3 of the Most Telling Failures of Socialism

Some conservatives may be discouraged by the latest surveys confirming that nearly one-half of millennials are receptive to living under socialism and regard capitalism as a captive of greed. In fact, they present us with a golden opportunity to educate all Americans about the manifold failures of socialism and the miraculous advances the world has made under free enterprise.

For example, the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson revealed at a Heritage Foundation event that between 2000 and 2012, “the rate of absolute poverty in the world fell by 50%.” That is, “the poor in the world are getting rich at a rate that is absolutely unparalleled in all of human history.”

Heritage’s 2019 Index of Economic Freedom reported that the greatest advances came in African and Asian countries (such as Botswana and Taiwan) that limited rather than expanded the role of government. More than 100 countries, many of them with less developed or emerging economies, showed marked advances in economic growth and individual prosperity.

Such good news is seldom reported by the mainstream media, Peterson said, because of the technological revolution that’s occurring in every form of media. All the broadcast networks, leading newspapers, and magazines exist in a shrinking market with dwindling margins of profit. To attract attention they are turning to an old journalism axiom: “If it bleeds, it leads.”

The news media obsess over the latest school shooting and bloody street riot. And yet, Peterson pointed out, the rates of violent crime in the United States and in most places “have plummeted in the last 50 years.”

The U.S. is now safer than it has been since the early 1960s, but the reporting of violent crime in America has materially increased as the mainstream media, in pursuit of ratings and revenue, have highlighted the dark side of society.

Conservatives must step forward to tell the truth about capitalism: the better life it has brought to billions of people, the diversity and freedom of choice it celebrates, the individual responsibility it encourages, the continuing miracle of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” its rejection of government planning that always leads to dictatorship.

Which brings us to the urgent task of exposing the chimera that socialism is just another political system. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and their fellow socialists carefully omit any mention of the principles laid down by Karl Marx, the founding father of Socialism, such as the abolition of private property and the centralization of the means of production and of decision-making. But make no mistake: There are radical socialists waiting in the wings to promote these extreme initiatives.

It’s up to us to tell the truth. Socialists promise a classless society but create the prison camps of the Gulag and the Isle of Pines. They assure peace but engage in wars of national liberation. They abolish private property but depend upon the underground economy. They stamp out religion but worship Big Brother. They bring down corrupt dictators but institute a dictatorship of the Party.

Here are some of the most telling failures of socialism:

One, socialism has never succeeded anywhere, including the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union, the National Socialism of Nazi Germany, the Maoism of Communist China, the Chavez-Maduro socialism of Venezuela. It has never come close to anywhere near Marx’s ideal of a classless society.

Two, Marx has been wrong about nearly everything he predicted. The nation-state has not withered away. Capitalism didn’t break down as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Workers haven’t become revolutionaries but capitalists. The middle class hasn’t disappeared; indeed, it has expanded exponentially around the world (see the above about the sharp decline in global poverty). Marx’s attempt to use Hegel to create a “scientific socialism” has been an abject failure.

Three, socialism denies the existence of an essential human trait—human nature. Marx borrowed from the Enlightenment to declare that human nature was malleable, not constant. Christian theology with its idea of a fixed God-given nature infuriated Marx.

The socialist state established by Lenin tried for seven decades to create an entirely new human being—Soviet Man. In December 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev gave up trying and dissolved the world’s most spectacular failure in human engineering.

Four, socialism depends not upon the will of the people but on the dictatorship of the Party to remain in power. In “The God That Failed,” six famous Western intellectuals describe their journey into socialism and their exit when they encountered the gigantic gap between their vision of a socialist utopia and the totalitarian reality of the socialist state.

After visiting the Soviet Union, the French Nobel Laureate writer Andre Gide said: “I doubt where in any country in the world—not even in Hitler’s Germany—have the mind and spirit ever been less free, more bent, more terrorized and indeed vassalized than in the Soviet Union.”

What price socialism? The Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang listed the “little terrors” that prevailed in China—making children of 12 subject to capital punishment, sending women to work in underground coal mines, harassing workers during their lunchtime with threats of prison if they were late returning to work. A Soviet defector said of the perpetual surveillance: “We lived in a world swarming with invisible eyes and ears.”

Given the ignorance of so many of our fellow, especially young, Americans, telling the truth about socialism has become an imperative. If we do not, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and their fellow travelers will fill the vacuum with their misleading rhetoric. This is the truth about socialism: It is a pseudo-religion founded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

College Student: My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us

Euroskeptic Parties Cast Outsize Shadow Over EU Elections

The Left’s Response to Mueller Report Shows They Weren’t After the Truth


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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

I’m running for president: Is Joe Biden the Iranian Candidate?

Former Vice-President Joe Biden in an email titled “I’m running for president” writes:

America is an idea. Based on a founding principle that all men are created equal.

It’s an idea that’s stronger than any army, bigger than any ocean, and more powerful than any dictator.

It gives hope to the most desperate people on Earth. It instills in every single person in this country the belief that no matter where they start in life, there’s nothing they can’t achieve if they work at it.

Today, that idea is under attack.

We’ve got a president who assigns a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it.

A president who, like most charlatans and demagogues throughout history, seeks only to aggrandize himself, to consolidate his own power — by blaming the “other.”

If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation.

I cannot stand by and watch that happen.

Our core values, our very standing in the world, our democracy, and everything that makes us who we are is at stake.

That’s why I’m announcing my candidacy for President of the United States.

Does anyone remember when Joe Biden after 9/11 said,

“Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran”.

Talk about charlatans and demagogues.

Daniel Greenfield in an August 25, 2015 FrontPage Magazine column wrote:

But the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins weren’t [Senators] Markey or Shaheen. The real victory had come long before when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both men.

That list includes Housang Amirahmadi, the founder of the American Iranian Council, who had spoken of a campaign to “conquer Obama’s heart and mind” and had described himself as “the Iranian lobby in the United States.” It includes the Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN) board members who had fundraised for Biden. And it includes the aforementioned Hassan Nemazee.

A member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being “financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network.” Biden’s affinity for the terrorist regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran”.

Is the latest Democratic candidate for president a proxy of Iran? Is Joe Biden the Iranian Candidate?

The question: Will Biden’s historical support for a terrorist regime that chants “death to America” hurt his candidacy?

Time will tell.

RELATED ARTICLE: Nine Radical Policies 2020 Democrats Are Putting On The Table

GO FIGURE: U.S. Presidential Candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) took money from Iranian PAC & Donor guilty of $292 million bank/wire fraud

It seems that Democratic candidate for president Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has gotten donations from the sworn enemy of the United States of America – the Islamic Republic of Iran. Senator Gillibrand also has received donations from Hassan Nemazee, a multimillionaire Iranian-American investment banker and convicted felon.

In an August 25, 2015 FrontPage Magazine column titled “Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes” Daniel Pipes reported:

Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

[ … ]

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC [Iranian American Political Action Committee] money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

[ … ]

Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee. Namazee [sic] was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Nemazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.

Senator Gillibrand has strange bed fellows. You see, besides the Iranian chants of “death to America”, Hassan Nemazee is currently in prison for bank fraud. OpenSecrets.org in March 24, 2010 reported:

HOW DOES THE DEFENDANT PLEAD? Guilty. Hassan Nemazee, a prominent donor to Democrats, pleaded guilty to three counts of bank fraud and a count of wire fraud, according to Colin Moynihan at the New York Times. In the past, the Capital Eye reported on Nemazee and his immediate family’s contributions to federal candidates and political action committees, including thousands of dollars since 1990 to the likes of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama. (Many of the politicos have vowed to return or donate their Nemazee-related contributions.) As part of the plea agreement, Nemazee will forfeit assets totaling $292 million and spend between 15 to nearly 20 years in prison, Moynihan reports.

As the presidential primaries move forward it seems that this candidate has some skeletons in her closet. The question is will these revelations hurt or help Senator Gillibrand’s chances for the nomination?

Can you say Iranian Collusion???

RELATED ARTICLE: Nine Radical Policies 2020 Democrats Are Putting On The Table

NASA Chief Criticized for Mentioning Christianity in Speech

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the First Amendment. Or maybe, after the spat over a speech by NASA’s Jim Bridenstine, it does.

Thanks to the double standards of secularism, public officials can’t even talk about faith without making headlines. It’s no wonder, then, that when the head of America’s space program gave remarks at a Christian ministry, even he had trouble finding signs of intelligence in the criticism that followed.

Capitol Ministries, the organization that Bridenstine has supported for years, is hardly controversial. Nine of the president’s 15 Cabinet officials are sponsors of the ministry—whose aim is simple: influencing government with biblical teachings.

During his talk, Bridenstine even talked about the importance of that goal and what it means in the context of these times. “I love what Ralph said earlier: We’re not trying to Christianize the U.S. government. We believe in an institutional separation, but we also believe in influence. And that’s a big distinction and an important distinction, and that’s why I love this ministry.”

Bridenstine couldn’t have been more clear: No one in the Trump administration is trying to create a theocracy. They just want the same freedom to bring their personal views to bear on public policy that liberals have.

Still, secularists like Business Insider’s Dave Mosher seem intent on dragging Bridenstine through the mud for daring to talk about actual NASA history—like Buzz Aldrin’s communion on the moon and the Apollo 8 astronauts’ Bible reading in orbit.

In a 2,000-word rant about the faith of President Donald Trump’s team, Mosher insists that “Some ethics and legal experts outside NASA have expressed concern over Bridenstine’s speech. They believe it ran afoul of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which outlines a separation of church and state, and might have also violated ethics rules for federal executives.”

Quoting people like Virginia Canter of Citizens for Responsible Ethics, Mosher tries to paint Bridenstine as a typical Establishment Clause abuser. “One’s personal beliefs must be respected, but when appearing in an official capacity, you have to adhere to certain ethical standards,” Canter explained. “One is not to give the impression that you are officially endorsing any products or service or enterprise.”

Funny, where was Mosher when former President Barack Obama was headlining political fundraisers for Planned Parenthood? Or worse, invoking God’s blessing on the abortion giant?

Everyone from Hillary Clinton to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have not only endorsed the group’s “service”—but funneled hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to it. No one seemed to care when they appeared in their official capacities to preach the gospel of abortion. But put a Christian on the stage from the Trump administration—encouraging something as innocent as prayer—and they’re a walking ethics violation. This is NASA, for crying out loud. What are they worried about? Bridenstine sending astronauts to evangelize the galaxy?

If secularists are upset about Bridenstine’s speech, then they should have been shaking the White House gates over the last administration’s agenda for the space agency.

How quickly we forget those shocking comments in 2010 when Obama told NASA Administrator Charles Bolden that his new mission should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations … .”

If you’re looking for a textbook abuse of public office, I’d say start with the Obama administration. After that, giving a few remarks at a charity function seems like small potatoes.

But hypocrisy is the name of the Democratic game. Like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and countless other Trump officials before him, Bridenstine is just the latest target of an intolerant left whose only goal is purging faith from public life and history.

If activists can’t get Christians to stay quiet, then they’ll try to drive them out of government altogether. That will be tough to do in this administration, thanks to the fearless leadership of Trump. If his team has learned anything, it’s how to stand up to bullies. That shouldn’t be hard for a man like Bridenstine. He was already light-years ahead of the opposition.

EDITORS NOTE: This Family Research Council column is republished with permission.

Why the Trump Haters Still Don’t Get It

Nothing has changed.

Just about no one has moved away from where they stood on Nov. 9, 2016, when they woke up trying to comprehend that Donald Trump had overcome the odds, the press, and his own shortcomings to win that presidential election.

If you voted for him, you are still thrilled and optimistic about the future. I outlined in the book I co-authored with Brad Todd, “The Great Revolt,” that the election was never quite about Trump. Many of his voters saw his flaws with eyes wide open and voted heavily out of concern for their community, not necessary for themselves.

Many who did not vote for Trump loathe him with the intensity of a white-hot poker prodding at their soul. Their hair is still on fire, and nothing in the world can extinguish it until he is out of the White House, preferably in handcuffs.

If you are a reporter who lives and works within the counties that surround Washington, D.C.; New York; Chicago; or Los Angeles, it’s been a tough go. You don’t work with anyone in your newsroom who would have voted for Trump. You don’t socialize with anyone who voted for Trump. And you likely don’t know anyone at your children’s school who voted for Trump.

Many reporters, though not all, often view these voters monolithically, rather than as the complex coalition they have formed, painting them with a broad brush. They see the Trump voters as foolish or fooled at best, and as bigoted, unintelligent, and backward at worst.

Reporters marvel at these voters’ unwillingness to give up on a struggling town and move to a larger city or region, never understanding that they often happily trade a higher salary or a career with bonuses in another city for staying in a community where they have deep roots.

Since the day after Trump won, reports on his win focused heavily on his loss of the popular vote. Then there were the overhyped stories about a Wisconsin recount. Then the story developed that he won only because of Russia and that he probably helped Russia “hack the election.”

This simply reinforced Trump backers’ support for the man. Haters will hate.

That brings us back to this: Nothing has changed since Election Day 2016, because everything had changed for the C-suite influencers who control our culture, politics, entertainment, big tech, and news consumption.

They chose to ignore the signs—or, in their arrogance, they just missed what had been in plain sight for decades.

The fusion of conservatives and populists who make up the Trump coalition that placed Trump in the White House will continue long after whatever date the president leaves office. And despite the efforts of the press, and despite Trump’s own actions, those in the Trump coalition are unlikely to change their mind, because the only alternative is an elite who paints them as a villainous segment of our society.

© 2019 Creators.com

COMMENTARY BY

Salena Zito is a CNN political analyst, and a staff reporter and columnist for the Washington Examiner. She is the co-author of “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics.” Twitter: .


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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Gender Identity Law Declares War on Women, Forces Trans Men to be Accepted as Female

House Democrats have reintroduced a bill that would make “gender identity” a protected class under federal civil rights law and force men who identify as women to be treated and accepted as female. If the measure, known as the Equality Act, becomes law, it would drastically impact numerous sectors.

Hospitals and insurance companies will have to provide costly sex-reassignment therapies, employers and workers who don’t conform to new sexual norms will lose their businesses and jobs and women would lose female-only facilities and sports. The only requirement for protection under the bill is a self-declared “gender identity.”

In a statement celebrating the Equality Act’s reintroduction last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this: “To dismantle the discrimination undermining our democracy, we must ensure that all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, are treated equally under the law — not just in the workplace, but in education, housing, credit, jury service and public accommodations as well.”

The veteran California congresswoman claims the measure has strong bipartisan support even though two Republicans that supported it when it was first introduced in the last Congress are no longer in office. Florida’s Ileana Ros-Lehtinen retired and Virginia’s Scott Tayler failed to win reelection. Fortunately, the bill is likely to encounter serious resistance in the Republican-majority Senate as well as the White House.

Nevertheless, the transgender movement has become a dangerous war on women and girls and the law floating around in Congress will be detrimental to both. The Equality Act would be a setback to women’s rights in several areas.

American women would be stripped of single-sex accommodations in public multi-stall bathrooms, domestic violence or rape crisis shelters, drug rehabilitation centers, jails, juvenile detention facilities, homeless shelters, locker rooms or group showers. Judicial Watch recently wrote about a separate law that aims to defund women’s shelters that don’t allow transgender men who self-identify as women.

The Equality Act goes further by also stripping a woman’s right to have a person of the same sex conduct security searches on their body, supervise drug tests, handle intimate medical care and supervise children on overnight trips. This is because the language in the proposed law replaces sex with gender identity, open to the claimant’s interpretation, as a protected category.

This would be especially harmful to females in areas such as competitive sports. A decades-old federal measure known as Title IX prohibits discrimination in all federally funded education programs, including sports.

It ensures that boys and girls in elementary through high school and men and women in college have athletic opportunities. If the Equality Act passes males will have the right to compete against females, an atrocity that even the most liberal women and feminists reject.

Among them is tennis legend Martina Navratilova, an 18-time Grand Slam champion who encountered lots of discrimination for coming out as gay during the peak of her professional tennis career in the 1980s. “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women,” Navratilova said. “It’s insane and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”

A recent public high school case in Georgia supports the tennis great’s assessment. At a track competition, a transgender athlete easily beat all the females. The mother of one of the demoralized athletes reached out to several women’s rights groups for help but her concerns fell on deaf ears. A conservative public policy women’s organization in Washington D.C. helped the mother express her concerns to Congress.

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee the mother writes this: “To say that my daughter, as well as the other female athletes, were humiliated and had a sense of defeatism is an understatement. In the words of my daughter, ‘What’s the point Mom, we can’t win.’ Hearing this broke my heart, for my daughter and for all the female athletes, who train so hard, but no matter how hard they work and train they will never be able to beat a biological male. … What are we doing to our girls by forcing them to race biological males?”

Concerned Women for America, the group that assisted the Georgia mother, has conducted extensive research on the Equality Act and recently published a document outlining the measure’s dangerous consequences for women and girls.

Shea Garrison, the organization’s vice president of international affairs, says the bill wrongfully “redefines civil rights law” and “elevates the interests of one group over another.” An esteemed academic, Garrison’s work and research focuses on women’s economic and social empowerment, religious freedom and human rights.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission.

The Southern Border Invasion is Endangering Americans

That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd. Pat Buchanan

It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls. Duncan D. Hunter

If we’re so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren’t they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban? Ann Coulter


Liberals (Democratic communists) are increasingly in favor of open borders to anyone who wants to enter the United States and national sovereignty be damned.  But not that long ago they all wanted border security.

Schumer 2009: Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. He was all for spending $25 billion to secure the southern border until January of 2018.

Hillary 2015: I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.

Obama 2005: We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.

Bill Clinton 1996: His State of the Union address that year showed a striking comparison to what President Trump has said about the subject.  We are a nation of laws.

Dianne Feinstein 2006: Democrats are solidly behind controlling the border, and we support the border fence with the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Nancy Pelosi 2013: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi referred to border security as a “basic principle,” and urged congress to support legislation that she claimed would secure the U.S. border.

So, what changed?  President Trump tried to wheel and deal with Schumer and Pelosi regarding funds for the wall, even offering Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty.  Americans didn’t want it, but neither Pelosi nor Schumer would accept it despite their previous claims. The Democratic socialist hatred for our President supersedes protection for American citizens from illegal alien criminals, Mexican gangs, drug lords and yes Islamic terrorists.

Open Borders and Terrorists

Ranchers and farmers are finding prayer rugs along the United States-Mexico border – evidence corroborating President Donald Trump’s assertion that migrants from Islamic terrorist hotbed nations in the Middle East are breaking into the country.

Texas rancher Dr. Mike Vickers found an Urdu-to-English (official language of Pakistan) dictionary dropped under the cattle fencing on his 1,000-acre ranch north of the U.S.-Mexico border.

While local ranchers have to contend with torn-up fences, broken water lines, contaminated wells and robbery on a daily basis from illegal immigrants streaming through, a Texas Border Patrol agent said there is “no doubt” that among the hordes of Central Americans are also crossers from Pakistan and Afghanistan, raising significant national security concerns.

Other than Mexicans (OTMs) cross our southern border every day and never turn themselves in to Border Patrol like the family units or children.

Dr. Vickers’ wife, Linda, said the southern border ranchers have been dealing with illegals for years and no one seemed to care until our government started shipping illegal aliens all over the country.  Once that happened, it wasn’t just the ranchers’ problem; it became the nation’s problem.

The southern border is 1,933 miles long, and it crosses through arid deserts, rugged mountains, and winding rivers, many areas of which are unprotected by border security, and easily crossed border obstructions.

Hezbollah and Latin America

Relations between Hezbollah and Latin American drug cartels have been well known for two decades. In recent years, border security officials in southwest states have seen an alarming rise in Hezbollah insignia tattoos among imprisoned drug cartel operatives suggesting a very strong relationship among rank and file these days, let alone at the command level.

Over the years pro-Iranian websites have proliferated across Latin America.  Latin American politicians, notably Venezuela’s Maduro, have been in bed with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC)/Hezbollah operatives for years.

The terror threat from the south is not so much from illegal Latin American immigrants per se, but from Shiite Lebanese Hezbollah working with Iranian IRGC.   Of course, Hezbollah can recruit South Central Americans as operatives as well. There is little doubt that Hezbollah’s connections enable them to enter the U.S. as they desire, through our porous border with Mexico.

Our efforts to combat Islamic terrorism needs to consider the open southern border, the IRGC and Hezbollah threat to national security.

Constitutional Border Empowerment

Donald Trump is the commander in chief of the military and explicitly empowered by the U.S. Constitution to enforce our borders. (Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution).  As for declaring a national emergency, even though he had to veto the no vote, he won, because there weren’t enough votes to override his veto.  He could have built our border wall in the past eighteen months with defense department funds.

Instead some mysterious forces prevent him from taking action.  Why? Former Assistant States Attorney, Sidney Powell, author of Licensed to Lie, tells us exactly why in her latest article, The Ultimate Betrayal.  Please take the time to read it.

The President of the United States has full authority and full power to shut down the border of the United States to protect the nation and the people in the United States. It’s actually enshrined, not only in our U.S. Constitution, but in the U.S. federal code. It is Title VIII U.S. Code 1181(f).  It gives the president the power to suspend the entry of all aliens whenever he finds their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. He can shut it down whenever he wants to, based on those criteria. It is statutory.

District court judges stopped his orders regarding our southern border several times.  They also repeatedly stopped the President from restricting who enters our country from Muslim nations with a high incidence of terrorists.

But now, even the “regressive” L.A. Times admits the courts won’t stop his emergency declaration or his border wall.

President Trump’s Travel Ban

Finally, on June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s third executive order (Presidential Proclamation 9645), entitled, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats, and its accompanying travel ban of 7-8 states known for terrorism.  In the 5-4 opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump’s immigration restriction fell “squarely” within the president’s authority. The court rejected claims that the ban was motivated by religious hostility.

We need a secured southern border, with walls like those built in Israel and Turkey.

Turkey/Syria Border Wall

Turkey has completed the construction of a 911-kilometer wall (566 mile) bordering with Syria, a country plagued by civil war since 2011.  It is the third longest wall in the world after the Great Wall of China.

Over the period 2015-2018 Erdogan put up approximately 500 miles of 3-meter-high concrete wall (9’10”) along his border with Syria. The border wall incorporates physical, electronic and advanced technology components.  The physical components include modular concrete walls, patrol routes, manned and unmanned towers and passenger tracks.  It is backed up by some 150 towers and fixed lookout posts with electro optic devices and patrolled using armored vehicles.

The European Union funded much of the Turkey/Syrian wall and all of the technology and the armored vehicle cost in order to keep Syrians inside Syria and prevent them from making their way west.

Israeli Border Walls

Illegal immigration to Israel from Africa became a major problem beginning in 2007. Until then, approximately 2,700 illegal immigrants had entered Israel through the Egyptian border in the previous decades.  Over the next five years approximately 61,000 illegal immigrants entered Israel through the Egyptian border, the overwhelming majority coming from Eritrea and Sudan.

Once the 250-mile steel border fence was completed in December 2012, the numbers of illegal immigrants dropped from 10,431 in 2012 to less than 150 in 2013, and now even less, down to 11 per year.

Israel’s West Bank barrier is a wall built by the State of Israel to separate Palestinian territories from Israel. It is built mostly of fences and in some places, it is built of high concrete walls.

Israel’s West Bank barrier

Israel is now beginning work on a barrier in the Golan Heights area to prevent attacks by ISIS and other radical factions involved in the Syrian Civil War.

Our borders should be just as protected.  “Build the Wall” wasn’t just a slogan!  Now armed Mexican troops are crossing the border and disarming our own military.

Armed Mexican Troops

Armed Mexican troops disarmed two United States soldiers while they were on the American side of the border, U.S. defense officials have said.

U.S. Northern Command said in a statement that “five to six Mexican military personnel questioned two U.S. Army soldiers who were conducting border support operations” this month. The U.S. soldiers were in an unmarked Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vehicle near the southwest border near Clint, Texas.

Officials confirmed that the Mexican troops were armed with what seemed to be rifles. They raised their weapons when they saw the two U.S. soldiers, and then took a pistol from one and put it in the CBP vehicle. According to officials talking to CNN, the two Americans obliged “in an attempt to de-escalate a potential volatile situation.”

A senior defense official says the Pentagon is reviewing how U.S. soldiers responded during the incident in which Mexican troops detained and disarmed Americans on Texas soil.

Border Militia Arrested

The FBI arrested Larry Mitchell Hopkins, 69, for alleged unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition days after his group posted videos that appeared to show armed men stopping 200 migrants at the border in New Mexico, ordering them to sit on the ground and coordinating with US border patrol agents to have them taken into custody.

The United Constitutional Patriots have never killed or wounded even one illegal immigrant, something that cannot be said about the so-called professional cops at the Mexican border region,” said former police sergeant Leslie B. Crimmons, who trains civilians in self-defense and firearms safety. And yes, citizens do have the right to arrest.  See Jim Kouri’s recent article for the full story.

On June 18, 1916, U.S. President Wilson ordered 110,000 National Guardsmen from state militias to the Mexican border for patrol duty due to the unstable border situation and hostilities mainly from Mexican bandit, Pancho Villa.

It was the US militia that joined forces with the Continental army to defeat the British and create this nation. It was the US militia that was at Bunker Hill and Concord to stop the redcoats. Articles are labeling those Americans defending the border as “fascists” that are operating under the motivation of being “xenophobic,” when they’re only trying to help defend our nation from invasion.

No Assimilation, No Love for America

Migrants heading north to the U.S. border are not carrying American flags.  They carry the flags of the countries they’re leaving. And most of those migrants are strong young well-fed men.

A photo from the Associated Press shows protesters burning an American flag with a swastika painted on it in support of the migrant caravan heading through Central America for the United States.  Link

The defiant message is that they’ll cross the U.S. border any time they like, immigration laws be damned. They’re hoping to demonstrate such a reality with huge masses of people, who will ultimately be daring the U.S. military or border guards to fire on them.

Then their leaders will claim a propaganda victory over some migrant’s dead body while the U.S. wraps itself in pretzels over its dreaded crimes again unarmed civilians.  Link

Conclusion

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.  Sadly, far too many Americans are ignorant of what is happening in our country and that the southern border is actually non-existent.  Taxpayers are given a yearly bill of $150 billion for the cost of migrant invaders. The hordes of illegal aliens from third world countries have no desire to assimilate into American society.

Americans who understand what is happening to our nation are growing tired of our ancestors being compared to the migrants of today.  Settling in an undeveloped land and building a civilization is not comparable to invading a post-industrial nation and signing up for welfare.

We’ve had enough!  Close the border and build the wall…

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Is Asking for Emergency Border Funds. Is Congress Still AWOL?

A Teen Refugee’s Flight to Freedom From Communist Cambodia

For six years, the only luxuries Bopha Sayavong dreamed of were peace, quiet, food, and shelter.

It wasn’t until she landed in Little Rock, Arkansas, as a refugee from communist Cambodia on Oct. 31, 1981, that she began to imagine the luxuries freedom would bring.

Even after arriving in the U.S., though, life was not easy.

“We just build it up from there, little by little, to figure it out,” Sayavong, now 59, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview from Marion, Illinois.

Anything would beat the four years from 1975 to 1979 she spent as a teenager in work camps created by the oppressive communist regime known as the Khmer Rouge.

Cambodia fell to communism in April 1975 when an attempted coup by the right-leaning military failed to push King Norodom Sihanouk out of power. Sihanouk then joined forces with the Communist Party.

After a five-year civil war beginning in 1970, the Khmer Rouge had seized enough land to end the conflict. However, the communists didn’t restore power to Sihanouk, but to the ruthless leader Pol Pot, who historians hold responsible for the deaths of 2 million Cambodians.

Once the communists seized Cambodia’s capital, Phnom Penh, they told all residents to evacuate to the provinces for three days.

Sayavong, whose name then was Bopha Huot, was 13. Her father was a small business owner who, while in the Cambodian army, had helped Americans training during the Vietnam War. Her family was considered to be in the lower ranks of the upper class.

“The evacuation was supposed to be three days, leave your home and return back in three days, but actually it … was a false statement. It was a lie by the communist regime just to take people out of their homes,” Sayavong said.

During the four years of the Khmer Rouge’s reign, the government owned all resources; currency did not exist.

Sayavong said she was separated from her family during the evacuation as all Cambodians were divided by age, sex, and marital status. It was four years before she was reunited with her family.

“Their model is that everybody is equal, nobody is richer, nobody is poor,” Sayavong said of socialists and communists. “Sounds great, isn’t it? But that’s not true because the government owns everything. So guess who is the richest one? The government.”

She added:

People that refer to themselves as the millennial [generation], they have no clue what socialism is. I lived in both socialism and communism, and then I lived in the world of the U.S. One thing I can tell you is there is no place like the U.S. …

People think [socialism] is so wonderful, it’s so fantastic, but that’s not true. It’s just like a painting: It looks fantastic, but when you live in it, then you know it.

What about young Americans’ attraction to socialism?

It brings me pain to even think that our children go that far,” she said.  “I do believe in equality. I want … no rich, no poor, all even. But as a human being, think about it: If the government tells you what to do, how to eat, how to breathe, how could that be equal? They are above you.

Nearly 2 million Cambodians died between 1975 and 1979 as a result of the promised equality under Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime.

Life under the communists was oppressive, and there was no such thing as a “full” stomach in the work camps, Sayavong said:

In the very beginning, they gave you a reasonable amount of portions, but [it] is never a generous amount and it’s never what you want to eat. Whatever they provide, that’s what you eat.

Let’s just say today you’re going to have vegetables and rice; that’s what you have, vegetables and rice. And tomorrow, maybe you have a meat. But as the times goes by, as it’s progressed, like in the second year or so, you lose even more [food]. The third year you get even less. You get to the point where you have one tablespoon of rice a day. It’s not one serving, it’s [for] a day. They don’t even have enough salt.

We … were so hungry, we eat grass and wild vegetables, and I don’t mean the grass that a cow eats. I mean any wild vegetation. We’d just taste it to see if it can be eaten, [then] we eat it. But our stomach is not made to digest those kind of plants. We don’t have two or three layers like the cows. So most people have disease, and the water is not treated [but] dirty.

Her malnutrition was so bad, Sayavong said, that she couldn’t see at night from a lack of proper vitamins and minerals to support night vision.

There was no clock in her work camp; workers would start when the sun came up and stop when it went down. She said she worked every day in the fields to stay alive.

“You wake up in the morning, you go to work … ,” she said. “When you cannot work, they will decide to eliminate you because you are a waste of their food and supply.

She added:

They want everybody equal. So they have you work the field, building [a] village, growing rice, and farming because in order, in their stupidity, in order for you to be equals you have to start somewhere equal. …

So they have everybody start at the same thing. They abandon the manufacturer, they abandon cattle ranges and all those stuff, they start everybody on the same level. Except themselves. Everybody else, except themselves. They don’t work, they manage you.

“You know, I prayed every night, silly as that sounds,” Sayavong recalled. “I didn’t know what God I’m praying to at the time. I was hoping my… breath would never come the next morning, because it’s just unbearable. And each day I say, ‘God, please, just take me, I’m ready.’ … This is not it. I kept waking up. Never die.”

With the fall of the Khmer Rouge and end of its work camps, Sayavong said, she wandered through the jungle and found her mother, brother, and sister. Her father had died in a work camp.

In the jungle, her sister had discovered a poncho-covered boy hiding from the rain. It turned out to be Tom, a family friend before the communists had taken over and segregated everyone.

Tom was 10 when his family died in the work camps, Sayavong said.
Her family adopted him.

To survive, Sayavong said, she spent the next year smuggling food on the border with Thailand. One day, a group of Americans with a “little red cross on their arm” came to the rescue, she recalled.

The American Red Cross set up refugee camps in Thailand for Cambodian citizens fleeing their country. After two years in a refugee camp in Khao-I-Dang, Sayavong’s family was transferred to a camp in the Philippines where they eventually found a friend who was a U.S. citizen and would sponsor them.

Finally, it seemed as if there would be some security.  Sayavong went through an immigration process that took her and her family to Little Rock, Arkansas.

With the assistance of a local church, she learned to speak English, got a job in a factory that paid $3.25 an hour, and earned her GED certificate.

Today, Sayavong works as a pharmacist in southern Illinois.

She has been married since 1984 to Patrick Sayavong, a refugee from Laos whom she met in Arkansas at a Baptist church. They have two daughters—Sarah, 30, and Nicole, 22.

“There’s some heartache, and there’s some misstep, and that’s just part of life,” Sayavong said. “There are things we’ve done right, and there are things we’ve done wrong. You just tweak it as you go each year, each time, and look at where we are right now.”

COLUMN BY

Courtney Joyner

Courtney Joyner is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. She was a Journalism and Political Science major at The University of Texas at Austin.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. Bopha Sayavong is a longtime friend of the parents of the reporter, who has known her since age 9.

Think About It! A UN Staff Person is Deciding who Will Become a ‘New American’

“Given such high stakes, and the reports of abuses, the U.S. government might want to reconsider the whole resettlement referral system put in place by UNHCR.” – (Nayla Rush, Center for Immigration Studies)

That is the conclusion that Nayla Rush at the Center for Immigration Studies comes to after doing a deep dive into that recent NBC investigation about fraud and corruption within the United Nations as it does the first sorting-out of potential refugees for America.

See my report here about what NBC found.

What Rush prescribes is exactly what the Trump Administration should have been doing from day one—REFORMING the entire system of refugee resettlement that begins in Africa, Asia, or the Middle East when a wannabe refugee first registers with the UN for permanent resettlement.

Rush’s report (published yesterday) is here and this is her wrap-up (emphasis is mine),

The United States is entrusting the local staff of UNHCR with the selection of refugees eligible for resettlement in the United States, and entrusting the RSC staff with pre-screening and preparation of case files for resettlement applicants. We don’t know much about these men and women the U.S. government believes possess the exceptional good judgment, expertise, and integrity needed to make refugee determinations and resettlement referrals. But we do know that most work in difficult conditions and are citizens of unsettled countries where corruption is at times deemed an acceptable, even necessary, means of survival.

Let’s not forget that resettlement is one of UNHCR’s “durable solutions”. Resettled refugees are required by law “to apply for a green card (permanent residence) in the United States one year after being admitted as a refugee”.18 They can apply for citizenship four years later (not five, as the five-year count for refugees starts on the day of arrival). From this perspective, a resettlement card gives access to citizenship. UNHCR staff are, in a way, deciding not only who can move to the United States, they are also choosing who will have the opportunity to become an American. Given such high stakes, and the reports of abuses, the U.S. government might want to reconsider the whole resettlement referral system put in place by UNHCR.

If “vulnerability” is no longer the key to selecting refugees for resettlement, does that mean bribery is?

Read it all here.

For the umpteenth time, Trump did a good job slowing the flow to America especially from countries that have been Islamic terror-producing hot spots.  (BTW, Rohingya Muslim arrivals are coming at a fast pace.)

However, the entire flawed system is still firmly in place to be refueled with more of your tax dollars the minute Trump is no longer in the White House.  

Maddening!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Sanders & Harris Endorse Boston Marathon murderer be allowed to vote while in prison

Boston Marathon jihad murderer Dzhokhar Tsarnaev showed the “opposite of remorse” when he was captured.

He had the black flag of jihad on his wall and posed for a picture with one finger raised — the sign that the Islamic State and other jihad groups use to signify the absolute Islamic monotheism for which they are doing violence.

Whose interests would his vote serve? Not those of Americans.

“Sanders & Harris Think Boston Marathon Bomber Should Be Allowed to Vote While in Prison,” by Corwin Parks, MRC TV, April 23, 2019.

RELATED VIDEO: Bernie Says Incarcerated Felons Should Have Right To Vote.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with video is republished with permission.

This Supreme Court Case Threatens the Left’s View of Group Identity, Victimhood

Oral arguments heard at the Supreme Court Tuesday were ostensibly about whether the 2020 census could include a question about citizenship.

But don’t be fooled. The reason this case rocketed to the Supreme Court and has been so hotly contested is that the debate hinges, at bottom, on two starkly different visions of America.

In one vision, what matters is loyalty to and affiliation with a nation-state that is self-contained, independent, civic, and colorbind. In the other vision, priority is given to one’s membership in a subnational group that is based on subjective self-identity (like race or sexual orientation), and association with that group yields benefits and preferences in everything, from hiring to contracting, employment, housing, and even electoral redistricting.

The divide essentially comes down to a commitment to America as a nation vs. a commitment to one’s subgroup and the hierarchy of victimhood.

This is one of the great debates of our time—not just here, but around the world.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides—and an opinion is needed by summer if the Census Bureau is to meet its deadline of printing millions of forms—rest assured that this debate will not go away any time soon.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the nation-state seem to have been greatly exaggerated. Despite pressure from above—from sovereignty-draining, transnational institutions like the United Nations and the European Union—and from below, i.e., from identity groups based on race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, and anything else that can confer conceptual victimhood (and thus special rights) on an individual, the nation-state has shown remarkable resilience.

Defenders of the nation-state remind us that democracy, the rule of law, self-determination, liberty, and everything else Americans and like-minded people hold dear depend on territorially and culturally defined nation-states. Its opponents like to portray the nation-state as archaic, unnecessary, and a gateway to authoritarianism, if not worse.

The Trump administration has championed the sovereignist view, and in 2017 recognized the importance of citizenship by requesting that a question on citizenship be added to the 2020 census.

Progressive groups have left no stone unturned in their bid to frustrate the administration on this front. Notably, these same groups defend a panoply of other census questions that divide Americans by sex, ethnicity, and race.

These groups argue that the citizenship question would depress responses among certain marginalized groups, especially Hispanics. Yet the Census Bureau says it has no credible evidence that the question would affect the quality of the data.

Dozens of progressive organizations brought suit in New York, joined by 18 states and the District of Columbia. They won in district court in New York, thus the case Tuesday was Department of Commerce v. New York.

The hearing Tuesday did not in the least devote itself to these large questions of nationhood, sovereignty, and the like. Instead, there was a lot of technical and statistical back-and-forth between liberal justices and United States Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represented the administration, and between the conservative justices and New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood; Dale Ho, the lawyer for the New York plaintiffs; and Douglas Letter, the lawyer who represented the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. All of these latter individuals argued against including the citizenship question.

It is difficult, as usual, to predict which way a court will go. Ho did his side no favors by admitting at one point that, yes, the Trump administration is right that citizenship data is needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

At issue is the fact that the Voting Rights Act does indeed call, in some places, for drawing districts where at least 50 percent of the voting population are members of a racial or ethnic minority.

Ho, perhaps unwittingly, made the case that “if the minority group has relatively low citizenship rates, for example, as is the case with Hispanic populations in some circumstances, then you need citizenship data to make sure that you’re drawing a district in which minority voters are, in fact, a majority of the population.”

That data is now provided by the American Community Survey, a smaller census product that goes out to fewer households. But some states, ironically including some of those suing the Trump administration, have complained that that data is not reliable.

Justice Neil Gorsuch thus jumped on Ho’s argument and pointed out that “some of the states who are now respondents before us have in litigation, including in this court, argued that [American Community Survey] data should not be relied upon for purposes of citizenship or other purposes, that the census data is more accurate. What do we do about that? It seems to me like you kind of put the government in a bit of a catch 22.”

It is the unified left that is in a catch 22, however—and the Voting Rights Act, as it is currently interpreted, put it there. The left does not mind (it in fact loves) the racial gerrymandering that is aided by census questions on ethnicity, race, and so forth. But because what is actually needed is voters, the administration can now say it needs citizenship data, since only citizens are allowed to vote.

The left is terrified by this prospect. It now realizes that available citizenship data will allow jurisdictions to apportion and redistrict seats according to voter, or citizen population, not total population, as they are constitutionally entitled to do. That would, for example, prevent liberal districts from swelling their numbers by adding populations of non-voting noncitizens or even illegal immigrants.

This essentially means citizenship data on the American nation itself—not arbitrary subgroups—would determine the shape of the House of Representatives, and the number and composition of electoral votes at election time. Our elections would more accurately represent the America that really exists, not the faux America envisioned by intersectional activists.

To win this issue, not just in the Supreme Court, but in the all-important court of public opinion, those who believe in the nation-state must constantly make the case that its view of the nation is nonracial, but instead is truly inclusive and colorblind. We must show that the other vision leads to balkanization, conflict, and ultimately, national splintering.

COMMENTARY BY

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is a widely experienced international correspondent, commentator, and editor who has reported from Asia, Europe, and Latin America. He served in the George W. Bush administration, first at the Securities and Exchange Commission and then at the State Department, and is the author of “A Race for the Future: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans.”Read his research. Twitter: .


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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Elizabeth Warren’s Debt ‘Cancellation’ Plan Would Make College More Expensive, Not Less

Elizabeth Warren wants free college for every American. But what the Massachusetts senator doesn’t seem to realize is just how much more costly college would get if her “free” proposal passed.

Shortly after Valentine’s Day in 1987, Education Secretary William J. Bennett wrote a now-famous op-ed in The New York Times titled “Our Greedy Colleges.” In it, he suggested that “increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”

This observation became known as the “Bennett Hypothesis.” As the years go by, it seems more apt to call it the Bennett truism.

In the last 20 years, the federal government’s total spending on student loans has skyrocketed, from $24.8 billion in the 1995-96 school year to $93 billion in 2017-18.

At the same time, the price of college tuition has soared. Between 1998 and the present, tuition at four-year institutions has roughly doubled, and at private four-year colleges tuition has gone up 58%.

The price increase is even more dramatic looking at the last 40 years. Since 1980, the cost of attending a four-year public university has increased 287%—an uptick rate surpassed only by increases in the cost of medical care.

Enter Warren.

On Monday, she published a proposal that includes the following:

  • Students with household incomes below $100,000 would have the first $50,000 of their student loan debt canceled.
  • For every additional $3 of income over $100,000, the amount of loan forgiveness offered would be cut by $1.
  • Borrowers from families earning more than $250,000 annually would receive zero debt cancellation.

On the whole, as Robert VerBruggen has pointed out, her proposal would cancel all loans for about 75% of borrowers and provide partial cancellation for 95% of borrowers.

This debt cancellation portion of the plan would cost taxpayers $640 billion, as Warren pointed out herself.

And that’s just the retroactive part of the proposal.

The plan would also provide “universal free college,” allowing students to attend a two- or four-year college “without paying a dime in tuition or fees,” as she says. The total tab? $1.25 trillion over just the next decade.

Warren suggests her “free” college and debt cancellation plan would be financed (again) by an “ultra-millionaire tax,” singling out the 75,000 families in America she estimates to have more than $50 million in assets.

This is a group she has already identified to finance her “free” childcare plan. Things are getting expensive in a hurry.

Her latest proposal is problematic for a host of reasons, not least of which is the exorbitant cost to taxpayers. But it would also fail to achieve the goal of greater equality in access to education. A similar proposal for “free” college was already tried in England, and it ended up benefiting the wealthy rather than the needy.

But beyond these failures, Warren’s proposal would likely expedite the rise in college tuition. It comes down to simply math: When colleges know the federal government is financing “free” tuition in perpetuity, they’ll have all the more reason to raise tuition and fees, which taxpayers will then absorb.

In fact, a growing body of literature has already shown that federal subsidies have this tendency to push tuition prices higher.

In one study, researchers Grey Gordon and Aaron Hedlund found that raising subsidized loan limits led to a 102% increase in tuition from 1987 to 2010. Absent that additional federal money, the authors estimate tuition would have only gone up by 16% on net.

Another study by David O. Lucca, Taylor Nadauld, and Karen Shen of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found additional evidence of the Bennett Hypothesis at play. The authors found that credit expansion (increasing subsidized federal student loans) leads to a tuition increase of 60 cents for every additional dollar of subsidized federal loans. Their conclusion bluntly states:

… a credit expansion will raise tuition paid by all students and not only by those at the federal loan caps because of pecuniary demand externalities. Such pricing externalities are often conjectured in the context of the effects of expanded subprime borrowing on housing prices leading up to the financial crisis, and our study can be seen as complementary evidence in the student loan market.

As Carlo Salerno of CampusLogic points out, students choose to take on college loan debt, and are not assigned that debt. So loan forgiveness “unfairly rewards the person who borrows to get a Ferrari over the one who got a Kia.”

That inequity is underscored by the numbers. As Salerno calculated, a wealthy student who borrowed $100,000 a few years ago and has been delinquent on repayment would get more forgiveness than the low-income student who responsibly worked to pay down $40,000 in debt over the past 20 years and only has $10,000 remaining, which would be forgiven.

Some would clearly benefit from this scheme, but it would penalize students who choose to work while in college to minimize their debt, those who pursue an apprenticeship over an expensive degree, and those who take out debt, but live modestly post-graduation in order to fully pay back what they owe.

Moreover, as the Urban Institute found (in an analysis unrelated to the Warren plan), “the top 25% of American households by income hold nearly half of all student debt—and the bottom 25% holds just a tenth of it. Canceling all student loans would deliver $5 to rich Americans for every $1 given to poorer families.”

Proposals to make college “free” or to forgive vast amounts of student loan debt reward one entity more than any other: the universities.

Subsidizing the already-dysfunctional student loan system is not the solution. If we want to get serious about addressing the student loan issue, we must pursue structural changes to accreditation, along with innovation in financing through options like income share agreements. Making sure colleges have some “skin in the game” also holds promise.

But above all, Washington should get out of the student loan business. The federal government currently originates and services 90% of all student aid, leaving taxpayers greatly exposed when defaults occur or when loan forgiveness becomes more generous.

Getting the feds out of the student loan business would go a long way toward finally addressing the root causes of soaring tuition.

COMMENTARY BY

Lindsey Burke

Lindsey M. Burke researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the Will Skillman fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Elizabeth Warren’s College Plan Is a Bailout for the Elite


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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Why AG Barr Must Confront the Deep State

Due to her amazing job taking care of our home, 9 birds, 2 cats, one greyhound and me, my wife Mary has not followed the intricate details of the Mueller/deep state silent coup to end Trump’s presidency.

Mary asked, “Is Mueller a good guy or a bad guy?”

To prevent her eyes from glazing over, I kept it simple. Mueller is a bad guy. He could have concluded in two weeks that Trump did not collude with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary Clinton. And yet, Mueller dragged out his bogus investigation for over two years which dramatically harmed Trump’s approval numbers and even may have caused Republicans to lose the house.

Then, Mary asked, “Why won’t AG William Barr comply with Democrats’ demand that he release the Mueller report unredacted?”

I explained, redacted means taking a marker and blacking out information unrelated to the investigation. During the course of an FBI investigation, personal information about your life will surface. It is unfair and illegal to go public with your personal information if it has nothing to do with the charges against you.

Therefore, Barr would be breaking the law if he released the Mueller report unredacted. Embarrassing dirt was exposed during the Bill Clinton sex sandals investigation. Democrats wanted to make sure such details would not be made public again. They passed a law that future investigations must be redacted. Now, Democrats are demanding that Barr break their own law.

Fake news media and Democrats know the law prevents Barr from releasing the unredacted Mueller report. And yet, Democrats are absurdly viciously attacking and seeking to destroy Barr, flooding the airwaves with their lies that Barr is illegally protecting Trump. Democrats know they can lie to the American people about Barr because fake news media will cover for them.

The Mueller report found no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. And yet, Democrats, the deep state and fake news media intend to continue promoting their lie that Trump colluded and obstructed justice all the way to the 2020 presidential election.

Exposing their repulsive arrogance and sense of superiority, John Brennan, James Clapper, Adam Schiff, James Comey and Obama minions are moving full speed ahead with their treasonous quest to remove Trump from office. These evil people are using fake news media to sell their lie that Trump is guilty of obstruction for simply confronting their lie-filled attempts to over-through his presidency. They expected Trump to behave like a typical wimpy passive Republican and allow them to destroy him.

AG William Barr must follow through with holding them accountable to save Trump’s presidency and the rule of law in America. The only thing that is going to stop the deep state’s Terminator cyborg focus on removing Trump from the White House is a powerful political punch in the face by Barr.

Bullies are cowards. As a black kid growing up in the mean projects of Baltimore, bullies took my lunch money. Cousin Jimmy confronted them with a threat of personal destruction if they dared to bother me again. They complied. Cousin Jimmy also taught me the power and wisdom of having a strong military. Washington DC is full of cowardly bullies, hellbent on undermining the will and best interest of the American people.

These bad players in the deep state have no fear of punishment for their treason. Barr must push them back on their heels, forcing them to go on defense.

When Barr probes deep into the deep state’s outrageous, unprecedented and illegal attempt to reverse the 2016 election, all the cockroaches will run, exposed by the light of truth and justice. That will be a glorious thing to see; a great day for America.

Liberals Are Using Rep. Ilhan Omar as an Excuse to Chill Speech

Democrats have spent the past two-plus years accusing the president of the United States and his allies of seditiously conspiring with our enemies to destroy “democracy.”

For the most part, this fairytale has been cynically deployed by politicians to undermine the legitimacy of a Republican presidency, yet millions of Americans now believe their votes were upended by a foreign power. There is no more serious charge against an elected official than treason.

Then again, for decades before the 2016 election, Democrats argued that Republicans were literally killing their fellow Americans when cutting taxes, murdering the sick when rejecting nationalized health care, and sentencing the poor to death when dismissing socialist schemes.

Not to mention suppressing the minority vote when asking for ID, engaging in Nazi-like actions when enforcing existing border laws, and destroying the world when failing to embrace a takeover of the economy. And so on.

This overwrought rhetoric is embedded in the everyday arguments of the mainstream left, and its intensity is only growing.

The same liberals are now demanding that conservatives stop quoting and posting videos of progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar belittling the 9/11 attacks, because doing so puts her life in danger. That’s quite the deal they’ve cooked up for themselves.

Nearly every presidential candidate and major Democratic leader has argued that Donald Trump’s criticism of Omar is out of line because of increased death threats against her. I do wonder how many death threats Trump or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Rep. Steve Scalise receives every week. I imagine it’s considerable.

But as usual, most of the media took up the Democrats’ cause, trying to infantilize a 38-year-old woman. “Trump clearly unmoved over increased concerns raised by Dems over Omar’s safety,” noted CNN’s Manu Raju after Trump attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s handling of the Minnesota representative.

Do reporters and columnists consider the safety of the Trump administration before writing critically about it? I hope not. Because free speech—political discourse and good faith political reporting included—shouldn’t be inhibited by prospective actions of third-party nuts.

It is imperative, in fact, that we don’t let those nuts undercut our ability to freely express our political disagreements. If Americans pondered the actions of political terrorists every time they took a position, they would only be empowering criminals.

Not one of Trump’s critical comments about Omar called for violence in any way. He didn’t rationalize chasing Omar out of a restaurant or standing in front of her home with a bullhorn. The idea that politicians should have immunity from criticism is not something journalists, or anyone who values free expression, should give any credence. Yet, here we are.

Let’s remember one of the times we actually saw overt political violence was when a progressive activist and Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer attempted to assassinate the entire Republican congressional delegation. As far as I can tell, no one in the media asked Sanders or any other Democrats to temper their political rhetoric about Republicans.

If the reverse had occurred, we would have been plunged into a national discussion about right-wing rhetoric. (Wait, what am I saying, Republicans are already asked to take responsibility for violent actions of people who have nothing to do with them.)

Attempting to chill speech isn’t a new tactic for Democrats, and certainly not when it comes to Omar. As an African-American Muslim woman, the congresswoman has reached the pinnacle of special status, and thus any criticism, even quoting her verbatim or playing a video of her, is categorized as racist.

There are no specific guidelines for when it’s acceptable to be critical of the things an African-American Muslim woman politician says, though, for most people, the answer is “never.”

Of course, the notion that someone’s color or ethnicity or religion offers them dispensation from political debate is one of the most destructive aspects of this debate.

It was Democrats who chose to rally around Omar, celebrating her immigrant story and appearing with her on magazine covers. Now those Democrats are compelled to cover up and rationalize her incendiary comments.

There is no freshman-level Marxist gobbledygook or conspiracy theory that Omar won’t regurgitate, from claiming that the U.S. was “founded by genocide” to claiming that American power is built through “neocolonialism” to embracing morally decrepit ideas about the Middle East and Jews.

Democrats first covered for her actions by watering down an already-useless resolution condemning her anti-Semitic comments with a bunch of vacuous censures of all bigotry.

It is clear to me that Omar minimized 9/11, as she does Islamic terrorism in general. It’s clear to me she is a defender of theocrats and an apologist for terror organizations like Hamas. You might disagree. You can view her comments and decide for yourself.

Whatever the case, threats of violence against politicians are illegal and should be condemned by any decent person. In the end, though, whether Omar has increased threats against her or not, she is a public figure and deserves no special dispensation from debate.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Arizona Case Shows the Difference Between Campus Free Speech and Harassment

College Refuses to Back Down After Protests Over Pence Speaking

Embarrassing Gaffes Continue to Show Media’s Ignorance of Religion


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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

ILLEGAL ALIEN SERVED IN U.S. NAVY & U.S. BORDER PATROL: When multiple background investigations fail.

One of the crimes that is rarely discussed in the media or acknowledged by our politicians is the crime of an alien making a false claim to U.S. citizenship a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 911:

Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Illegal aliens may falsely claim to be United States citizens to evade detection by immigration law enforcement officers and hence, deportation (removal) from the United States but that crime is rarely prosecuted.

When I attended the U.S. Border Patrol Academy at the beginning of my career with the former INS was methods for breaking such false claims to U.S. citizenship.  To my knowledge no other law enforcement agencies provide instruction in this issue.

In an earlier aptly titled article, False Claims To U.S. Citizenship I noted that because of such false claims, particularly when aliens are incarcerated, it is impossible to know how many illegal alien criminals are actually incarcerated around the United States, particularly in “Sanctuary” jurisdictions, where the rule of the day for immigration issues can be summed up as “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Most illegal aliens use stolen identities or assume false identities in order to accept unlawful employment in the United States, usually working at relatively menial, economic bottom rung jobs that require little, if any formal education or skills.

However, on March 28, 2019 the New York Times reported on an illegal alien who had become a member of the U.S. Border Patrol in an article, Border Officer’s Secret in Arizona: He Was Undocumented.

That article began with this excerpt:

Marco A. De La Garza Jr. spent nearly six years as a federal officer with Customs and Border Protection, working on the front lines of America’s southern border in Arizona and doing his best to keep undocumented immigrants out of the United States.

A Navy veteran, he was known for going the extra mile: One day, while off duty, he rushed out of a barbecue at his in-laws’ house in Sierra Vista, Ariz., when he spotted an undocumented man being chased by the Border Patrol. He tackled the runner and held him until the agents caught up.

Few knew Mr. De La Garza’s secret: He was undocumented, too.

The nation’s main border protection agency had hired an unauthorized immigrant to police the border — one of at least four cases of undocumented workers revealed to be working at federal immigration agencies in recent years.

Mr. De La Garza, 38, was born in Mexico, and had lied about his citizenship status and supplied his employer with a fraudulent Texas birth certificate that falsely said he was born in Brownsville, Tex.

“In retrospect, I fully understand now that I was being selfish in my desire to serve my country that I had so loved,” he wrote after he was indicted by a federal grand jury on three counts of passport fraud and making false statements on his application for a federal law enforcement background check.

Mr. De La Garza agreed to plead guilty to one count of passport fraud, and the other two counts were dropped. On Thursday he was sentenced in Federal District Court in Tucson to one year of probation and a $1,000 fine. Judge Raner C. Collins said his service to the country “ought to count for something.”

Let me make it clear from the outset that I have no knowledge about De La Garza’s character or his dedication to service in either the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Border Patrol.  That said, I am troubled by the judge’s findings and statements concerning an illegal alien who had entered the United States illegally and then repeatedly committed felonies by making a series of false statements to join the U.S. Navy and serve on a nuclear submarine and submit to followup security clearances.

Mr. De La Garza lived and worked on a nuclear submarine as a trusted member of the crew although his very identity and background was a fabrication.

Nuclear submarines are among the most sensitive assets in our military’s arsenal.

On August 19, 2016 military.com published an AP article, Sailor Gets Year in Prison for Taking Photos in Nuclear Sub.  That President Trump subsequently pardoned the sailor in this case does not minimize how seriously our military takes breaches of security.

De La Garza then lied when he filed an application to become a member of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Those highly sensitive positions have clear nexus to national security where the potential for harm to national security is inestimable and must be viewed from that perspective.

He additionally lied on his application for a U.S. passport with potential for further harm to national security.  A U.S. passport is truly the “gold key to the kingdom.”

His positions in both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Border Patrol involved in-depth background investigations, not merely “background checks” where a name and fingerprints are run through computer databases but actual field investigations are conducted to verify the information provided by the applicant seeking the job and the security clearance.  Yet he succeeded in deceiving these background investigations.

An investigation into the way these investigations are conducted must be initiated.

As for his false application for a U.S. passport, the U.S. Department of State issues passports and has posted information about crimes involving passport and visa fraud on its website under the title, Passport and Visa Fraud: A Quick Course.  One of the crimes enumerated in that posting is:

18 U.S. Code § 1542. False statement in application and use of passport which provides for a maximum of 25 years in prison if the crime was committed in conjunction with terrorism:

Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or

Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.

We must not lose sight that his first violation of law was to enter the United States without inspection.  All other crimes he subsequently committed would not have been possible had he not been able to enter the U.S.

Perhaps the judge who decided to let the defendant off with probation did so because he, not unlike all too many other judges and politicians, doesn’t consider immigration law violations to be serious.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.