all federal prisoners. Yet according to the Center for Immigration Studies, non-citizens are only about nine percent of the nation’s adult population. Thus, judging by the numbers in federal prisons alone, non-citizens commit federal crimes at three times the rate of citizens.
The findings in the second report (GAO-05-646R) are even more disturbing. This report looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien.
Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.
The 2011 GAO report wasn’t much different. It looked at 251,000 criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons and jails. Those aliens were arrested nearly 1.7 million times for close to three million criminal offenses. Sixty-eight percent of those in federal prison and 66 percent of those in state prisons were from Mexico. Their offenses ranged from homicide and kidnapping to drugs, burglary, and larceny.
Once again, these statistics are not fully representative of crimes committed by illegal aliens: This report only reflects the criminal histories of aliens who were in prison. If there were a way to include all crimes committed by criminal aliens, the numbers would likely be higher because prosecutors often will agree to drop criminal charges against an illegal alien if they are assured that immigration authorities will deport the alien.
The GAO reports also highlight another important flaw in the study referenced by the Associated Press. It uses survey data from a nationally representative sample of people living in the United States. Thus, the study does not take into account some potentially key factors highlighted in the GAO reports: that criminal aliens from Mexico disproportionately make up incarcerations (GAO-05-337R) and that most arrests are made in the three border states of California, Texas, and Arizona (GAO-05-646R and GAO-11-187).
As immigration reform will be a top priority in 2018, perhaps these report will continue to tell the true story on alien criminal activity in America. Many believe we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg because these reports deal with federal data. State and local data on alien arrests and convictions will give the American people a better idea of what is happening in their communities.
The Trump administration has begun targeting criminal aliens, including members of gangs like MS 13. The President has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to aliens both in America and those attempting to enter America. Many believe Congress has failed to act to protect the American people for decades. Immigration will be a hot topic in 2018.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/border-patrol-agent-badge-e1514113677375.jpg340638Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-12-24 06:08:062018-01-18 09:59:51VIDEO: Legal and Illegal Aliens in the U.S. Are Disproportionately Dangerous Criminals
The essential element in the question, “How many times did you beat your wife?” is its presupposition that the husband beat his wife.
Perhaps the best way to understand the ongoing debate surrounding Net Neutrality is to consider Noam Chomsky’s incisive observations on presuppositions in his book The Common Good (1998).
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” p43
Millennials have been indoctrinated with the presuppositions of the Leftist narrative for two decades. Climate change is a classic example. The climate change argument presupposes the validity of its foundational premise of global warming. When it became abundantly clear that the earth’s temperature always fluctuates and was in fact cooling the global warming enthusiasts disingenuously changed the name of their campaign from “global warming” to “climate change” without ever accepting the scientific facts of the earth’s cooling. Why? Because global warming/climate change was never about the weather – it was always about the redistribution of wealth from rich industrialized countries to poorer non-industrialized countries in the form of taxes, fees, fines, and non-compliance penalties.
Even testimony by Patrick Moore former co-founder of Greenpeace before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was not enough to convince millennials that global warming was a hoax because they had accepted the presupposition of the argument and were ideologically convinced they were saving the planet.
Oppositional views on climate change have actually been litigated. The court case against Mark Steyn attempted to silence Steyn’s oppositional views on climate change.
Steyn argued that if courts can silence free and open debate on scientific inquiry then freedom of speech is functionally dead. The pressure to conform in climate science is very real and the viciousness and hostility toward people who disagree is overwhelming. Anyone in the science community who challenges the “settled” science of climate change is considered unhinged or a dissident to be silenced – not a respected scientist or a climatologist to be heard. Climate science is functionally political science because redistribution of wealth is a political matter unrelated to weather.
So it is with Net Neutrality, FCC regulation 15-24 rescinded by FCC panel vote on 12.14.17. Millennials are now arguing passionately and persuasively to restore FCC 15-24 because they accept the suppositions of the argument that Net Neutrality is actually neutral. In fact, Net Neutrality, like climate change, is a partisan political weapon in the Leftist Culture War on America. Instead of redistribution of wealth, Net Neutrality seeks legalized censorship of the Internet by left-wing liberal Internet Content Providers. The social pressure to conform to the political narrative of Net Neutrality is as powerful and vicious as the social pressure to conform to climate change. This is how it works.
Net Neutrality was disingenuously introduced by Obama as a preventative measure to legally “protect” consumers from the “possibility” of Internet Service Providers (ISP) like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T charging for Internet usage based on website content. Obama’s diversionary tactic deceitfully focused public attention and debate on the possibility of fees related to content and away from the real Title II provisions that bind Internet Service Providers (ISP) to Net Neutrality but exempt Internet Content Providers like Google, Facebook, Twitter. It was a classic indirect approach – the eighth of eight classical maneuvers in warfare – a diversionary tactic that focuses attention away from the essential play.
The Tech-Left was instrumental in the formulation of “Net Neutrality” and helped write the new rules. Not surprisingly, the consequence was that the Leftist content providers who currently dominate the Internet were “free to restrain content by censoring out all conservative and libertarian views at will, without so much as an explanation to anyone why the objectionable views were banned.” Net Neutrality awards the Leftist content providers precisely what Obama claimed Net Neutrality was “protecting” the country from. FCC 15-24 gifted the power of complete legal censorship to the political Left!
Net Neutrality was rightfully rescinded because it was written to silence free and open debate on the Internet. Whoever controls the information controls the public because without free speech there is no freedom. The millennials who naively continue to argue that Net Neutrality must be restored should examine the presuppositions that continue to inform their opinions and examine the legalized censorship that was always the essential play in FCC 15-24.
Just as the redistribution of wealth is the underbelly of Climate Change and its essential play, legalized censorship of the Internet is the underbelly of Net Neutrality and its essential play. Both policies disingenuously presented as lively debates but actually just reinforcing the presuppositions of the system. “How many times did you beat your wife?”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/worst-thing-about-censorship-e1513939278920.jpg382640Linda Goudsmithttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLinda Goudsmit2017-12-22 05:41:302017-12-22 05:43:58How Many Times Did You Beat Your Wife?
