JUDGES GONE ROGUE: Judge embraces ‘Lawfare’ to obstruct immigration law enforcement.

With increasing frequency judges have issued rulings that run contrary to the laws and commonsense.

Nowhere has this become a more serious issue than where immigration law enforcement is concerned.

It has become fashionable for the radical left to bash our nation’s sovereignty, our borders and the notion of our immigration laws.  Of course the initial desire to open our border to “free trade” began with Conservatives and Libertarians who saw in our borders barriers to their wealth to be acquired by importing goods and workers from outside the United States.

The increasingly radicalized Democratic Party has come completely unhinged where immigration law enforcement is concerned, creating so-called “Sanctuary Cities” which openly boast that they will shield “immigrants” from immigration law enforcement.

Of course, as I have written in numerous articles, lawful immigrants and temporary (non-immigrant) alien visitors need no shielding from ICE no more than licensed motorists who operate their motor vehicles in compliance with motor vehicle laws need no shielding from police officers.

New York State’s Governor Cuomo has endorsed sanctuary polities for New York State and has referred to valiant ICE agents as “Thugs.”

Shielding illegal aliens from ICE undermines the efforts of the DHS to deter aliens from entering the United States illegally and deter aliens who are lawfully admitted from subsequently violating our immigration laws by overstaying their lawful period of admission, accepting illegal employment or otherwise violating their terms of their admission.

In point of fact, under the provisions of a federal law that is comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S. Code § 1324, it is a felony to harbor or shield illegal aliens from detection.

While a growing number of cities and states have decided to adopt “sanctuary” polities, there are some cities that continue to cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) through the 287(g) program whereby their law enforcement officers are trained by ICE to assist that division of the DHS with the vital mission of immigration law enforcement from within the interior of the United States.

Apparently a federal district judge, Catherine Blake, decided that the “solution” to local sheriffs and police officers assisting ICE in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, was to order the stay of an illegal alien who had been ordered deported by an Immigration Judge so that the alien could pursue a lawsuit against the Sheriff and his deputies who would dare assist in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

On January 17, 2019 the Conservative Review published an extensive article about this lunacy,

Judge creates right for illegal alien to block deportation … so she can sue law enforcement that provides the infuriating details of the case.

The tactic of launching lawsuits to intimidate law enforcement officers from doing their jobs and local municipalities from enacting laws contrary to their agenda has been the tactic of the ACLU under the concept that they refer to as “Lawfare.”  This is similar to “warfare” but uses lawsuits in place of ammunition.

Here is an excerpt from the excellent article Conservative Review article:

Roxana Orellana Santos is an illegal alien from El Salvador who had no right to come to this country in 2005 and no right to remain in this country against the will of the people as expressed through long-standing statute. Pursuant to our laws, Santos was detained by Border Patrol when she broke into our country in Texas and then failed to appear for an immigration hearing. In 2007, an immigration judge issued an order to deport her.

A year into her fugitive life, Frederick cops informally questioned her outside a restaurant on October 7, 2008, after they thought she was running away from them. Upon receiving information from ICE through dispatch that she was here illegally, and then acting on an outstanding immigration warrant from ICE, Frederick sheriff’s deputies arrested Santos as part of their lawful cooperation with the federal government to help apprehend illegal aliens through the 287(g) program, under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g). It’s part of a law that passed the Senate unanimously in 1996.

The report went on to note:


District Judge Catherine Blake

In a sane country, this would have been the end of the story. Santos should have been deported, pursuant to every statute on the books. But Santos, backed by an army of lawyers from the organization CASA de Maryland, sued the Frederick sheriff for what she felt was an illegal search and seizure and the county commissioners for agreeing to operate under 287(g). After endless motions while remained in the country, the district court rebuffed her claim in 2012, but the arch-liberal Fourth Circuit sided with her a year later. The court created a new right for illegals not to be apprehended by local law enforcement because of their immigration status. Last September, District Judge Catherine Blake ruled that Sheriff Jenkins could be held liable in a civil suit for the acts of his deputies. This allows Santos to proceed with a suit for civil damages. Her attorneys are seeking to milk this small county for $1 million in damages! None of us can sue her for sucking up our resources.

How many members of the law enforcement community will continue to enforce the laws when they know that they or their jurisdictions are never more than one decision away from a massive and debilitating lawsuit?

This is an outrageous example of extortion to coerce local jurisdiction to fall in line with the demands of the immigration anarchists.

There is a long standing question that asks, “Is the pen mightier than the sword.”

The answer to the question depends on who is wielding the pen.  We certainly witnessed tremendous damage done to our nation by the President Obama’s pen (and phone).  We are now witnessing the damage being done by judges who have decided that as Sylvester Stallone’s character, Judge Dredd intoned in the film by that name, “I am the law!”

The realm of immigration law enforcement now exists in a parallel universe where nothing that would exist anywhere else exists in this magical and treacherous kingdom.

It is a matter of routine that law enforcement agencies work in close cooperation to enforce broad spectrum of laws across the United States.  When police departments encounter a person who is wanted for crimes in other jurisdictions or, perhaps, by federal agencies, that they notify the agency that has lodged a warrant in the NCIS database.  In point of fact, a significant number of the FBI’s most wanted are initially arrested by local police.

Immigration law violations were treated similarly until recently with local police working closely with immigration law enforcement.

In the 1970’s as an INS agent, I was, involved in such case involving an arrest made by members of the NYPD Anti-Crime squad in Brooklyn.  Police officers had stopped a car that ran a red light.  The driver got out of the car and attacked the police officer who was at least twice the size of the belligerent motorist.  The cop knocked the assailant to the ground and a gun, a 9mm Browning fell out of his waistband.  Both men, who spoke with heavy West Indian accents were taken into custody. 

In those days I worked in close cooperation with the NYPD and particularly with several of the police precincts, especially the precinct where this occurred.  The sergeant who was in charge of that squad called me and asked if I could assist in figuring out who these two guys were.  For whatever reason, when the NYPD ran their fingerprints no relating record could be found. 

They both claimed to have been born in the U.S.  In fact, the driver told me had been born “down south in Chicago.”  This certainly called his claim of being a United States citizen into serious question.

I had developed a relationship with the DEA in NYC and although the INS lack the capability to electronically transmit fingerprints to the FBI in Washington, the DEA was able and willing to provide me with that capability.  I ran the prints and in the middle of the night I received an urgent call from FBI Headquarters, they wanted to know where the two individuals were, it turned out that they were about to be placed on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted List” for their involvement in serious of deadly bank robberies where they were alleged to have shot and killed several people.

Incidentally, they were both were aliens- citizens of Trinidad and Tobago who had lied about their identities and citizenship.

My partner and I received letters of commendation from the NYPD/FBI Joint Bank Robbery Task Force for identifying these two fugitives enabling them to be taken into custody and prosecuted for their crimes.  Today, they are probably still in jail, where they can no longer pose a threat to anyone.

We also lodged detainers to have them taken into immigration custody if they are ever released from prison.

This is but a single example of just how successful such cooperative teamwork can be to protect our communities but could never happen today, especially in New York City.

For the globalists, the bodies of innocent victims are nothing more than “collateral damage” or, perhaps, “speed bumps” on the road to globalism and anarchy.

In all professions those who make bad decision are likely to pay a serious price.  Doctors who are guilty of malpractice can be sued, lose their licenses to practice medicine, and even be prosecuted.  Law enforcement officers face similar consequences when they act inappropriately.

Judges and politicians must be made similarly accountable.

RELATED ARTICLE:Poll: Latino Trump approval soars during border wall battle

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Sebastian Pichler on Unsplash.

Mr. President: ‘Build up this wall!’

On Friday, June 12th, 1987, President Reagan visited West Berlin.

Standing upon a platform, overlooking the wall which the Soviets had built to keep East Germans from escaping to freedom in the West, President Reagan chose to utter words that electrified the world. Addressing Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, he said: Mr. President, “Tear down this Wall.”

Here was a wall which, since 1951, had kept hapless souls from escaping Soviet occupied East Germany. But today there is an urgent need to build up a wall on America’s southern border – not to keep people in but to keep trespassers, drug traffickers, dangerous terrorists and violent gang members from illegally infiltrating into the United States of America.

President Trump has outlined the danger that stalks the southern border and imperils America’s very sovereignty as an independent nation state. He has praised the border agents who hourly face violence from brutal criminals as they repeatedly and illegally cross the unprotected border. But this alarming fact does not phase the likes of Pelosi and Schumer or of the growing extremists within the ranks of the Democrat party. The Democrats simply will not work with President Trump and they are willing to ignore the humanitarian and national security crisis that exists and grows daily.

President Trump has stressed again and again the towering need for a wall on the southern border to prevent a tide of illegal aliens from imperiling U.S. sovereignty and bringing with it misery, violence and death.

The Democrats remain willingly blind to the horrendous flow of illegal drugs coming through the southern border. They remain blind and deaf to the human agonies from drug overdoses that are killing hundreds of American citizens every week. They are not concerned about such matters. They are solely engaged in politics and their protestations of being the party of compassion are as real as dream stuff.

Vast quantities of meths, heroin, fentanyl and cocaine flood across the porous southern border resulting in as many as 300 deaths a week from heroin alone. Yet the Democrats remain obstinately blind to such horrors, thus invoking that old saying: “There’s none so blind as those who will not see!”

In 2017, some 20,000 migrant children were brought into the United States, more often than not with unspeakable brutality by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs. A third of the women in the caravans of despair making their way through Mexico to our southern border are sexually assaulted. In the last two years, ICE officers have confirmed arrests of criminal aliens numbering well over a quarter of a million – and the flood grows ever larger.

In his recent address to the nation, President Trump summed up what is desperately needed. He said, “Now is the time – this is the moment – to finally secure the border and create the lawful and safe immigration system Americans, and those wanting to become Americans, deserve.”

So what could the Democrats possible object to?

Well their obstinacy could be simply summed up as Democrat sheer bloody mindedness. Their refusal to negotiate is due to only one thing, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly pointed out: the Democrats hate President Trump.

They do so with a viciousness that drips vitriol and they will never accept him in office. That being the case, we must urge the President to hold firm and not give away one inch to a party that has become so extreme and so willing to inflict immense harm upon the United States of America.

A nation of laws must have the ability to enforce its laws, especially regarding immigration, but the Democrats want us to ignore our laws in favor of their radical and socialist policies. That must not ever be allowed to stand, for in their assault upon the Constitution and their malignant desire to transform America lies ruin and the end of American sovereignty and independence.

Even Majority Leader McConnell, not one to be exactly known as a Conservative firebrand, nevertheless said this after hearing the President’s TV address:

“Tonight, President Trump reaffirmed his commitment to addressing the humanitarian and security crisis at our nation’s southern border. His proposal to increase security through physical barriers suits the reality on the ground. It’s what career Border Patrol experts support and are asking for.”

McConnell also tellingly added that: “It simply builds on earlier legislation that Senate Democrats like then-Senator Obama, then-Senator Clinton, and Senator Schumer previously supported with enthusiasm.” In other words, the Democrats have called in the past for secure physical barriers on the southern border, but now they rail against it and refuse to help pay for it because it is President Trump who will build it.

This is the same Democrat party that now cynically elevates to a leading foreign affairs committee the Muslim immigrant from Somalia, Minnesota Democrat, Rep. Ilhan Omar, who reeks of anti-Semitic bile. She is among a group of recently elected members of Congress touted as the new “progressive” face of the Democratic party.

What binds these Democrats together is their hateful opposition to Israel, our only loyal ally in the Middle East. This is a key policy position for these outrageously biased and bigoted lawmakers. Speaker Pelosi, to her undying shame, knows full well who and what these people are and yet she remains mute without a word of censure.

Among Omar’s colleagues is Palestinian-American, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who was caught on video this month vowing to “impeach the motherf***er,” with regard to President Trump. Again Pelosi exhibits deafening silence.

But, Mr. President, you should know that millions upon millions of Americans support you and urge you to stand firm and defeat the monstrous and fast evolving Democrat Socialist party. The once ‘silent majority’ is with you all the way and it is silent no more.

So, dear Mr. President, electrify the world again – as your predecessor once did – and Build up this Wall.

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Bruno Figueiredo on Unsplash.

VIDEO: What is a man? A response to Gillette.

Ilan Srulovicz, the CEO and founder of Egard Watch Company, produced and released this YouTube video. It tells the truth about men. Please watch it.

Srulovicz said:

I created the video for a few reasons. I believe the statistics in the video are widely ignored or dismissed. I have tried to bring light to them myself in the past and had a difficult time having them acknowledged as an issue.

The Gillette ad rubbed me the wrong way. I, like the overwhelming majority of men, am absolutely disgusted by sexual assault, rape, bullying, so why throw it in my face as if my “gender” as a whole is toxic? Using terms like “toxic masculinity” is using too broad a stroke to address specific issues — issues which I agree very much need to be addressed, especially after all the crazy stuff we’ve seen in Hollywood.

I am not against Gillette trying to start a conversation about assault, but I do have an issue with how they went about it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Company That Stood Up to Gillette Announces Sales Explosion, Big Charitable Donation

Gillette’s Toxic Sanctimony

New Research: Shave Away Gillette for This Better Alternative

Gillette: Shaving Away Masculinity

5 Reasons Masculinity Is Increasingly Coming Under Attack in America

EDITORS NOTE: This video is by the Egard Watch Company . The featured photo is by Sharon Garcia on Unsplash.

‘Muhammad in His Own Words’ Premiers in Manhattan Movie Theater on September 11, 2019

NEW YORK, Aug. 31, 2018 /Christian Newswire/ — After three-and-a-half years of production, Muhammad in His Own Words; The Founder of Islam Speaks will be released in New York City on September 11 in a Manhattan movie theater.

The name and address of the theater is being withheld until next week for security reasons.

Muhammad in His Own Words uses ancient Islamic texts and art, as well as Muslim voice actors and original art compositions from four continents to tell the story of Muhammad’s life, and the founding of the religion of Islam. All of the material is meticulously footnoted for the viewer to verify, and research in further depth if they choose.

Written and Directed by Randall Terry, MA; Diplomacy, International Terrorism.

Randall Terry has a Master’s Degree in Diplomacy, with a concentration in international terrorism from Norwich University. Norwich University is one of the oldest, and most prestigious military schools in America, including being the birthplace of the ROTC program.

The bulk of Mr. Terry’s research for his Master’s Degree focused on modern Islamic terrorism, and the ancient Islamic texts. These “sacred texts” provide the narrative that Islamic terrorists imitate and the commands they obey.

As Mr. Terry did his research, he learned that no movie had ever been created utilizing the “sacred texts” of Islam regarding the life of Muhammad.

Hence, Muhammad in His Own Words; The Founder of Islam Speaks was conceived.

As might be expected, Mr. Terry has been subjected to multiple death threats as a result of this project.

Also, Facebook has canceled the movie’s account, and YouTube is threatening to cancel the movie’s channel.

Randall Terry states:

“I am thrilled that after three-and-a-half years of writing and production, Muhammad in His Own Words is ready for release. My research and subsequent writings demanded rigorous adherence to the facts – as presented by Muslim historians and theologians.

“Muhammad in His Own Words is the fruit of thousands of hours of research. It is based solely on primary Islamic sources, the writings of the most respected Islamic historians and theologians. Namely,

  • The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari: Arabic-English (Nine Volumes.)
  • The English Translation of Sahih Muslim (Seven Volumes.)
  • The History of al-Tabari (39 Volumes),
  • The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, by Ibn Kathir, (Four Volumes) and
  • The Sira (biography) of Muhammad – also known as The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq.
  • The Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Sharia Law.)

“This movie is nothing more or less than the facts of Muhammad’s life, as preserved and presented by his most devoted followers, and Islam’s most respected sources. I hope this presentation is helpful in these critical times.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video by Christian Newswire is republished with permission.

Procter & Gamble’s Gillette Ad: Suicide by Political Correctness

The war on men is nothing new. It has been going on for decades. It is being waged by those who want men not to be men and boy not to be boys. The anti-masculinity cartel want boys to become sissies. What is unusual is how corporate America has joined in to build a new generation of sissies.

There is hope. We still have a few educational institutions that produce Alpha Males. The most notable is the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. In the journal Public Discourse Trivius G. Caldwell in a column titled “A Wise Academy: The Un-Coddled American Minds at West Point” takes on the issue of “coddling.” Caldwell writes,

In a time when “safetyism” dominates many college campuses, the United States Military Academy at West Point can serve as a useful case study, offering important lessons in how to combat coddling in academia more broadly.

Cultural Suicide by Political Correctness

A perfect example is Procter & Gamble with their new social media ad for Gillette razors titled “We Believe.” Watch:

What is this ad intended to do?

Toxic masculinity. Photo by Sharon Garcia on Unsplash

It’s intended to support the #MeToo, bullying and toxic masculinity movements. These movements are designed to strike fear in the hearts of boys, young men and adult men. For you see the opposite of peace is not war. The opposite of peace is fear. If boys and men are constantly in a state of fear there cannot be peace for them.

The anti-bullying movement began with the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN). It was GLSEN that started the “Day of Silence” observance in public schools to highlight bullying, especially of LGBT students.

But are anti-bullying campaigns like the day of silence doing more harm than good?

Susan Porter, author of Bully Nation: Why America’s Approach to Childhood Aggression is Bad for Everyone believes so. Porter sat down with Reason TV’s Tracy Oppenheimer to discuss the anti-bully movement and how laws, labeling and the media are only agitating the problem. She says that kids are actually suffering because of these anti-bully efforts.

“They are becoming less resilient,” says Porter, “if you’re now a victim, and you think of yourself as a victim, you are much more apt to get victimized.”

The P&G ad is designed to reinforce the victimhood of homosexuals and women at the expense of being a real alpha male.

The Zero-Sum Struggle

Proctor & Gamble have become, either by omission or commission, part of the “zero-sum” struggle. The Oxford Dictionary defines zero-sum as:

Relating to or denoting a situation in which whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other.

Today, the zero-sum struggle is between groups that self-identify as victims. These groups include the #MeToo and LGBT movements. Proctor & Gamble is essentially saying that in order for women and the LGBT communities to win men must give up their toxic masculinity. Men must lose!

If the end game is that men must loose, then who will defend our women, families, nation and culture? Political correctness kills. As Ayn Rand wrote:

The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Proctor & Gamble is just anther company that has used its influence to turn boys into sissies and strike fear in the hearts of their fathers. Time to stand up and fight back. Time for men to take back their responsibilities to be leaders, role models and strong.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Procter & Gamble’s Toxic Sanctimony

Dear Gillette: Ads About ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Won’t Get Men to Buy Your Blades, or Be Better Men

Report: Facebook’s New Rules Ban Employees From Changing Colleagues’ Minds

Boston Mayor Proposes Draconian Interrogation Health Care Measure In The Name Of Gun Safety.

On January 10, City of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh announced his legislative agenda for 2019.  In what represents the latest leftist assault on privacy rights and gun ownership, the Mayor proposed that medical professionals be required “. . . to ask patients about the presence of guns in their homes. . . ”  The government mandated interrogation is to be undertaken “. . . with the goal of identifying red flags that could indicate risks relative to suicide, domestic violence, or child access to guns.”  

In point of fact, the Mayor’s proposal is the latest end-around towards developing a comprehensive registry of gun ownership within Boston, a clear violation of Bostonians’ privacy rights and an intimidation tactic designed to shame gun owners into relinquishing their guns.  

Amazingly, the topic of physician inquiries into their patients’ gun ownership status is marred with controversy.  This is largely due to the incredulous position and legislative efforts undertaken by the American Academy of Pediatrics in support of banning handguns.  In 1992, the AAP, an organization created for the purpose of promoting pediatrician education and representing issues important to pediatricians, actually thought it was sound legislative policy to intrude onto the expressed constitutional rights of American citizens by supporting legislation that would “prohibit the possession, sale or manufacture of handguns in the United States.” Stupidly, the AAP then went on to post it on their website as one of its stated missions.

The issue came to a head when, in the State of Florida, legislation was introduced that would fine a physician $5 million for merely asking a patient if he or she had a gun in his or her home.  The proposed legislation arose from an incident where a dense physician in Ocala, Florida, refused to see a patient because she would not disclose her gun ownership status.  The logical and sane conclusion to the controversy would have been for the woman to simply see another doctor and share with her friends and community the lunacy of the physician through personal or media communications.  At most, she could have reported this physician’s unethical practice to the Board of Medicine and let the issue play itself out that way.  Instead, she chose to approach her state legislator who propagated the insanity by proposing a multi-million dollar punishment for physicians who merely ask a question.  The fact that the state legislature even considered the bill is a testament to the absurdity of the times in which we live.

Ultimately, the bill was watered down so that what was passed, the Firearms Owners’ Privacy Protections Act (FOPA), prohibited physicians from documenting a patient’s gun ownership status unless it was directly relevant to the care of the patient.  The bill also prohibited physicians from discriminating against an individual based on the person’s gun ownership status.  Violation of the law was punishable by “. . . a fine of up to $10,000.00, a letter of reprimand, probation, suspension, compulsory remedial education, or permanent license revocation.”

The ensuing multi-year, multi-million-dollar, social and legal controversy ended with an Eleventh Circuit Federal Court ruling tossing the law out as unconstitutional, but the ridiculous, unnecessary, and painful process did bring to light a number of issues regarding the nexus between health care, medical documentation, and personal liberties.  

First, indisputably, a physician ought to be able to ask a patient about guns.  The issue of accidental gun deaths is a serious problem in American society.  Anywhere between 77 and 113 pediatric, gun-related deaths take place in our country each year.  Efforts at curtailing these deaths are generally laudable, and the fact is that primary care physicians such as pediatricians engage in all sorts of health screenings designed to prevent disease or injury.  Gun safety should be no different.  

On the other hand, gun ownership is a cherished right that is to be zealously guarded. Any organization, including the AAP, seeking to decimate that right must be vehemently opposed.  The act of refusing a gun owner service merely because that owner is wishing to protect a right expressly enshrined in the Constitution is unconscionable and becomes even more egregious when the patient’s ownership status becomes part of his or her permanent record and accessible by the government.  Perhaps, the greater problem is our acquiescence to government funding of our health care and to giving it access to our personal information, but that is another issue altogether.  

The principal benefit to our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is to provide a check upon the power of government.  That effect is undoubtedly endangered when the government is allowed to know exactly who owns such weapons and unduly regulates who accesses them.

Florida and its physicians learned valuable lessons about gun rights and health care through its experience with the Doc v. Glocks drama; lessons that apparently were not heeded by Mayor Marty Walsh.  

Mayor Walsh’s proposal is vastly more draconian than either the Ocala physician’s actions or the state legislature’s response to it.  Walsh wants to mandate that physicians interrogate patients about gun ownership.  This would no longer be a situation where a pretentious physician on an individual basis decides to ask a question to the point of sacrificing his relationship with his patient.  What Walsh is proposing is that physicians work as agents of the state to collect information from patients regarding their most sacred rights and record it for the government’s benefit.  The very idea of this proposal strikes a dictatorial and oppressive tone. 

Adding to the tyrannical optics, it is the Police Commissioner who is out in public heralding the benign intent of the proposal. Boston Police Commissioner William Gross explained that the goal would be to identify those at risk for domestic violence, suicide or child access to guns in order to guide people to mental health counseling, resources or other help. In short, he said, “We’re just asking [medical professionals] to help identify ways to save lives.” 

Isn’t it interesting that practically every oppressive idea proposed by the left is buttressed by the goal of saving lives?  And by the way, despite the Police Commissioner’s comment, the government wouldn’t be asking for help, it would be mandating it.  In short, anyone harboring a concern regarding excessive governmental intrusion ought to instinctively recall Benjamin Franklin’s words: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

From a practical nature, it is clear that neither the Mayor nor the Police Commissioner have given their proposal sufficient thought.  Not only does their recommendation clearly intrude on people’s liberties, but what happens when a patient refuses to divulge such information? Are we going to refuse him or her treatment?  Will we fine him or her, or jail the person?  What happens if a physician refuses to participate?  And what happens if there is a gun-related accident, death, or suicide following a contact with a physician, does the doctor become liable? 

Mayor Marty Shaw’s proposal is a bad idea at so many levels.  It is draconian, offensive to the Constitution, disrespectful to the free and unencumbered practice of medicine, and an undue intrusion into patient’s privacy rights.  Bostonians must oppose it lest the mayor’s disease spread elsewhere.

EDITORS NOTE: This column from The Federalist Pages is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Jason Leung on Unsplash.

De Blasio’s Plan For New York Universal Health Care Is Smoke And Mirrors.

On January 7th, the same day President Trump appeared on national television to discuss immigration, the government shutdown, and border security, New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio announced that the City of New York will guarantee health care for everyone regardless of insurance or immigration status.  In all, the plan will cover 600,000 people, half of whom are undocumented, and he is going to do it for $100 million.  In fact, argued the mayor, the program will not cost the city anything because of the savings realized from the dramatic reductions in emergency room care.

In defense of the plan, De Blasio averred that health care is a right and that it is time for New Yorkers to start conducting their affairs as such.  Since the federal government is trying to disrupt our health care system, he proclaimed, it is time for New Yorkers to take matters into their own hands and guarantee people’s inherent right to health care.  

Despite De Blasio’s uncontained enthusiasm, there are two fatal problems with his program.  First, as we know and the left continues to ignore, health carenot a right.  And second, in point of fact, his amazing program adds virtually nothing to what New Yorkers already have at their disposal

Health Care Is Not A Right.

What is a right?  

There are many different kinds of rights. First, there is the undisputed interest. This is what attaches when one has a just or legal claim or title upon a property or object, such as when one strikes gold in a Nevada minefield. Under those circumstances, the person owning the land or declaring his or her stake upon it has a right to that land and to the minerals within it.  This right is commensurate with ownership or possession.  Since health care is not a defined, palpable property, then this cannot be the type of right of which De Blasio speaks.  

A right can also be statutory; created by government.  In this case, the “right’ is given to you by the government.  One example is the right to a trial by jury.  Here, one has the undisputed access to a trial by jury because the state has declared it to be the so.  This particular right is based on the foundational principles giving rise to the United States, the declarations contained within the Bill of Rights, and guaranteed by the constitutions of the various states.  

A statutory right is not inherently yours, as the government has provided it for you.  In other words, there would be no trial by jury; no trial at all in fact; if it weren’t for the fact that the government constructed the framework with which to provide it.  Generally, this kind of right is associated with a price tag.  It takes money to hire a defense attorney, a prosecuting attorney, a judge, and a building in which to conduct it.  And yes, the jury is hired as well.  Since no American government has declared a statutory right to health care, this too is not the type of right to which De Blasio is referring.  

The third is the fundamental right, or human right; the ones the Founders called “inalienable.”  These rights are afforded to us by the Creator.  They belong to us.  They are not for government to give or to take away, although under some circumstances, through the consent of the governed, government may regulate them.  Our inalienable rights include a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of property, the right to labor, the right to speak, the right to seek the truth, the right to defend yourself, the right to bear arms, the right to your own beliefs, and of course, the right to pursue happiness.  Each of these is yours by right.  They are inherent in you.  

It appears this last category of right is the one to which De Blasio refers when he speaks of a right to health care, but he would be wrong.  

You cannot have a right to health care because you need others to realize it.  What isyours, like the right to pursue happiness or property, is your right to pursuehealth care.  

So, is health care a privilege? Yes, it is.  

It is a privilege to have someone toil over you.  It is a privilege to have someone attend to you.  It is a privilege to have someone sell you something.  So when De Blasio says health care is a right, he is wrong.  It doesn’t matter how many times he says it and repeats it, and that all the liberals say it and repeat it.  It doesn’t matter that 100% of all people are convinced that health care is a right, it still doesn’t make it a right because you can’t force another person to slave and toil over you to obtain the product or service. 

What is a right is your freedom to approach someone offering the service and to ask him or her to provide the service.  That is the pursuit of health care and that is your right.  This is exactly in keeping with Benjamin Franklin’s words, “The Constitution only give people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

De Blasio’s Plan Is Mathematically Impossible.

De Blasio says he is going to cover 600,000 people with $100 million.  This would mean that his health care plan would cover 600,000 individual lives at a price tag of $167.00 per person per year.  

Sound too good to be true? That’s because it is.

In point of fact, what De Blasio says he is going to achieve for New York for the first time in the city’s history, New York already has.  New York City already spends $8 billion per year on health care to treat 1.1 million people who otherwise wouldn’t have access to care.  This includes the undocumented.  The effort traces back to the 18th century with the inception of Belleview Hospital. Anyone without insurance can go there to get treated, either through the emergency room or through a primary care doctor.  

So if all these things already exist, what’s De Blasio offering that’s new?  

Nothing really, just better customer service.  

New York HHC Director Mitchell Katz saidwhen asked on the matter, “You can definitely walk into any emergency room, you can go to a clinic, but what is missing is the good customer service to ensure that you get an available appointment. . . That’s what we’re missing and the mayor is providing.”  

The New York Times seemed to agree when it wrote,  “The $100 million would go to both establishing the customer service component and hiring additional doctors and nurses.”  

Adding to the lacklusterness of the proposal is the uncertainty in the details, as is often the case when politicians try to take credit for nothing.  According to The New York Times, “. . . officials could not provide a breakdown of how much would be spent on each [component of the program].  Indeed, details of how those seeking care could do so under the new plan were not immediately clear, nor was an exact start date.”  The Federalist Pages met with the same problem in its review of De Blasio’s proposal.

The fact of the matter is that, predictably, the City of New York’s less-than-Utopian system is already present and operating; with a shortfall, of course.  For years New York’s hospital system has been under severe financial strain.  Indeed, according to New York’s Independent Budget Office, New York hospitals anticipate budget shortfalls of more than $156 million in 2018, increasing to $1.8 billion in 2022.

As expected, De Blasio continues to deceitfully sell fake, utopic visions.  It’s high time sound policy analysts call him out on it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash.

Podcast: What Woke Scientists Don’t Get About Masculinity

Traditional masculinity is “harmful”—but don’t take it from us. That’s the new verdict of the American Psychological Association. We discuss the association’s new guidelines on counseling for men and boys, as well as the ideological shift behind it. Plus: President Donald Trump’s policy in Syria seems to be in flux. Last month, he announced U.S. troops would be withdrawing, but now the timeline seems longer. Heritage Foundation Middle East expert Jim Phillips unpacks what Trump’s goals in Syria are, and how they can best be achieved. 

We also cover these stories:

  • Trump is visiting the border today.
  • Trump tweeted that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would stop sending money to California until the state improves its forest fire prevention practices.
  • Fifty-one percent of Democrats now call themselves liberals.
  • The first lady of California would like to be known as the “first partner.”

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

PODCAST BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

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

Portrait of Daniel Davis


Daniel Davis

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

RELATED ARTICLE:

Activists, Not Healers: Why I Despise What My Profession Has Become

The Scientific Experts Who Hate Science

Scientists Making War on ‘Traditional Masculinity’ Are Political Hacks

I’m a Conservative Female College Student. Here’s How I Overcame Fear and Became Confident.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and podcast by The Daily Signal is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Joel Bengs on Unsplash.

Rep. Steve King Introduces Legislation to End Birthright Citizenship

NumbersUSA is urging its supporters to get behind this legislation.

Coming to America to have a baby has got to be one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on Americans.

You can’t go to any other major country in the world (except Canada), have a baby and claim a right for that child to be a citizen of the country in which the mother happened to give birth. The practice has actually become an industry in some parts of the US.

Here is NumbersUSA:

For the fifth consecutive Congress, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced H.R. 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act, that would prevent children born to illegal-alien parents in the United States from automatically receiving U.S. citizenship. The bill was introduced with 20 original cosponsors.

The Birthright Citizenship Act would restrict the granting of automatic citizenship to newborns who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. The legislation would also allow the granting of automatic citizenship to newborns who have at least one parent who is an alien serving the armed forces.

The Birthright Citizenship Act is one of NumbersUSA’s 5 Great Solutions to reforming the nation’s immigration system. The United States is one of only two industrialized nations (Canada) to still grant automatic citizenship to all children born in the country.

Below are the brave co-sponsors so far.  Numbers wants you to put pressure on your member of Congress to grow a spine and support H.R. 140.

Here are the co-sponsors so far (if you are represented by one of these members, THANK THEM FOR PUTTING AMERICA FIRST!):

  • Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-5)
  • Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ-4)
  • Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-5)
  • Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL-3)
  • Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL-11)
  • Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA-10)
  • Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD-1)
  • Rep. Steven M. Palazzo (R-MS-4)
  • Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO-6)
  • Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC-7)
  • Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC-11)
  • Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH-8)
  • Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA-4)
  • Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC-2)
  • Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC-3)
  • Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC-5)
  • Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN-4)
  • Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX-11)
  • Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX-14)
  • Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX-36)
  • Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI-6)

Tell your member to stop this fraud on America!  It is an opportunity to go on the political offense for a change!

Why don’t the rest of the Republicans get it—this scam is about giving birth to the next generation of Democrats!

EDITORS NOTE: The column with image by Frauds, Crooks and Criminals is republished with permission.

Schumer And Pelosi Want Us To Listen To Them After The President Speaks; What For?

Tonight, the President of the United States will be addressing the nation regarding the issue of border security.  It is expected that the President will provide a defense of his tough stance on his demands to fund the wall.  He will likely paint a dire picture of conditions south of the border. He will share with the country the challenges faced due to inadequate resources and the lack of a physical barrier. And in all likelihood the President’s message will make sense and will resonate with the American people who, although squeamish on government shutdowns, overwhelmingly demand that the federal government enforce our borders and ensure our safety and welfare.

In response, Democrats have asked the networks for an opportunity to rebut; an opportunity they will surely be given.  But their request brings up two issues; one an inductive conclusion and the other an inescapable paradox.

The conclusion is that the Democrats worry they are losing the war of words regarding border security.  With every week that passes, the Democrats lose what they have always deployed as their greatest weapon regarding government shutdowns: shock value. Theirs is the tactic of equating a government shutdown with the end of the world.  They do this, not only to paint the Republicans as evil, uncaring, and irresponsible, but also because to Democrats, the role of government is indispensable to life in society.  Even a partial shutdown, for them, is tantamount to a cataclysmic natural disaster. 

But as the weeks grind on, the American people continue to see that the partial government shutdown, by and large, is not a threat to their daily existence.  People are continuing to get their healthcare.  Their banks are still doing business.  The military is still operating, and yes, the IRS is working on delivering those precious refund checks.  

But despite the fading, fake cataclysm of the shutdown, the permanent truth of the inadequacies of our border’s security continues to shine. The problems south of the border continue to exist, and the multi-thousand-member caravans preparing to attempt to stroll into the United States continue to form.  

The net effect is a nasty, rancid, and tumultuous loss for the Democrats, and Democrats know it.  Add to their losing effort a presidential address on the matter from the Oval Office, and the result is potentially catastrophic to their indefensible cause.  It is for this reason that Democratic leaders wish to speak to the American people tonight, bringing us to the second issue: how can they speak when they won’t even listen?

Democratic leaders, chief amongst these are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have engaged in the highly obnoxious and potentially destructive strategy of not listening to their political opponents, particularly to those may have developed an expertise on the field.  When border security agents appeared at the White House Press Room and discussed their first-hand accounts regarding the indispensable importance of a barrier to border security, the Democrats’ dismissive answer was simply to say that the agents were wrong.  No facts to back them up; just the assertion.

And when President Trump invited Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen to a meeting with the President and leaders from both parties at the White House, Pelosi’s and Schumer’s response was to repeatedly interrupt her, and again, claim she was wrong.  

So now, the two leaders who have recurrently demonstrated an unwillingness and incapacity to listen to opposing points of view want us to listen to them.

My initial inclination is: what for?

The fact is that I, as opposed to them, will listen to what they have to say.  I will do this out of respect for our political process and because I recognize that our country has devolved to a state where we have refused to listen to each other, and Pelosi and Schumer have painted themselves into being part of the problem.  

In the end, however, I am confident I will side with the President for, amongst other reasons, his opponents’ demonstrated reluctance to learn from what the President and those charged with working directly on the issue of border security have to say.  

Despite their appearance tonight to rebut the President, I will likely conclude that Pelosi and Schumer are part of the problem; not the solution.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo by Ken Treloar on Unsplash.

Top 10 Myths About Abortion

The issue of abortion is emotional, heated, and fraught with passionate opinions on all sides, and rightly so—the lives of human beings in the womb hang in the balance. It’s no surprise, then, that a lot of misguided, inflammatory, and patently false rhetoric inevitably surrounds the abortion issue whenever it is debated.

Dr. Ingrid Skop, a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist for 22 years, is passionate about inserting some much-needed scientific truth and common sense into the abortion debate from the perspective of a medical professional who works with pregnant women on a daily basis. In FRC’s new video series and corresponding publication, she dispels 10 common myths about abortion.

Over the next two weeks leading up to FRC’s ProLifeCon and the March for Life, we will be releasing a series of 10 videos of Dr. Skop discussing each myth about abortion. For a more detailed discussion of each myth, be sure to read FRC and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (AAPLOG) new publication authored by Dr. Skop, Top 10 Myths About Abortion.

Watch the Video Series

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York Gov Cuomo Demands Bill Allowing Abortions Up to Birth, Or He Won’t Sign State Budget

Poll: 75 Percent Of Americans Support Restrictions On Abortion

The 116th Congress is Off and Running … But Where To?

The 116th U.S. Congress was sworn in on January 3rd. As expected, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA) was elected Speaker of the House, who has the unenviable job of binding up a divided chamber of Congress, as well her own party, the Democrats. This will be Mrs. Pelosi’s last hurrah and will likely mark her legacy in the history books. Whereas the House is in the hands of the Democrats, the Senate remains under Republican control. Translation, nothing of substance will happen for the next two years as the two chambers will be hopelessly gridlocked. In terms of House Democrats, the Speaker will likely have trouble controlling the far left who fought her election as Speaker.

Beginning from Day One, the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand to confront Republicans and President Trump. The subject of impeaching the President raised its ugly head again and as I predicted the desire to do so will prove to be irresistible to Democrats. Frankly, the charges are frivolous, and veteran House Democrats know even if it is passed in their chamber, the president will be exonerated in the Republican controlled Senate. So, why go through this futile exercise? To simply besmirch the character of the president as a prelude to the 2020 presidential election. The only problem is, they will likely raise the ire of the American people who elected Mr. Trump, and this is what concerns the party’s leadership. It is more about character assassination as opposed to introducing legislation to solve our problems.

Freshmen Democrats are already rattling sabers. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI) unapologetically called the president a Mother******. This was followed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accusing the president of being a “no question” racist in a 60 Minutes interview. Neither taunts will play well in Poughkeepsie.

More trouble is in the offing though. Rep. Steve Cohen (TN) introduced legislation to eliminate the Electoral College in presidential elections, relying on the popular vote instead. Devised by our founding fathers, the Electoral College is simply brilliant in terms of maintaining parity between the interests of rural America and large metropolitan areas. Unfortunately, it is not well understood in the country anymore, particularly since Civic classes are no longer being taught in high schools. Should this legislation pass the House, it will not see the light of day in the Senate, as it would mean people in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, will dictate who becomes president, with little regard for main stream America. This is precisely the scenario our founding fathers hoped to avoid.

Rep. Cohen also introduced legislation to prohibit presidents from issuing pardons to themselves, their families, their administration or their campaign staff. This is a major change as the presidents have long possessed the right to pardon. What they want to avoid is a situation, such as in the final days of President Bill Clinton’s administration where he pardoned his Whitewater cronies, such as Susan McDougal. This too will likely not pass the Senate.

Also, legislation has been introduced mandating the publishing of tax returns of presidential candidates and executives in office. As I have reported in the past, this has always been an optional report for candidates to produce. It is likely the main stream media is driving this initiative. Personally, I believe your finances are your own personal affair. If you want to disclose it, fine, if not, that is fine also. Frankly, if the Democrats believe strongly in this, this should be made equally applicable to ALL government officials, including Congress and the Supreme Court, along with state, county, and municipal governments. What is good for the goose, should be good for the gander. This legislation will likely not pass as well.

Last, but certainly not least, the House and the president are at a stalemate regarding reopening the government and funding a wall for the southern border. The irresistible force has met the immovable object, and no amount of negotiations is going to change anything as it will be viewed as a sign of weakness by both sides. The one exception might be if President Trump does as he suggests and declares a national emergency which would allow him to appropriate funds for the wall. This will likely happen as the president has been releasing data and testimonies of the problems at our southern border in recent weeks. Should the president declare an emergency, it offers Democrats a way out of the confrontation without losing face, and the government can start back up again.

All of this highlights the gridlock in the nation’s capitol which we better get used to. The intent of the Democrats is to make the president look bad as we approach 2020. In addition to the legislation listed here, we will likely see a flurry of subpoenas designed to tie up the president and his administration, thereby obstructing his agenda. Because of the gridlock, we will not see anything of substance resulting from the 116th Congress, certainly not health care reform (which the Democrats campaigned on).

The only possibility might be in the area of addressing the nation’s decaying infrastructure but I am not optimistic about passage of such legislation as we are now embroiled in a game of one-upmanship, and neither side want to give the other a win.

Rep. Pelosi’s legacy will likely be defined by the gridlock of the Congress and the Democrat’s inability to bring this president to heel. If their shenanigan’s persist, they will run the risk of angering the American people, and assuring the Republicans regain the House, not to mention securing President Trump a second term. It will also likely fracture the Democrats, leaving us wondering who will become leader of their party in the House following Mrs. Pelosi’s tour of duty. People like Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD), Rep. Ray Lujan (NM), and Rep. James Clyburn (SC) will likely be viewed as clones of Mrs. Pelosi and may very well be rebuffed by younger Democrats who will want to chart a new course to the left.

The only thing we know for sure about the next two years is that it certainly will not be boring and the news media will support whoever emerges as an effective leader of the party.

Keep the Faith!

RELATED ARTICLE: What, precisely, do Democrats want to impeach Trump for?

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce Is Right column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Jomar on Unsplash. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Sweden Isn’t Socialist [+Video]

For years, I’ve heard American leftists say Sweden is proof that socialism works, that it doesn’t have to turn out as badly as the Soviet Union or Cuba or Venezuela did.

But that’s not what Swedish historian Johan Norberg says in a new documentary and Stossel TV video.

“Sweden is not socialist—because the government doesn’t own the means of production. To see that, you have to go to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea,” says Norberg.

“We did have a period in the 1970s and 1980s when we had something that resembled socialism: a big government that taxed and spent heavily. And that’s the period in Swedish history when our economy was going south.”

Per capita gross domestic product fell. Sweden’s growth fell behind other countries. Inflation increased.

Even socialistic Swedes complained about the high taxes.

Astrid Lindgren, author of the popular “Pippi Longstocking” children’s books, discovered that she was losing money by being popular. She had to pay a tax of 102 percent on any new book she sold.

“She wrote this angry essay about a witch who was mean and vicious—but not as vicious as the Swedish tax authorities,” says Norberg.

Yet even those high taxes did not bring in enough money to fund Sweden’s big welfare state.

“People couldn’t get the pension that they thought they depended on for the future,” recounts Norberg. “At that point the Swedish population just said, ‘Enough, we can’t do this.’”

Sweden then reduced government’s role.

They cut public spending, privatized the national rail network, abolished certain government monopolies, eliminated inheritance taxes, and sold state-owned businesses like the maker of Absolut Vodka.

They also reduced pension promises “so that it wasn’t as unsustainable,” adds Norberg.

As a result, says Norberg, his “impoverished peasant nation developed into one of the world’s richest countries.”

He acknowledges that Sweden, in some areas, has a big government: “We do have a bigger welfare state than the U.S., higher taxes than the U.S., but in other areas, when it comes to free markets, when it comes to competition, when it comes to free trade, Sweden is actually more free market.”

Sweden’s free market is not burdened by the U.S.’s excessive regulations, special-interest subsidies, and crony bailouts. That allows it to fund Sweden’s big welfare programs.

“Today our taxes pay for pensions—you (in the U.S.) call it Social Security—for 18-month paid parental leave, government-paid childcare for working families,” says Norberg.

But Sweden’s government doesn’t run all those programs. “Having the government manage all of these things didn’t work well.”

So they privatized.

“We realized in Sweden that with these government monopolies, we don’t get the innovation that we get when we have competition,” says Norberg.

Sweden switched to a school voucher system. That allows parents to pick their kids’ school and forced schools to compete for the voucher money.

“One result that we’ve seen is not just that the private schools are better,” says Norberg, “but even public schools in the vicinity of private schools often improve, because they have to.”

Sweden also partially privatized its retirement system. In America, the Cato Institute proposed something similar. President George W. Bush supported the idea but didn’t explain it well. He dropped the idea when politicians complained that privatizing Social Security scared voters.

Swedes were frightened by the idea at first, too, says Norberg, “But when they realized that the alternative was that the whole pension system would collapse, they thought that this was much better than doing nothing.”

So Sweden supports its welfare state with private pensions, school choice, and fewer regulations, and in international economic freedom comparisons, Sweden often earns a higher ranking than the U.S.

Next time you hear Democratic Socialists talk about how socialist Sweden is, remind them that the big welfare state is funded by Swedes’ free-market practices, not their socialist ones.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of John Stossel

John Stossel

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network, and author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails—But Individuals Succeed.” Twitter: @JohnStossel.

RELATED VIDEO: Sweden: Lessons for America? – Full Video by the Free To Choose Network.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by the Daily Signal is republished with permission. The featured photo by is John Fornander on Unsplash.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

The Green New Deal Is a Trojan Horse for Socialism

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is ready to tax the rich to make her Green New Deal a reality.

“People are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes,” the recently elected New York Democrat told TV show “60 Minutes” in an interview set to air Sunday.

Speaking of prior decades’ taxation rates in the country, Ocasio-Cortez added, “Once you get to the tippy tops, on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.”

It shouldn’t be a surprise that the avowed “democratic socialist” went with the predictable “tax the rich” formula in order to pay for a massive government program to combat climate change.

But it would hardly be good news for most Americans if Ocasio-Cortez got her way.

In fact, such a scheme would mean that her constituents in New York City would pay a max income tax rate of 82.6 percent, as Americans for Tax Reform was quick to point out. Perhaps New Yorkers deserve what they voted for, but does the country?

Interest in the Green New Deal

While Democratic House leadership has so far balked at the Green New Deal, it enjoys strong support from over 40 members of Congress, per The Daily Caller.

poll released in December also shows Americans might be more inclined than you’d think to support the plan. The poll, from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, showed that 8 out of 10 Americans hadn’t heard about it.

But when asked if they would support it—albeit with a very favorable description of the deal that didn’t discuss higher taxes, for instance—81 percent of registered voters said they would back it.

However, polls tend to change quickly when people learn about how much policies cost them, and the details of the Green New Deal demonstrate that it’s about more than just a higher tax on a tiny number of rich people.

A Radical Agenda

In fact, the tax hikes on the rich would be one of the least radical parts of the agenda.

It’s no exaggeration to say that if implemented, the Green New Deal would upend our way of life and destroy the liberty and prosperity that Americans, of all backgrounds, currently enjoy.

Among its goals are meeting “100 percent of national power” demand through renewable sources, retrofitting “every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort, and safety,” and eliminating “greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural, and other industries.

Those changes are going to come with real costs. According to an editorial for Investor’s Business Daily, moving the economy away from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable energy will come “at a cost of about $5.2 trillion over 20 years.”

So much for America’s newfound energy renaissance that has in large part come through innovative new oil drilling techniques.

Energy Status Quo Couldn’t Change This Fast

Even if we’re willing to shoulder the costs, it’s, well, impossible to achieve.

“Producing 100 percent of electricity from renewable sources is a practical impossibility in the near future,” stated a report issued by the Senate Republican Policy Committee in December. The report, which looked at the Green New Deal, continued:

Scientists doubt it would be achievable by 2050, let alone 2029, the deadline Democrats would set. Such a massive overhaul in power generation would require the closure and replacement of about 83 percent of U.S. electricity generation, including all coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants.  … Today, renewable electricity—mainly wind, solar, and hydroelectric—provides only 17 percent of American electricity.

Make no mistake: While progressives have long been focused on green extremist policies, the Green New Deal proposals are significantly more radical than other environmentalist ideas like carbon taxes and subsidies for green industries. Foregoing the sticks-and-carrots approach to addressing climate change, this deal would instead rely on the ruthless bludgeoning of private industry and citizens through the levers of the state.

In fact, the plan outright dismisses attempts to “incentivize the private sector” toward greener policies as “simply inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas-neutral economy as quickly as needed.”

Instead, the plan calls for direct government intervention to be its “prime driver.” (And in a mere 10 years, no less!)

A Trojan Horse of Liberal Goodies

But that’s not all. There’s more.

The Green New Deal doesn’t just include environmentalist proposals: It also includes a grab bag of other left-wing goodies to “mitigate deeply entrenched racial, regional, and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth (including, without limitation, ensuring that federal and other investment will be equitably distributed to historically impoverished, low-income, deindustrialized, or other marginalized communities in such a way that builds wealth and ownership at the community level.)”

Among the liberal wish list items included, the Green New Deal contains a proposal for universal health care and a basic minimum income program to make up for all the jobs lost in the process of transitioning to a fully green economy.

Of course, this will all come with an immense cost.

Citing an analysis by the Mercatus Center, Bob Moffit, a health care expert at The Heritage Foundation, wrote that the “Medicare for All” legislation proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years. A universal minimum income or basic income plan would also likely cost trillions of dollarsa year.

The entire federal budget in 2018 was $4 trillion. The Green New Deal would require the U.S. to massively expand this already-bloated budget that is burying us in debt.

How do Green New Deal proponents propose to pay for this extreme growth in government?

“[I]n the same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for World War II and many other wars,” the plan says. “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments, new public banks can be created (as in WWII) to extend credit and a combination of various taxation tools (including taxes on carbon and other emissions and progressive wealth taxes) can be employed.”

In other words, by massively hiking taxes, and then borrowing and ultimately printing money. Then it would use public banks run by unaccountable bureaucrats to carry the whole thing out.

That’s not very democratic, but it is socialistic—an American version of a Soviet-style five-year plan focused on command-and-control economic solutions that have proven to fail the world over.

As Justin Haskins, executive editor at the Heartland Institute, wrote for the Washington Examiner: “Make no mistake about it: This is one of the most dangerous and extreme proposals offered in modern U.S. history. It’s the sort of thing you’d see in the Soviet Union, not the United States.”

The Stakes Just Got Higher

If there is one positive thing the Green New Deal does, it’s that it brings to light the fact that much of the environmentalist agenda is just a thinly veiled vehicle for implementing far-left socialism.

Given the fact that nearly half of millennials say they’d rather live under socialism or communism than capitalism, according to a 2017 poll conducted by the Victims of Communism, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that these ideas didn’t die at the end of the Cold War.

They’ve been repackaged by young, hip millennials, like Ocasio-Cortez, who can deceive a generation, mostly detached from history, into believing that the failed flim-flam sauce of socialism can somehow work this time around.

Despite overwhelming evidence of failure and suffering, the American left is now more openly embracing socialism—a worrying and disturbing trend that needs to be countered.

It’s no longer just Sanders waging this crusade in Congress. It is a growing cohort of younger, even more extreme members who are attempting to revive ideas that should have been left in the ash heap of history. As Sanders himself recently noted in a CNN interview, his 2016 campaign helped make certain positions “mainstream” that were previously “considered extreme and fringe.”

Whatever one thinks about Ocasio-Cortez, it’s undeniable that she connects with a large and growing subset of voters. Her everywoman persona and ability to seem truly genuine is making her a potent voice on the left.

The Instagram cooking advice and dance routines may be charming and relatable—especially to millennials—but attention to these trivial matters masks the radicalism and bankruptcy of her views.

Socialism is not the cure for what ails America, and it hardly takes a history lesson to figure this out.

The agony of a collapsing Venezuela, praised as an economic model for the future just a decade ago, is a stark example of how badly this can end for people of all income groups.

The Venezuelan regime started out as “democratic” socialism, too. It’s ending in failure, tyranny, and collapse.

Let’s not let dancing videos and Twitter hot takes distract us from that fact.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast.Send an email to Jarrett.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sorry, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but Conservatives Don’t Care About Your Dance Moves

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. Photo: SteveSands /NewYorkNewswire/MEGA/Newscom.

The American Way of Life Was Assaulted in the Murder of Cpl. Ronil Singh

During an early morning traffic stop in a small town near the Bay Area, everything we fight against came together in a perfect storm and led to the death of a man who symbolized everything we at NRATV stand for. The man in question was a police officer, a legal immigrant, a father and a husband. But he served a community bound by laws that put him last.

Police Car

Illegal immigration, the war on cops, illegal-weapons possession, all embodied by a man in a pickup, joined together and ended the life of a law enforcement officer. With no regard for life, no respect for law enforcement, and no regrets for his actions, an illegal immigrant, who escaped deportation twice because of sanctuary-city laws, wielded an illegal weapon and carried out an attack on one of America’s finest.

For days, the murderer was on the run, asking for help from those who would, doing everything he could to traverse the hundreds of miles back to his home country of Mexico. He sought refuge from the demands of American law.

He had crossed the border into Arizona illegally years before, but that didn’t matter to the California state government. They welcomed it.

He was a prime candidate for deportation, but that didn’t matter to state law enforcement. They concealed it.

He had already been arrested twice for driving while intoxicated, but that didn’t matter to the judge. He pardoned it.

Gustavo Perez Arriaga was a product of political correctness, disrespect for the rule of law, and prosecutorial discretion run amok. Because of the implementation of these progressive positions, Gustavo Perez Arriaga was enabled to kill Cpl. Ronil Singh.

Lane Lines at Night

All Ronil Singh ever wanted was move to the United States and become a cop. To him, there was no better place than America and no nobler profession than that of police officer—at least that’s what he told Newman Police Chief Randy Richardson almost eight years ago. “[I] came here solely to be a police officer and be a part of this country,” the Fiji native said, “to protect what was given and allowed to [me].”

But on the day after Christmas, during what seemed to be a relatively routine call, Cpl. Singh came face to face with a deadly and counterfeit version of the American dream and lost his life.

Gustavo Perez Arriaga, who was later revealed to actually be named Paulo Virgen Mendoza, fled the scene, but after a two-day manhunt, he was caught 200 miles away from the scene of the crime.

U.S. Southern Border
U.S. Southern Border.

For the 12 years he served as governor of California, Jerry Brown gave his stamp of approval on countless bills that have resulted in anti-cop legislation and California’s current and illegal status as a sanctuary state. California is a place where neither the law nor the Second Amendment matter—a place where political correctness reigns freely and the lives of law enforcement officers are just a bump in the road to Utopia.

California is a place where neither the law nor the Second Amendment matter.

The laws aren’t unique to California, though. The House of Representatives is controlled by the party of open borders, sanctuary cities, and the war on cops. They continue to pursue an agenda that will leave countless in its wake, solely for a strengthened voting bloc and perpetual power.

It’s up to us—those who are members of a group we call freedom’s safest place—to make our voices heard, to make a stand for the American dream, for legal immigration, for a secure border, for the lives of our officers, and for a safe and prosperous country.

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with images is republished with permission.