The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky joins us to discuss why a new lawsuit, spearheaded by Texas and including six other states, could succeed. Plus: The Boy Scouts are dropping the “boy” part of their name.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Cyrille Gibot /agefotostock/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180502_texas-1250x650-e1525427171266.jpg372640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-05-04 05:46:212018-05-04 05:46:49PODCAST: Why This New Lawsuit Could Finally End DACA Program
Taking millennials’ support for granted would be a huge mistake for Democrats this November, a new poll points out. While most people naturally assume the under-34 crowd is in the Left’s back pocket, liberals got a jolt from this week’s Reuters survey, which shows exactly how much ground Democrats are losing with the generation.
In a survey of more than 16,000 voters between the ages of 18-34, researchers were surprised to see a big drop in Democratic support. Enthusiasm is waning, Chris Kahn warns, with a nine-point slip in the Left’s advantage over the GOP. Increasingly, reporters point out, young people say “the Republican Party is a better steward of the economy.” With vignettes like Terry Hood’s, an African American who voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016, it’s obvious that what Donald Trump and Republican leaders have done is helping their midterm election case. “It sounds strange to me to say this about the Republicans,” said the 34-year-old, “but they’re helping with even the small things. They’re taking less taxes out of my paycheck. I notice that.”
While the numbers are still on the Democrats’ side (only 28 percent “overtly support” Republicans), they’re shrinking – especially as millennials age. Among the population’s white voters, the shift to the GOP was even more obvious. “Two years ago, young white people favored Democrats over Republicans for Congress by a margin of 47 to 33 percent; that gap vanished by this year, with 39 percent supporting each party.”
And the economy isn’t the only thing changing people’s minds. Ashley Reed, a mom of three, voted for Barack Obama. “But,” Kahn writes, “her politics evolved with her personal life… [N]ow 28, she grew more supportive of gun rights… [and] she opposed abortion after having children.”
Of course, all of this confirms what we’ve said for years. As young people marry and have children, they become more socially conservative because they’re responsible for protecting and shaping a life. They become more financially conservative when they buy their first house. This is nothing new. History — and most statistical data — shows that young people also tend to become more religious as they grow up, get married, and start families of their own. Millennials, like the generations before them, want to live independently and adventurously. Those growing pains usually translate to more thoughtful cultural engagement after they take on more responsibility. That’s why promoting marriage and having children (in that order) are not only important to this country, but to the future of conservatism.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/millennials-with-america-flag-e1525343816477.jpg355640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-05-03 06:37:062018-05-03 06:37:24Are Dems Losing Their Grip on Millennials?
An organization whose parent group received taxpayer funds developed and offers an app that allows illegal immigrants to notify family and lawyers when they encounter law enforcement.
The app, a computer program designed to run on a cell phone or other mobile device, also allows the user to warn other illegal immigrants when authorities are in the neighborhood.
A division of the Justice Department awarded at least $206,453 to the National Immigration Law Center, which advises illegal immigrants on their rights, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch.
The Office of Justice Programs awarded the grants between fiscal years 2008 and 2010, the records cited by the conservative government watchdog group show. That would overlap the administrations of both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
One of the projects of the National Immigration Law Center is United We Dream, which describes itself as a youth program for “undocumented” immigrants.
United We Dream created the smartphone application, or app, which is called Notifica.
In a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch seeks to determine whether the federal government has given any other money to the National Immigration Law Center, said Irene Garcia, editor of the Judicial Watch blog and the group’s Spanish media liaison.
“Judicial Watch believes that using the app to warn someone could definitely be considered abetting, since it is helping lawbreakers—illegal immigrants—avoid law enforcement,” Garcia told The Daily Signal.
United We Dream also receives funds from liberal megadonor George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, Garcia said.
“We are working on getting the latest OSF [Open Society Foundations] funding, but essentially OSF is United We Dream’s biggest financial supporter,” Garcia said. “We are also in the process of obtaining the latest U.S. funding records. It appears that United We Dream may receive money under different umbrella groups.”
Neither United We Dream nor the National Immigration Legal Center responded to phone and email inquiries from The Daily Signal.
The Laredo Morning Times quoted Adrian Reyna, director of membership and technology strategies for United We Dream, as saying that “when something actually happens, most people don’t know what to do at that moment.”
The Texas newspaper also reported that United We Dream is working on a second version of Notifica that will include the ability to use more languages besides Spanish and English.
The second version, set to be released this summer, would include Vietnamese, Korean, and Chinese. The updated app also will be able to determine where an illegal immigrant is being detained, the newspaper reported.
United We Dream pushes to give legal status to so-called Dreamers, illegal immigrants brought to the United States when they were children. The organization, which has a hotline, advises illegal immigrants against cooperating with agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In a press release, the group says: “United We Dream calls on our communities to defend their rights, not open the door to ICE, and to report ICE activities to the United We Dream MigraWatch hotline.”
The April release adds: “United We Dream has also developed the mobile app, Notifica, which immediately alerts your loved ones and legal advocates to the user’s location in cases of detention. Text ‘Notifica’ to 877-877 for a link for download.”
The Soros-backed Open Societies Foundations don’t have a direct role in the app, but doesn’t find it objectionable, said Angela Kelley, the senior strategic adviser on immigration at the Open Society Foundations.
“The Open Society Foundations does provide general support to both United We Dream and the National Immigration Law Center. The foundations do not specifically fund this app,” Kelley told The Daily Signal.
“The app allows immigrants who face detention to notify loved ones of their whereabouts, and encourage them to contact a lawyer,” Kelley said. “It is a way of ensuring that people confronted by immigration enforcement are aware of their rights, are afforded due process, and have access to legal counsel in their hour of need.”
This is the price of letting the mob, even one led by sympathetic teens, rule over sound principles: the loss of Constitutional rights and wrecked budgets.
After the deadly shooting of 17 people at a Parkland, Florida high school earlier this year that resulted in huge protests fronted by students of the school, the GOP-dominated Florida Legislature caved to the emotional mob and passed laws violative of Americans’ Second Amendment rights while causing havoc with the budgets of every School District and Sheriff’s Office in the state.
It’s the dirty little secret largely being ignored. This was not a well-thought-through, studied, principled piece of legislation. And it was not necessary. It would not have prevented Parkland.
Most of the news coverage focused on guns, guns, guns. The media narrative was all zeroed in on how much would the Republican Florida Legislature go against the wishes of the NRA in a pro-gun state. Quite a bit it turns out, particularly when activists bring uninformed teens into the chambers for gimmicky procedural votes specifically designed to elicit an emotional response.
The portion of the law most people know about is the one restricting gun ownership for those under 21 and requiring a three-day waiting period to buy all guns. So you can be in the military and go to war, you can be in law enforcement and engage bad guys, you can enter into contracts, you can drive trucks, you can get married and start a family — but you cannot do what the Constitution of the United States expressly protects your right to do: own a gun.
“This bill punishes law-abiding gun owners for the criminal acts of a deranged individual,” said the NRA-ILA’s executive director Chris Cox. The NRA is suing on Constitutional grounds, which will cost plenty of money, as they have a strong case are not apt to back down.
The second part of the Parkland legislation news coverage was over whether “we should arm teachers” — as the media framed the verbiage. This provision allows districts to voluntarily create a program where educators can volunteer to be trained on an ongoing basis and then allowed to carry a weapon on campus to defend students and others. Of course, this was roundly opposed by the guns, guns, guns crowd and it appears only a handful of rural school districts will opt in to the program.
But given very little coverage was the requirement to beef up law enforcement at the schools by requiring a school resource officer in every Florida school that did not opt for allowing school personnel to conceal carry. This is a generally popular response, despite the total collapse of law enforcement in Broward County at Parkland — where there was a school resource officer who stayed outside during the slaughter.
This is an extraordinarily expensive provision given the size of Florida as the nation’s third largest state.
There are 4,000 public schools in Florida. Law enforcement figures each school resource officer costs about $100,000 in salary, benefits, supplies and general overhead. So putting one at every school represents a $400 million endeavor statewide, towards which the state only committed $100 million. This is an ongoing, $300 million expense, every year.
And there’s the rub. The Legislature responded to the Parkland tragedy and difficult environment with not only a bad law, but one that shoves its badness down to the local level for payment.
This has created a mini crisis among school districts, sheriff departments and the counties that fund them around the state. An average-sized school district in Florida (they are all countywide) would need to find $3 million to $5 million to accomplish this task. The big districts would need much more.
Again. Every year. While safe schools are felt to be an urgent need, what this means is taking funding from elsewhere in the operating budget — the largest single cost of which are teachers. So districts are hoping that local sheriffs will either cover all or part of the costs. But sheriffs have their own budget constraints and resource demands, including the desire of the population not inside a school building to be safe.
So this hasty legislation has pitted school districts against sheriffs when those relations were traditionally quite strong and cooperative.
Worse, it may prove impossible to even meet outside the financial constraints. Most sheriff departments have openings they cannot fill because there are not enough qualified applicants. Florida’s economy is so strong and unemployment so low (3.7 percent) that neither sheriff departments or private security companies can maintain full strength, and they are competing with each other for the few candidates that come available.
The guardian program could solve this, as it is much less expensive to train school personnel and they are already on campus, but professional school administrators prevent most from even considering it.
The Legislature’s action means finding thousands of new sheriff deputies to be trained as school resources officers; or reducing the number of deputies patrolling the streets, making the rest of the community potentially less safe — including students when they are not in school.
This damaging legislation should never have been rammed through so quickly, despite the unconscionable way anti-gun activists marshalled and organized sympathetic students for their cause.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FloridaLegislature3.jpg360640Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2018-05-01 16:52:592018-05-09 06:09:45The Real Costs Of Florida’s Hasty Parkland Legislation Are Coming Out
It’s no secret that Americans are fed up with Washington’s lack of results. Less than 20 percent of respondents in a recent Gallup survey said they trust the federal government to do its job.
You know what, they’re right.
Somebody has to be responsible for the mess in Washington. For too long, career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve. The Washington bubble and an unending cycle of gridlock stand in the way of real results at a time when our country is facing both a national debt crisis and a global security crisis.
Now, more than ever, we should usher in the return of the citizen legislator. It is finally time that we impose term limits on members of Congress.
Politicians should go to Washington, do their best, and then come home to live under the laws they’ve passed. It’s just that simple. Our Founding Fathers never imagined the rise of the career politician. They envisioned citizen legislators. Elected office was never meant to be a career, nor was it meant to be a vessel for the centralization and maintenance of federal power.
Yet right now, 60 members of the U.S. Senate have held elected office for more than 20 years and 36 have held office for more than 30 years.
The broken seniority system in Congress rewards years in power, not results produced. Because of that, Washington has no sense of urgency or focus on results. Too little is being done to deal with our national debt, restore our standing in the world, and roll back the regulations crippling our free enterprise system.
When I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2014, I promised Georgians I would fight to pass term limits for members of Congress. Immediately after being sworn in last year, I co-sponsored a constitutional amendment doing just that: two six-year terms in the Senate and six two-year terms in the House. I personally have pledged to serve no more than two terms in the U.S. Senate.
For too long, career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve.
Imagine citizen legislators coming to Washington—from all walks of life—fighting for the priorities that truly represent the interests of folks back home. They would bring fresh ideas and a new sense of urgency to finally begin to deal with the crises jeopardizing our country’s future.
Citizen legislators could work outside the political establishment to bring a fresh perspective to how burdensome government policies negatively affect people’s everyday lives.
They could apply their practical experience to solving our nation’s toughest problems, and because they would only serve a short time, citizen legislators could approach solving problems with a sense of urgency instead of kicking the can down the road for the sake of political security.
Support for term limits is bipartisan. Another Gallup survey showed that 75 percent of voters—Republicans and Democrats alike—back legislation limiting the time people can serve at the highest levels of government. Given the polarizing climate crippling Washington today, there is something to be said about an idea that overwhelmingly unites both parties.
Enacting term limits will be an uphill battle because those currently in power thrive on the status quo. There is growing support in Congress, however, for term limits and many members on both sides are committed to going forward, no matter how long it takes.
Career politicians created this moment of crisis America faces today. They aren’t the ones who are going to solve it.
Term limits will help break this vicious cycle of gridlock that is stopping Congress from getting things done. It’s time to finally make sure Washington is more concerned about the next generation than the next election.
David Perdue is a Republican senator from Georgia and the only Fortune 500 CEO in Congress. Twitter: @sendavidperdue.
Dear Readers:
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Donald J. Trump is by Olivier Douliery/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-term-limits-1.jpg365640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-05-01 07:06:392018-05-01 07:08:37Washington Should Be More Concerned About the Next Generation Than the Next Election
As you have probably heard by now, little Alfie Evans died on Saturday in the early morning hours at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool, England. The case of the now-killed, little Alfie Evans has so much evil swirling around it that volumes could be written, from the British law usurping the natural-law rights of his parents, to the callousness of the hospital administrators in refusing to cooperate with other hospitals willing to take over the case, to the British courts in cold-heartedly just declaring flat-out that “There is also no reason for further delay.”
It would be hard to imagine the Nazi death-camp doctors speaking in more gruesome terms. There were plenty of reasons to not put the nearly two year old to death. His parents said “no.” A Roman hospital said “no.” Other doctors around the world said “no.” Parents in similar situations around the world said “no.” Even the pope said “no” — do not kill him.
But perhaps most disturbing in all this is the response of the numerous bishops and clerics in England and Rome. “Kill him” essentially sums up their opinion. The archbishop of Liverpool, Malcolm Patrick McMahon, not only publicly supported the hospital’s death sentence but couldn’t even get the most basic facts right in his statement when he said the parents of Alfie weren’t Catholic.
The father, Tom Evans, is a baptized Catholic, as was little Alfie — a shameful and revealing gross error. But McMahon was only following the lead of Abp. Vincenzo Paglia in Rome, ironically the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who voiced public support for the death of little Alfie. He was even confronted in the airport in Italy by a faithful laywoman who said he should be ashamed of his statement. He brushed her aside and ordered an aide to handle her. Paglia was probably in a rush to get back to the homoerotic paintings featuring himself that he commissioned for his cathedral church. Once Pope Francis came out publicly supporting Alfie and pleading for his life, the homoerotic-painting-loving archbishop suddenly reversed course and supported Alfie.
But most troubling perhaps of all is the support given to the death merchants and deniers of parental natural law rights by the bishops of England and Wales who piled on little Alfie, approving of his killing by the hospital, doubling down on the Paglia-McMahon stance and in public defiance of the pope. These men are among the most vocal, along with many of their ilk, when calling for mercy. But there were no calls for mercy for little Alfie, even though he did not have a fatal disease, and in fact, the cause of his condition was largely unknown.
It’s astounding when you consider that the establishment of Great Britain was cheering and supporting the killing of one child on one side of England when cheering and supporting the life of another child born on practically the same day Alfie was killed — the newborn prince of William and Kate — Louis. That little royal better hope he doesn’t develop some serious medical condition and then turn to the nation’s Catholic bishops for support in saving his life.
Almost 500 years ago, the Catholic bishops of England supported the spiritual death of England in turning the country over to the wishes of an adulterous, murderous king. Five-hundred years later, it appears they are just as happy to continue in the losing streak in turning over to the Establishment the physical lives of sick children — even in defiance of a plea by the pope.
Parents, not governments, have the natural-law right from Almighty God to make these decisions for their children, not the state and certainly not errant-misguided-duplicitous-disobedient-killer clerics. Little Alfie Evans — dead — just two weeks before his second birthday. Please stay tuned for today’s Download where the panel will discuss all this in much greater detail.
White people are finding it “difficult to adjust” to becoming a minority, goes the premise of a new AP history textbook — with the implication that this reflects some kind of character defect. Responding to this, conservative writers have generally denied the claim, sometimes calling it a “Marxist lie.” But a different point should be made.
Imagine that a history book presented European colonization of North America by asserting, with the same character-defect implication, that Indians found it “difficult to adjust” to becoming a minority. Would people be left scratching their heads? Might this even be called offensive? I think the only response really necessary would be “duh.”
So a question for libs: Can you cite for me one group, in all of history, that was happy about becoming a minority in what had been its homeland? Just one. I’ll be waiting.
Did the Ainus, the Japanese islands’ original inhabitants, jump for joy when being overrun and say, “Yay, now we can become a minority! Maybe we’ll even be subsumed!” (which did happen, for the most part)?
Did the Formosan aborigines cheer when the Chinese began outnumbering them and exclaim, “Yippee! Perhaps one day we’ll be just two percent of this island’s inhabitants” (which they are now)?
Did the population of Byzantine North Africa, faced with seventh-century Muslim invasion, declare, “Oh, joyous times! Maybe we can look forward to the day when these lands are entirely Arab and Muslim!” (which came to pass)?
We could go on forever. European history alone is replete with tribes — Alamanni, Franks, Angles, Vandals, Gepids, Burgundians, Lombards, etc. — that no longer exist as distinct peoples.
Now, I always fancied myself as having a keen grasp of man’s nature, but maybe I’m out of touch. Perhaps all these groups really did make merry over coming minority status or, even, exult at possible extinguishment. I’ve never heard of such a case, though.
Why would a group not be alarmed at the prospect of being reduced to minority status? Leftists themselves never tire of stressing how minorities have ever been persecuted; “progressive” histories are narratives of minority struggle against majority oppression (though liberals love impugning the West on this score, they do sometimes speak of the same phenomenon occurring elsewhere).
As usual, the reality is precisely the opposite of what leftists claim: Sleepwalking into cultural and demographic irrelevancy, there has never been a group less concerned about movement toward minority status than whites.
This is partially explainable by the fact that there has never before been a civilization as just as the West. For example, whites probably weren’t the first to practice slavery.
But they certainly were the first to end it.
Whites might not have been the first to violate human rights.
They are, however, the only reason we even talk about such violation — because they birthed our whole modern concept of human rights to begin with.
The West is unique. There simply has never been a civilization that has secured so much prosperity and so many rights for all its citizens, including minorities. In fact, it now often subordinates majority well-being to minority whim (e.g., that of the sexual “devolutionaries”). Thus, you truly might see no reason to fear becoming a minority if the modern West is your only frame of reference.
Yet this is an area where we actually should listen to the Left and be mindful of their warnings about minorities’ historical plight. If whites were more concerned about being reduced to minority status, their nations — gradually losing their Western character due to multiculturalism and the influx of unassimilable, non-Western foreigners — wouldn’t be so imperiled (though our growing immorality would still plague us).
The reality expressed in this article eludes most because of conditioning: The double standard, the prejudice, is ingrained. Whites are simultaneously portrayed as uniquely inhuman and something more than human, in that they’re supposed to be above normal human concerns (desire to retain one’s own culture, etc.). They’re cast as singularly oppressive for exhibiting the same moral failings as every other group, such as having practiced slavery, but as strikingly unexceptional despite taking unprecedented steps to mitigate those moral failings. They’re condemned as “cultural appropriators” merely for using foreigners’ food recipes, but given no credit for birthing a recipe for civilizational success copied the world over (which is why Western technology and economic practices are ubiquitous).
Lamentably, though, whites are uniquely successful in another way as well. Those most effectively peddling the anti-white propaganda — and most efficiently destroying the West — are white themselves.
Whoever guessed that modern Westerners’ perhaps final triumph would be reaching the very heights of self-flagellation?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FACE-MULTI-RACE-e1525002350165.jpg384640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2018-04-29 07:46:002018-04-29 07:46:00Why Should Whites be Happy about Becoming a Minority?
A proposed rule announced Tuesday by Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is intended to bring much-needed transparency to agency rule-making.
The environmental lobby is positively apoplectic about the proposal (naturally), even though it aligns perfectly with its long-held commitment to the public’s “right to know” principle.
The proposed regulation would require the EPA to ensure that the scientific data and research models “pivotal” to significant regulation are “publicly available in a manner sufficient for validation and analysis.”
Despite existing rules on government use of scientific research, federal agencies routinely mask politically driven regulations as scientifically-based imperatives. The supposed science underlying these rules is often hidden from the general public and unavailable for vetting by experts. But credible science and transparency are necessary elements of sound policy.
The opposition from greens and much of the media greeting Pruitt’s announcement is, frankly, hypocritical in the extreme. Opponents claim that the EPA’s regulatory power would be unduly restricted if the agency is forced to reveal the scientific data and research methodologies used in rule-making.
But that is precisely the point. The EPA should no longer enjoy free rein to impose major regulations based on studies that are unavailable for public scrutiny.
Their claim that research subjects’ privacy would be violated is groundless. Researchers routinely scrub identifying information when aggregating data for analysis. Nor is personal information even relevant in agency rule-making.
Meanwhile, the EPA and other federal agencies are duty-bound to protect proprietary information.
Transparency in rule-making is vital to evaluating whether regulation is justified and effective. It is also essential to testing the “reproducibility” of research findings, which is a bedrock principle of the scientific method.
It takes real chutzpah for the champions of environmental “right-to-know” laws to now claim that the EPA should not be required to make public the scientific material on which regulations are based.
The public’s “right to know” was their rallying cry in lobbying for a variety of public disclosure requirements on the private sector as well as state and local governments, including informational labeling; emissions reporting; workplace safety warnings; beach advisories; environmental liabilities; and pending enforcement actions, to name a few.
The proposed rule is hardly radical. It aligns with the Data Access Act, which requires federal agencies to ensure that data produced under grants to (and agreements with) universities, hospitals, and nonprofit organizations is available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act.
However, the implementation guidance from the Office of Management and Budget has unduly restricted application of the law.
Moreover, the Information Quality Act requires the Office of Management and Budget “to promulgate guidance to agencies ensuring the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by federal agencies.”
However, the law’s effectiveness has been limited by a lack of agency accountability. Courts have ruled that it does not permit judicial review of an agency’s compliance with its provisions. The proposed rule is also consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.
The proposal also mirrors legislation passed by the House last year to prohibit the EPA from “proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
A Senate companion measure failed to advance to a vote.
The EPA regulation has expanded exponentially every decade since the 1970s at tremendous expense to the nation. Secret science underlies some of the most expansive regulatory initiatives.
President Donald Trump has focused significant attention on re-establishing the constitutional and statutory boundaries routinely breached by the agency. The special interests that thrive on gloom and ever-increasing government powers are attempting to block the administration’s reforms at every turn.
But their opposition to the proposed transparency rule sets a new low for abject hypocrisy.
Diane Katz, who has analyzed and written on public policy issues for more than two decades, is a research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. Twitter: @Dianeskatz.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
In recent decades, hundreds of millions of people (mainly in Asia) have, by their own ingenuity and with the infusion of at least a modicum of freedom to pursue their livelihoods, climbed out of entrenched poverty. The desperately poor as a percentage of global population have reached unprecedented lows. This is the very good news associated with the occasional problems of globalization.
And it’s quite a triumph, though there is still no shortage of economic misery, and even cases of a descent or return to widespread indigence and starvation. Life is complicated, but there are reasons for underdevelopment or economic collapse. And it hardly seems controversial to argue that successful approaches to minimizing deprivation should be emulated, whereas crippling models that predictably create or sustain it should be avoided.
Everyone claims to be concerned about poverty. But why, then, is this bit of common sense sometimes spurned – and severe collapses downplayed? I’m thinking of the humanitarian catastrophe that’s been unfolding in Venezuela the past few years; news about it has been rather limited and carefully massaged. The horrors are sometimes cataloged, sparingly. But the “why” is not properly examined.
A recent New York Times story, for example, described the burgeoning tuberculosis outbreak now afflicting the country. This disease, regarded as a solid indicator for poverty levels in general, had been mainly under control but is now hitting even the middle classes in Venezuela. We read that the outbreak is occurring during “a profound economic crisis,” and that “declining nutrition from food shortages” is a factor. There is nary a word about what triggered the economic crisis and the food shortages. Hint: hard-core socialism.
Because socialism is the undeniable culprit, stories on the crisis in Venezuela have an uncanny tendency to resort to the passive voice, or other rhetorical devices, with little curiosity beyond the immediate crises. It’s as though food shortages just happened to fall, by chance, upon this previously prospering country, for no reason.
This Times story tells us of one poor fellow stricken with a particularly virulent form of tuberculosis who wound up losing 77 pounds. I mention this because, as grave as his case is, there are other general weight-loss statistics that are even more staggering. Reuters recently reported that the average Venezuelan has lost 24 pounds in the past year! (That’s up from the average 19-pound loss the year before.)
Oh, and over 80 percent of Venezuelan households are mired in poverty (now closer to 90 percent). That sure sounds like they are experiencing “the equal sharing of miseries,” which Churchill sarcastically dubbed the “inherent virtue of socialism.”
More numbers: one in seven Venezuelans (four million out of 28 million) have fled in desperation rather than pick through garbage for food; a mass migration here in our own hemisphere that we hear little about.
What makes each of these eye-popping figures even more maddening is that Venezuela is naturally blessed with the largest oil reserves in the world. More maddening still is how the cheerleaders (in the usual places) for the Marxists who delivered these brutal outcomes sit back and overlook all this real, human suffering. Yet again.
The brazen disregard for socialism’s track record is a fundamentally inhumane act – one only mitigated by genuine naiveté. Man’s inhumanity to man is obviously not limited to any one political system. But to countenance Marxism or socialism is to court human misery, whatever lofty rhetoric is bandied about in its defense.
Indeed, putting it into practice means, as John Paul II noted, “the working man himself would be among the first to suffer.” And, no surprise: former president Hugo Chavez’s daughter just happens to be the wealthiest person in Venezuela. Apparently something went slightly wrong on the road to the Bolivarian “revolution” and equality.
Socialism’s inherent destructiveness was forecast in advance, when all we had to go on was abstract theory, and sure enough, destruction ensued. We now have a track record of the ways of socialism in multiple countries; stagnation or much worse is entirely foreseeable.
Dostoevsky and several popes highlighted its philosophical and, yes, spiritual dangers, and warned of tyrannies to come. It came in spades. The core of the Marxist project – atheism and corresponding devaluation of individual human rights and liberties – has long been on full display.
Venezuela’s bishops have spoken out against both the theoretical and real-world consequences of this tyranny disguised as popular government, and received the usual threats for their troubles. Pope Francis, alas, often vocal in support of migrants and persecuted groups like the Rohingya, has seemed reluctant to echo his brother bishops in Venezuela.
Some in our country are skeptical of critiques when they come from Christian quarters. But we know what socialism’s most avid advocates actually said. Marx made a high priority of abolishing the family and private property, and envisioned peace precisely the same threatening way Mohammed did: “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Islam.” (Substitute socialism for Islam and you’ve got functional interchangeability). The goal of socialism, as Lenin remarked, is communism. And communism, according to Mao Zedong, “is not love,” but “a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.”
Blunt, monstrous words, with a history to match. Yet socialism retains a cachet in the West and elsewhere that a whole string of disasters – now including Venezuela’s – never dissipates. There’s an enduring market for the vindictiveness that socialism stokes – and cloaks under the illusion of being on the “right side” of history.
Another whole generation is not learning one of the plainest lessons of modern history. According to recent surveys, young people today express a shockingly high level of support for socialism. They’ve never been taught otherwise. It’s as good an indicator as any of the failure of our public education system. And the result will be that people in various parts of the globe will have yet more bullets to dodge in the decades to come.
Matthew Hanley
Matthew Hanley is senior fellow with the National Catholic Bioethics Center. With Jokin de Irala, M.D., he is the author of Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach the West, which recently won a best-book award from the Catholic Press Association. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Hanley’s and not those of the NCBC.
The biggest challenge facing Republicans heading into the November elections isn’t Donald Trump. It isn’t even the Democratic Party. It’s apathy. In the seven months between now and the midterms, the GOP will be doing everything it can to recreate the magic of 2016. But one thing is abundantly clear: they’ll need evangelicals’ help — and a lot of it.
History has never been kind to the majority party at the midterm point. Republicans are expecting to take a few on the chin in November. What they don’t know is whether the Left’s enthusiasm will be enough to wrestle away control. A lot of that, strategists believe, will come down to the president’s most supportive base: Christian conservatives. Despite the daily drip of salacious storylines, evangelicals have remained solidly in Trump’s corner — rewarding him for more than a year’s worth of progress on judges, life, religious liberty, taxes, and military readiness. To the media’s astonishment, evangelicals haven’t walked away from the president — they’re doubling down on their support. Just last week, the Public Religious Research Institute found that white evangelical approval for Donald Trump is at its highest point ever: 75 percent.
Republicans will need to harness every point of the president’s churchgoing base if they have any hope of protecting his agenda moving forward. Last night’s Arizona race was at least one step in the right direction. Despite a last-minute Democratic frenzy, Debbie Lesko held on to her six-percent lead and kept former Congressman Trent Franks’s district in GOP hands. Her opponent, Hiral Tipirneni, managed to close the gap, but not enough to pick off one of the 24 House seats the Democrats need to retake the speaker’s gavel. Although the mood in Arizona was upbeat, voters’ message in a Trump-heavy area was clear: There’s no such thing as a safe Republican seat this year.
To conservatives’ relief, Lesko has promised to carry on the pro-life, pro-family legacy of Franks — which was one of the reasons FRC Action endorsed her. She’s already told reporters she plans to join our friends in the House Freedom Caucus, where she’ll help keep GOP leaders honest on values issues. “Debbie will do a great job!” the president tweeted before the election — and we agree. And while the talking heads are focused on Lesko’s single-digit victory in a double-digit Trump district, Republicans have still held their own in a string of special elections, winning six of the last nine.
And in the run-up to November, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is making a pretty good case for voters to stick with Republicans, telling a group of Georgetown students yesterday, “We will have a pro-choice gavel when we win the Congress. We need to have at least 218 votes to achieve that.” It’s a “very high priority,” she went on, “to protect a woman’s right to choose.” If that means supporting a pro-life Democrat to get her hands on the gavel, she’s willing. Even so, Pelosi made clear, it’s just a means to a pro-abortion end. “I know this is touchy on this campus — on all Catholic campuses. … And it’s an issue in the diocese,” Pelosi said. “But the fact is, God gave us all the free will [and] our sense of responsibility to answer for that. So I am a rabid supporter of a woman’s right to choose and a similar issue of the LGBT community, because they are connected.”
That ought to be all the motivation evangelicals need to get off the fence on the midterm elections. With Planned Parenthood funding, conscience protections, the 20-week abortion limit, and so much more in the balance, it’s obvious what a lag in turnout would mean: an encore of the Obama years. That’s why groups like FRC Action and other parts of the evangelical coalition are planning what the New York Times is calling the “largest midterm election mobilization ever.” In a feature on how Christian conservatives are turning the November tide, reporters Jeremy Peters and Elizabeth Dias highlight FRC’s voter registration push, our pastors’ outreach, and even our culture impact teams.
The Family Research Council has already activated its network of 15,000 churches, half of which have ‘culture impact ministries’ that organize congregations to be more socially and civically engaged. The group’s efforts will gear up with voter registration drives around the Fourth of July and voter education that will focus on a half-dozen states that could determine control of the Senate. Their tactics are almost identical to the work they used during the presidential campaign to unite a fractured evangelical base. The June meeting in Washington is a follow-up to a gathering in New York in the summer of 2016 that soothed tensions after it became apparent that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee.
The Times even talks about FRC’s Watchmen on the Wall ministry, which is hosting its 15th national briefing in Washington, D.C. next month where hundreds of pastors will be in attendance. “The message to energize Christian conservatives has twin purposes: to inspire them to celebrate their victories and to stoke enough grievance to prod them to vote.”
… [L]eaders of the movement plan to lean hard into a message that fans fears and grudges: that the progressive movement and national media mock Christian life and threaten everything religious conservatives have achieved in the 15 months of the Trump administration. ‘Show the Left that you can put labels on us, you can shame us. But we’re not giving up,’ said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council.
Join us in protecting the successes of the last year and a half! Get involved.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/pelosi-2-e1524689777660.jpg400671Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-04-25 16:56:482018-04-25 16:58:302018: Midterms and Conditions May Apply
By Travis Weber, Director of the Center for Religious Liberty
The Bible is in the news again. Last week, the editors of GQ listed the Bible in their article “21 Books You Don’t Have to Read,” recognizing the Good Book has “some good parts,” but concluding “overall it is certainly not the finest thing that man has ever produced. It is repetitive, self-contradictory, sententious, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned.” One wonders if any GQ editors have ever read the Bible. If so, they might see they have just affirmed what it says about human nature’s tendency to rush to judgment. Nevertheless, this news item provides some good funnies — that GQ, which was birthed in 1957, offers its judgment of a book which predates it by about several thousand years, and which influenced the rise and fall of civilizations for millennia before any GQ editor ever entered the world. I wish funnies were all that came of this, but GQ’s casually-expressed ignorance could lead many to ignore the Bible to their own harm and peril.Such cultural sneering at the Bible may at first glance seem harmless, but these attitudes often have real-word consequences when they fuel anti-Christian hostility of some in the halls of governmental power. Take, for example, the anti-Christian impulses of the California state legislature.
There, politicians will soon vote on Assembly Bill 2943, which bans the “sale . . . of goods or services” that “offer[] to” or “engage . . . in sexual orientation change efforts,” which are defined to include “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” Alarmingly, this would include basic Christian and biblical teaching and counseling against unrepentant homosexual conduct — something that any Bible-believing Christian across America holds to.
Moreover, those bound by this bill include any “association” or “other group” — “however organized,” and are prohibited from selling “goods” which are defined as anything “tangible” and used “primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” This would include a prohibition on groups of people selling books or materials to other people for their own use which express the biblical and Christian position on unrepentant homosexual conduct. This could very likely include Christians selling other Christians counseling books on LGBT-related issues, and there is no reason why it can’t be construed to include a church bookstore offering these books, and even the Bible itself.
Many haveobserved the serious problems with this language. First Amendment attorney David French has analyzed it and concluded it would ban the sale of books expressing the standard Christian view on this issue. After California State Assembly member Travis Allen stated that the bill would “prohibit the sale of the Bible,” the supposed fact-checking site Snopes rated the claim “false.”
First, someone should fact-check whether Snopes is actually a fact-checking website. In addition to giving the wrong answer to the question, the website struggled to hide its bias in the process. Second, while the law would need to be enforced against the sale of Bibles, there’s nothing in its text prohibiting this from happening, especially due to what the Bible says about homosexual conduct. The bill’s purview clearly includes the sale of books and materials counseling according to a biblical view of sexuality. As the above analysis shows, just because the bill doesn’t say “the Bible is hereby banned” (something Snopes wants to rely on) doesn’t mean there won’t be enforcement of certain provisions in this bill against the sale of the Bible or any other book which asserts that homosexual conduct is wrong.
If you’re rubbing your eyes and don’t quite believe this yet, just look at the treatment of Pastor Jeremy Schossau several months ago in Michigan. Pastor Schossau was subjected to death threats, vitriolic treatment online, and demands for a state investigation into his church all for offering a biblically-based counseling program for teens wanting answers regarding their sexuality. As these developments show, it’s not only “controversial” Christian public figures that anti-Christian groups are after — it’s the eradication of biblical beliefs themselves. Many (though not all) of those Christians popularly viewed as “controversial” right now are only seen this way because they are the ones in the limelight, popping their heads out of the sand to simply express the biblical position on sexuality and taking fire for doing so. But the forces opposed to Christian beliefs on sexuality will eventually come for anyone who stands by biblical truth.
This is a tough pill for many American Christians to swallow. While Christians elsewhere in the world face the possibility of being killed for their beliefs on an ongoing basis, we have not historically had to exercise the muscle of standing for our beliefs in the face of such serious opposition. While this is changing, it hasn’t reached most American Christians yet, and it’s tough for them to accept that there are many in society opposed to the mere expression of biblical truth about human sexuality, no matter how nuanced and artfully expressed.
Many Bible believers across America today may think they can fly under the radar if they just don’t say anything about sexuality. Some may hold back due to fear of what others would think of them, and their cowardice should be gently yet firmly called out for the sin it is. Others may believe in what the Bible says about these issues yet stay silent for what in their mind are strategic reasons — they may want to lead with their framing of the gospel message, or something else.
Yet part of the gospel message is the clear proclamation and recognition of sin. Without this, the clear proclamation of Christ’s provision on the cross for our sins makes no sense; only with the admission of sin can we enter into true freedom and peace in Christ. If we compromise on this true gospel message for our own strategic reasons, we are really failing to fully trust God.
Christians should absolutely continue to do everything we can to win every person to Christ. Unfortunately, many will try to stamp out part of the gospel message and truth itself. Are we prepared for this opposition when it comes, and are we proclaiming the truth while we are still able to do so?
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bible-lock-and-chain-e1524661093714.jpg351640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-04-25 08:58:492018-04-25 08:59:29The Bible: Misunderstood and Under Assault
Turning Point USA’s Candace Owens spoke to The Daily Signal’s Rob Bluey about why conservative policies are better for the African-American community. Owens appeared at the White House’s Generation Next forum for millennials Thursday. An edited transcript of her Daily Signal interview is below.
Rob Bluey: How did you become a conservative?
Candace Owens: I think for most people, watching Donald Trump run in 2016, something had to wake up inside of you. This is a man who was celebrated by the media. They could not get enough of Trump. You’re listening to rap and hip-hop music, they glorified him. Everyone wanted to end up at Mar-a-Lago. They said they were acting like Trump.
And then the second he won, he became a racist instantly. In that moment, I understood that racism was being used as a theme and a mechanism to control black Americans, and that the black community needed new leaders to sort of see them through that complete lie.
Bluey: You’ve made the case that Trump and his policies are better for the black community. Why is that?
Owens: Of course, our conservative policies are better for a black community. If you think of everything that we’ve gone through historically, it is because of Democratic policies that we are worse off today than we were 60 years ago.
For sure, no one would be foolish enough to say that America is a more racist country today than it was 60 years ago. So what happened? LBJ happened, the Great Society happened. Government dependency happened, welfare happened. All of this happened and came from the Democratic Party.
Bluey: When you’re talking to young people at Turning Point USA, what is your message to them?
Owens: My message to them is just that the time is now. President Trump represents the first opportunity for black Americans to get off of, what I refer to as, the ideological slave ship, to step outside of this line—this myth and this illusion—and to understand that we’ve had our power essentially stripped from us.
We continue to allow that by being afraid of racism, which is no longer an actual threat in this society for black Americans.
Bluey: You’re somebody who isn’t afraid to engage on Twitter or in the media. What gives you that courage to stand firm on these principles?
Owens: Honestly, I was born aggressive. I think I came out shouting orders at everyone.
I’ve been really strong-minded from the time I was a little girl, and I hate being told what to think. So propaganda just doesn’t really work on me. I’m not afraid. It takes fearlessness.
You can’t be afraid to be referred to as a “coon” or an “Uncle Tom,” which, by the way, Uncle Tom, for people that actually read the book, was the hero of the novel. That term does not work.
It’s going to take people with some courage to step up and say, “You can call me whatever you want, this movement is happening. You can get on board or you can watch it.”
Bluey: We’re approaching in the next couple of weeks the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. How did MLK influence your life?
Owens: The most important thing to understand is that what he wanted was a society where people would not be judged by the color of their skin. Everything that the Democrats are advocating for is for us to only be judged by the color of our skin, by our sex, me as a black woman, they want me to constantly remember that.
You are black, you are a woman, and you cannot exist outside of that. So we need to understand that in many ways, we’ve gone backward from the themes that he was teaching when he gave his “I Have a Dream” speech.
His dream is being realized, but it’s not being realized by the Democratic Party right now.
Rob Bluey is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.
Dear Readers:
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
Since 1973 Gallop has asked Americans the following survey question:
Now I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one — a great deal, quite a lot, some or very little?
Of those surveyed here are the results in 2017:
Congress
Great deal
Quite a lot
Some
Very little
None (vol.)
No opinion
Great deal/Quite a lot
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
2017
6
6
39
44
3
1
12
Current Florida Governor Rick Scott is running for the U.S. Senate. He is running against Democrat Senator Bill Nelson, who was elected to the Congress in 2001. Candidate Scott’s platform is simple, term limit members of Congress.
Watch this short video to understand Scott’s idea on how to drain the swamp:
It is difficult to overstate the extent to which term limits would change Congress. They are supported by large majorities of most American demographic groups; they are opposed primarily by incumbent politicians and the special interest groups which depend on them.
Term limits would ameliorate many of America’s most serious political problems by counterbalancing incumbent advantages, ensuring congressional turnover, securing independent congressional judgment, and reducing election-related incentives for wasteful government spending.
Perhaps most important, Congress would acquire a sense of its own fragility and temporariness, possibly even coming to learn that it would acquire more legitimacy as an institution by doing better work on fewer tasks.
The key takeaways of the report are:
Legislative resistance to term limits is in sharp contrast with private citizens’ strong support for them.
The only serious opponents of term limits are incumbent politicians and the special interests — particularly labor unions — that support them.
Congressional term limits are a necessary corrective to inequalities which inevitably hinder challengers and aid incumbents.
Maybe term limited Governor Rick Scott is on to something.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rick-scott-e1524519003369.png375634Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-04-23 17:30:122018-04-23 17:43:27One U.S. Senate Candidate’s Plan to Drain the Swamp: Term Limit Congress
Donald Trump Should Expect ‘Loud’ Protests If He Visits The UK, Sadiq Khan London Mayor Warns
Donald Trump should expect loud and peaceful protests if he visits the UK later this year, the London mayor has said.
Sadiq Khan, who has frequently clashed with the US president since they were elected to office nearly two years ago, made the comments during a St George’s event in London on Saturday.
Amnesty International confirmed that thousands of its supporters will take to the streets when Trump visits the UK, although no date has yet been officially announced.
Khan added that the capital respects, embraces and celebrates diversity.
Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK’s director, said: “When and if Donald Trump makes his much-discussed visit to the United Kingdom, we and thousands of our supporters will very definitely be making our voices heard.
“In the 15 months of his presidency, we’ve seen a deeply disturbing human rights roll-back – including the discriminatory travel ban, his reckless announcement on Jerusalem, and harmful policies on refugees, women’s rights and climate change.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-and-london-mayor.jpg341634Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2018-04-22 15:32:592018-04-22 15:38:47Amnesty International & London Mayor Threaten Large Protest if President Trump Visits UK
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ recent interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes” caused quite a bit of backlash from critics.
As my colleague Jonathan Butcher has written, “60 Minutes” ignored many of the facts about the state of education in America. Response to the interview drew quite a bit of criticism of DeVos and her policy solutions.
Perhaps one of the most pivotal moments came when she suggested that the United States’ heavy federal investment in education has not yielded any results. Stahl hit back, asserting that school performance has been on the rise.
But the latest government data show otherwise. According to the recently released 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the nation’s “report card,” we now have more evidence that DeVos was correct.
In fact, recent scores show virtually no improvement over 2015 scores. Eighth-grade reading saw a single point improvement over 2015 scores (10 points is considered equivalent to a grade level), while all other categories saw no improvement.
These lackluster results come on the heels of declines on the 2015 assessment, suggesting the beginning of a trend in the wrong direction for academic outcomes.
Indeed, Stahl’s claim that the state of public schools has gotten better simply doesn’t hold up to the data. It fact, DeVos is entirely correct to point out that public school outcomes have not meaningfully improved, and that our nation’s heavy federal intervention in K-12 education has failed to help the problem.
As Heritage Foundation education fellow Lindsey Burke writes:
Forty-nine out of 50 states were stagnant on the 2017 report card, and achievement gaps persist. Historically, federal education spending has been appropriated to close gaps, yet this spending—more than $2 trillion in inflation-adjusted spending at the federal level alone since 1965—has utterly failed to achieve that goal.
Increasing federal intervention over the past half-century, and the resulting burden of complying with federal programs, rules, and regulations, have created a parasitic relationship with federal education programs and states, and is straining the time and resources of local schools.
Indeed, for decades, Washington has poured billions of dollars into the public education system under the assumption that more federal spending will close achievement caps and improve the academic outcomes of students. With mounting evidence that more federal spending is not the answer, it may be time to consider other policy approaches.
DeVos is correct to suggest school choice as a solution to lackluster school performance. Parents who cannot afford to send their child to a school that is the right fit deserve to have options. As DeVos told Stahl:
Any family that has the economic means and the power to make choices is doing so for their children. Families that don’t have the power, that can’t decide, ‘I’m gonna move from this apartment in downtown whatever to the suburb where I think the school is gonna be better for my child.’ If they don’t have that choice, and they are assigned to that school, they are stuck there. I am fighting for the parents who don’t have those choices. We need all parents to have those choices.
In light of recent evidence from the nation’s report card, “60 Minutes” and other school choice critics should consider that DeVos was correct in her framing of problems facing the nation’s schools and is on the right track with possible solutions—namely, that empowering parents is the right approach to improving American education.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is by Amy Beth Bennett/TNS/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180418_devos-1250x650-e1524171516375.jpg375640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-04-19 17:00:202018-04-19 17:00:41New National Test Scores Show Betsy DeVos Was Right About Public Schools
Now, more than ever, we should usher in the return of the citizen legislator. It is finally time that we impose term limits on members of Congress.
