On November 29, Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell appeared on “No Spin News” on billoreilly.com to discuss the caravan and its potential source of funding.
As the migrant caravan has been developing in the news for the past few months, Bill O’Reilly has set his focus on the funding that is allowing this highly orchestrated caravan to operate. As we have reported, the money trail seems to lead back to George Soros. On today’s No Spin News, Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell gives his expertise on Soros and specifies exactly how George Soros is operating and how it is directly impacting the American taxpayers.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with video courtesy of No Spin News is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Aidan Bartos on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/aidan-bartos-313782-unsplash-e1543661160374.jpg427640Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2018-12-01 05:42:552018-12-01 05:50:39VIDEO: How the State Dept. Outsources YOUR Tax Dollars to George Soros Front Groups
“Before God and a billion hungry neighbors, we must rethink our values regarding our present standard of living,” proclaims the document. The document goes on to lament the “materialism of our culture and the maldistribution of the nation’s wealth and services.”
According to these leaders, the United States holds a “crucial role in the balance and injustice of international trade and development.” To secure an “abundant life for all of God’s children,” these activists propose “a more just acquisition and redistribution of the world’s resources.”
Good intentions notwithstanding, enactment of their economic agenda would actually stifle the widespread abundance produced by free market capitalism.
This thinly veiled embrace of Marxism initially occurred at the height of the Cold War. In the half-century prior to 1973, many governments elsewhere forcefully enacted a “more just” redistribution. The Soviets outright confiscated private farmland upon coming to power in Russia in 1917. Likewise, China’s communist regime under Mao Zedong began redistributing private land holdings upon coming to power in 1949. In 1959, the regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro nationalized private businesses and property in the aftermath of the revolution.
Far from being an abstract dispute, the physical and intellectual war between free market capitalism and socialism was intensely raging by 1973.
To affirm the economic pronouncements in the Chicago Declaration would be to reject the reality of the last 45 years. Consider the turnaround the United Kingdom has made following broad privatization in the 1980s, or the booms that came to Vietnam and China as capitalism was adopted. Look at the wealth of Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea—some of the freest economies in the world.
Meanwhile, the socialist economies of Spain and Greece continue to flounder while Venezuela degenerates under the burden of Bolivarian revolution.
Far from perpetuating injustice, the expansion of international trade has coincided with a surge in the quality of life for many millions of people. In the words of World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim, “Over the last 25 years, more than a billion people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty, and the global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history. This is one of the greatest human achievements of our time.”
Of course, wages in the developing world remain lower than those in more advanced economies. But these wages represent a marked improvement from yesteryear. The transformation in living standards today is eclipsing even the rapid pace of improvement that the West experienced during the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago.
The signatories of this statement decry “a national pathology of war and violence which victimizes our neighbors at home and abroad.”
Yet the United States has sacrificed greatly to defeat Nazism, communism, fascism, terrorism, and imperialism over the past century. We’ve rebuilt war-ravaged countries—including those of former enemies such as Germany and Japan. We’ve made seas across the globe safe for trade. Our investments overseas in countries that welcome foreign capital have directly expanded prosperity across the globe.
And beyond this, our nation liberally shares the concepts that continue to make us an economic powerhouse—notions such as private property rights and the rule of law.
Central planning, a capping of consumer demand, and a redistribution of resources are not the keys to economic “justice.” After years of travelling to impoverished parts of the globe, U2’s Bono bravely shared his altered take on capitalism:
Rock star preaches capitalism—wow. Sometimes I hear myself and I just cannot believe it. But commerce is real … aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce, entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid—of course, we know that.
In light of recent history, perhaps now is the time for the heirs of the 1973 declaration to graciously admit their misdiagnosis.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Gift Habeshaw on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/gift-habeshaw-717218-unsplash-e1543618354352.jpg378640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-11-30 17:52:462018-12-04 07:19:20The Gospel of Marx? Religious Leaders Call for ‘Redistribution,’ Denounce ‘Pathology of War’
California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman announced his resignation Thursday after allegations of sexual misconduct and inappropriate workplace behavior.
A Los Angeles Times report surfaced Wednesday that said 10 California Democratic Party staffers and political activists had accused him of making lewd, sexual comments to them in the workplace or that Bauman had touched them without their permission.
Bauman, 59, said in response to this report that he’d be seeking treatment for health issues and alcohol abuse.
“I have made the realization that in order for those to whom I may have caused pain and who need to heal, for my own health, and in the best interest of the Party that I love and to which I have dedicated myself for more than 25 years, it is in everyone’s best interest for me to resign my position as chair of the California Democratic Party,” Bauman said in a statement, according to the Times.
The sexual misconduct allegations came after Bauman, the Democratic Party’s first openly gay chairman, was accused of unspecified misconduct and had taken a leave of absence.
One female staffer recalled obscene comments Bauman made to her at a dinner in 2007, while a gay male staffer said Bauman asked about his sex life with his partner during professional interactions.
Staffers claimed they saw the chairman drink alcohol frequently during the work day, even though California Democratic Party rules prohibit alcohol consumption in the workplace or on official duties, the Times reported.
Other accusations include the chairman discussing which men he had sex with and mocking staff members about their sexual orientations and physical appearances numerous times.
The party’s vice chair, Daraka Larimore-Hall, referred to “a clear and escalating pattern of Chairman Bauman’s horrific and dehumanizing behavior” in a letter calling for Bauman’s resignation, the Times reported.
Bauman led the Los Angeles County Democratic Party from 2000 to 2017 before becoming the state’s party chairman.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Keith Birmingham/ZUMA Press/Newscom. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, emaillicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/zumaglobalfour315245-1250x650-e1543616594584.jpg402640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-11-30 17:25:592018-11-30 17:25:59California Democratic Chair Resigns After Sexual Misconduct Allegations
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/DANA-LOESH-2.jpg338600NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2018-11-30 16:56:032018-11-30 16:56:03VIDEO: Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% of the Time in Active-Shooter Events
The headlines about the incoming 116th Congress scream that our representation has never been so “young,” so “blue,” so “diverse.”
If diversity is about how people look, this Congress is very diverse. It’s a fact that there has never been so great a number of representatives who are women and people of color. There are 124 women, 55 blacks, 43 Latinos, and 15 Asians.
But if diversity means diversity of thought, it’s practically nonexistent.
Of the 124 women, 105 are Democrats. Of the 55 blacks, all are Democrats. Of the 43 Latinos, 34 are Democrats. Of the 15 Asians, 14 are Democrats.
The celebration about alleged diversity is really a celebration of one, uniform voice on the left, dressed in different colors, calling in unison for moving America further toward socialism and secular humanism.
All the politics of today’s Democratic Party, which is as far left as it has ever been, is about how people look and where they come from. Once we called this prejudice or stereotyping. Now we call it progressivism.
This is anything but Martin Luther King’s famous dream that his children would one day be judged by “the content of their character and not the color of their skin.”
It takes a certain blindness to miss the irony in these politicians of the left, who call for honoring and empowering individuals, and choose to do this by making them less free.
They claim to enhance individual dignity by expanding government to dictate our health care, how we save and retire, our relationship with our employer, how and what we can say to others and what they can say to us, and just about every detail of our private lives and decisions.
How has it become so lost in our country that the way we dignify individuals is by believing in them, by granting them freedom to take responsibility for their own life?
In this election, Republicans won a national majority only from white voters. Hispanics voted 69 percent for Democrats; blacks, 90 percent; and Asians, 77 percent.
Minority Americans have bought the lie that personal freedom is not in their interest—that government should run their lives. This is meaningful to us all because they represent the growth demographics of the nation.
According to recent analysis from the Brookings Institution, white America will be in the minority by 2045. However, by 2027, just eight years from now, the majority of Americans 29 and under will be non-white.
The socialists, the secular humanists, know time is on their side. It’s a waiting game for them.
The new Democrat House has only one thing in mind—biding its time to inflict maximum damage on President Donald Trump in order to lay the groundwork for whomever it nominates for president in 2020. So expect a very noisy two years.
What can Republicans do? Get far more aggressive in reaching into these minority communities about what losing or gaining freedom will mean to them. Republicans have a very important story to tell that is not reaching these communities.
Countries that are not free don’t grow, because all the activity is about transferring wealth—not creating it.
The progressive politics of blame, dependence, and envy make the well-connected rich and keep impoverished people poor. It’s why over the last 50 years, many black politicians have gotten wealthy while the gap in average household income between whites and blacks is 50 percent greater today than it was in 1970.
Republicans and all Americans who care about bequeathing a free nation to their children and grandchildren need to think long and hard about how to communicate the importance of freedom to Americans of color.
It’s our only hope of not losing our country to the left forever.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/181129_cortez-1250x650-e1543586570805.jpg371640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-11-30 09:04:162018-12-01 07:43:44The Incoming Congress May Look Diverse, but Diversity of Thought Is Dwindling
Once again, we find ourselves in the midst of a political game of chicken between competing views for the future of our country. And once again, the ones who are stuck in the middle are the American people.
This time, the battle of wills is over the funding of the wall to our southern border. President Trump wants $5 billion allocated to the wall’s construction. The Democrats, on the other hand, have said they are wiling to commit $1.6 billion to the wall, and not a penny more.
In the meantime, the nation is being exposed to the reality of an immigration crisis Democrats and the mainstream media said did not exist and now vainly argue is due to the President’s new policies on immigration.
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear; the only reason we find ourselves in the midst of an immigration crisis of this magnitude is because of the decades of ineptitude and incompetence by Congress in not providing the resources and personnel needed to definitively seal the border.
Enter President Donald J. Trump. President Trump has been one of the few ferocious advocates for border control. One of his central and most important planks to his platform is the building of the border wall and the definitive eradication of illegal immigration. In fact, a Harvard/Harris poll from August 1, 2018, showed that 76% of the American people want border security, and with the impact of the images and goings-on related to the Central American caravan, that number has likely crept up even higher.
Amazingly, the Republican members of Congress who are now entering the waning days of their control of all three steeples of power do not seem to have the resolve to push a $5 billion allocation for border wall funding to the president’s desk. The purported reasons are as varied as they are hollow. We can’t afford it they say. Walls are a terrible way to maintain security, and there are other, more effective ways of securing our border.
No one is saying that the border wall should be built at the expense of not funding other complementary measures of promoting border security. Quite the opposite, Congress should be funding every possible avenue designed to help ensure the security and safety of America’s borders. Why the Republican-led Congress cannot get a bill to the president’s desk designing and funding a permanent, virtually impenetrable solution for our border security inclusive of the construction of an effective wall against southern migrants defies reality.
In the meantime, President Trump, who is one of the few who understands the gravity of this situation, has demonstrated his resolve to see the implementation of effective border security policy by expressing his willingness shutdown the government if the wall is not funded. The response by some has been to dare him to do it.
Just like during the Obama administration, opponents and members of the swamp have predicted that the earth will end and the skies will rain down fire and fury if the federal government is allowed to go unfunded even for ten minutes. Unfortunately for the doomsayers, we have already seen that the negative effects of shutting down the federal government are not that terrible. As a matter of fact, about the most visible consequence of the last shutdown was President Obama’s vengeful closure of the World War II memorial in Washington, D.C., at the same time that a group of Honor Flight participants arrived to be honored for their incredible, patriotic service during World War II.
Recognizing that the consequences of a government shutdown are not as harrowing as the swamp and the mainstream media would like us to believe, the next fear-mongering argument to be made is the threat of a political meltdown. Here again, the doomsayers are wrong.
First, let us recall that the one who closed the government during the Obama era was the Republican Congress. If anything, even if we were to accept the doomsayers’ political fallout prediction, it was Congress that lost against the President, a fact that actually favors President Trump.
Moreover, as opposed to the shutdown during the Obama administration where the issue was spending, the overwhelming majority of the American public side with the President on immigration reform, and enthusiastically so. No reasonable observer can cast aspersions to the President’s position on immigration and the urgency with which the issue needs to be definitively resolved. If a confrontation were to take place, it is the President who is in the position of strength on this issue and positioned to gain.
President Trump is right on immigration, and he should demand cooperation from the Congress, even if enforcing his demand results in a government shutdown. In the end, he will win, and more importantly, so will the American people.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/andy-feliciotti-579740-unsplash-e1543577827273.jpg411640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-11-30 06:37:162018-11-30 06:37:16Mr. Trump, Shut Down That Government!
The recently elected lawmaker supposedly has the capabilities to team up with Bernie Sanders and bring about socialism that will not result in a loss of liberties or drive whole societies into poverty—or at least, that is what progressives believe.
I receive near-daily emails from The Nation, the hard-left publication that has never acknowledged a communist atrocity nor recognized any socialist failure. From what I can tell, the editors are downright giddy, as they see socialism in the USA on the rise, with the bookends of the elderly Bernie Sanders on one side and the camera-friendly Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the other, both ably promoting socialism to a new generation of people ready to overthrow the alleged chains of capitalism.
My many writings on Bernie Sanders do not need anything new to add. If his past association with groups supporting the murderous and violent Leon Trotsky and Che Guevera do not discredit him with the modern media, then nothing will, and no further exposé of his utterly flawed worldview will change any minds or educate an adoring media that refuses to recognize the evils of totalitarianism.
Media Bias
In the end, however, Ocasio-Cortez presents a different challenge. First, and most important in this media age, she is photogenic, and that matters in a media-dominated world. Second, and even more important, she is photogenic and is a leftist, which means the media will not give her the Sarah Palin treatment for being both pretty and ditzy—even as she makes claims such as the unemployment rate is low “because everyone is working two jobs.” (Yes, she really said that.) Palin, as one might remember, was a popular governor in Alaska before her fateful plunge into the John McCain shark tank, which means she at least had some previous success in governing, unlike Ocasio-Cortez, who is a political neophyte. That means she can appear on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, say something utterly inane, and still garner applause and not have to face much media scrutiny for her remarks. Palin never had that luxury.
The lack of media accountability for Ocasio-Cortez is not due to temporary amnesia among American journalists; these people are true believers when it comes to socialism, and especially its political cousin: democratic socialism. As I have written before, electing economic “planners” via majority votes solves none of the intractable problems of economic calculation that Ludwig von Mises pointed out nearly a century ago. The term “democratic” does not suddenly allow the moribund doctrines of socialism to come alive and actually make sense. However, to most American journalists, “democratic” covers a multitude of errors and magically transforms socialism into something it never has been.
When one steps back and takes a broader look at the Ocasio-Cortez phenomenon—the belief that a political rookie somehow can transform socialism, a system known for failure and repression, into paradise just by her sheer force of presence—one must better understand the current intellectual landscape that progressives have created. We are seeing a huge clash of visions and worldviews, not to mention a difference in the interpretation of what we see (or don’t see) in front of us.
Socialist Narratives
As one who has been part of the libertarian and free-market world for nearly four decades (my first Freeman article was published in 1981), I have adopted the economic viewpoint that a market economy is a marvel of interdependent actions involving millions of people and billions of prices that produce goods that meet our needs and make our lives better. What people have been able to accomplish in the pursuit of profit truly is amazing, and one of the results—lifting billions of people out of absolute poverty—is an accomplishment that no one who took part actually intended to happen. I see how a price system works and agree with F.A. Hayek that it cannot be the result of “deliberate human design,” but rather, allows humans to advance civilization while trying to advance their own interests.
That last part is utterly contradictory to progressives who believe, as did Jeremy Bentham, that there is no “natural” harmony of human interests, but rather, that human advancement only can come through the imposition of “artificial” constructs placed before us by Really Intelligent People (like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, both of whom fully accept the Benthamite paradigm). Progressives believe that civilization is advanced—and also retreats—through abrupt changes brought about by leaders, both good and bad.
Stiglitz and Krugman, for example, believe that through the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt crafted a near-magical economic system that “created the middle class,” reduced economic inequality (which supposedly eliminates a “cause” of boom and bust cycles), and raised the overall standard of living. Not surprisingly, Stiglitz taught for many years at Columbia University, which had also employed many members of the FDR “Brain Trust” of Really Intelligent People who allegedly had all (or most) of the answers on how to organize the world.
According to the progressives, the New Deal, with its organization of much of the economy into a series of regulated cartels and emphasis on organizing labor, brought the nation into ever-increasing circles of prosperity. (That unemployment remained well in double-digits all through the 1930s is irrelevant to progressives.) The FDR-created economic success steamed nearly unabated through the 1970s. Suddenly out of nowhere, they argue, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher leaped onto the scene and shattered the ring of prosperity, peddling the snake oil of “free markets.” The masses believed this nonsense (despite the fact, at least according to progressives, that the economies of the USA and UK were doing just fine) and elected these charlatans who then imposed total, untrammeled free enterprise and got rid of the entire regulatory structure. The results, claim Stiglitz and Krugman, were obvious: economic inequality, a declining standard of living, and a general worsening of life for all but the 1 percent who actually benefited from capital accumulation.
It does no good to present the statistics that say otherwise, that point out how living standards in this country have risen greatly in the past four decades, that consumer choices have exploded, and that billions of people worldwide have risen from absolute poverty because of the growth of private enterprise. Narratives are narratives. Either progressives deny there has been progress, or they claim that any progress is due to pockets of socialism and government planning. A price system, according to Stiglitz, works only under “perfect competition,” and, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as perfect competition. Thus, by definition, only government by Really Intelligent People and sheer force can make an economy work correctly.
That is the progressive world that supports Ocasio-Cortez. It is a narrative-driven world that holds that if the people in power exert enough political will, they can impose a socialist regime that will perform better than what we see in places like Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela. (And I should point out that progressives over the years have held up these very places as regimes to emulate.) If one brings up the requirement of profits and losses, free prices, and private property that are necessary for economic calculation, they simply reply that they have a better path and that that relies on democratic election, putting Really Intelligent People into power, determining the “needs of society,” and then using “incentives” (negative and positive) to direct people toward the actions deemed necessary by the Really Intelligent People to meet social needs. In the process of directing resources toward their highest social values (as determined by the Really Intelligent People), all workers will be well-paid and be employed in socially meaningful work that gives them significance and is non-exploitative. All it takes is political will to implement paradise.
Rejecting Economic Realities
Because Ocasio-Cortez is relatively young and attractive and is also committed to socialism, she supposedly has the capabilities to team up with Bernie Sanders and bring about socialism that will not result in a loss of liberties or drive whole societies into poverty—or at least, that is what progressives believe. The reason she can do this is that she is young, attractive, connects with her audiences, and is committed to socialism. Oh, and despite her inane statement on why unemployment is low, she is a Really Intelligent Person, something that is obvious because she is young, photogenic, and committed to the socialist cause.
The other world characterized by scarcity, incomplete knowledge, uncertainty, and opportunity cost is nonexistent in Ocasio-Cortez’s world. These terms are mere ruses invented by capitalists in order to trick workers into being exploited. Scarcity is an artificial construct created by monopolies to impose predatory capitalism and force people into poverty. Progressives believe that we are not lacking resources or the means to use them toward productive ends, but rather, our society—and especially our political institutions—lack the necessary political will, and that is because the economists who have supported the plutocrats have painted a false picture of the economy.
Trying to explain economics to progressives is like trying to explain how a satellite orbits the planet to a flat-earth believer. Someone who believes that the Diamond-Water Paradox is nothing more than a rhetorical trick is not going to believe that economic calculation has a role to play in the production and distribution of medical care, housing, food, or anything else a progressive claims to be a human right—or believe that an entire economy cannot be directed from a single office in Washington, DC.
It is doubly ironic that Ocasio-Cortez was an economics major at Boston University, although one doubts that the economics taught there would differ from the usual statism that dominates most college economics programs. One doubts that she intellectually internalized anything that would resemble price theory and certainly would not be able to identify anything resembling a shortage or surplus. That she will advocate for government intervention and the establishment of programs that almost certainly will lead to shortages should not be lost on anyone.
The editors of The Nation and TheNew York Times may have convinced themselves that a young woman with a pretty face can, through sheer force of will, solve the problems that have bedeviled central planners for a century, but even though progressives may sincerely believe that economic laws don’t exist, that changes nothing. It is nothing more than another exercise in progressive arrogance. Bernie Sanders is not the “Keeper of the Secret” who can make socialism work. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not the “Keeper of the Secret” who can make socialism work. Joseph Stiglitz is not the “Keeper of the Secret” who can make socialism work. Paul Krugman is not the “Keeper of the Secret” who can make socialism work. There is no Keeper, no matter what American journalists tell us we are supposed to believe.
Dr. William Anderson is Professor of Economics at Frostburg State University. He holds a Ph.D in Economics from, Auburn University, Economics. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/cortez-e1543539454381.jpg401640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2018-11-29 20:00:462018-11-29 20:10:35Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won’t Be the One to Finally Make Socialism Work
At first glance, the French yellow vests and American Tea Party seem quite similar, but once you look closely, the resemblance disappears.
France is seeing large-scale protests against massive hikes in petrol prices, sparked by tax increases. Is the anti-tax uprising sustainable or bound to disappear?
Macron’s Petrol Tax Hike
In an effort to make its case on climate change, the government under French president Emmanuel Macron has significantly increased the TICPE, an acronym which stands for “interior tax on the consumption of energy products.” An increase of up to 12 percent is supposed to curb CO2 emissions and get the country on target to fulfill its objectives, set out in the Paris Climate Accord (which the United States has pulled out of under President Trump).
Petrol prices in the République, which were already much higher than in its neighboring countries, skyrocketed despite the current level of cheap oil. On a website set up by the French government in an effort to help consumers compare prices, this becomes very visible: in the Paris region, a liter of petrol can cost up to €1.90 ($2.15). For my American friends who may be less familiar with the metric system, that’s $8.13 per gallon.
As a result, the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) arose out of civil society. They aren’t associated with any political party, but they are surely angry, contesting sky-high taxation in France, and the political class is unwilling to listen to them. Protest marches often occur on motorways, where the yellow vests block the streets to get attention for their cause. The high-visibility security vests they wear are symbolic for a cry for help and a desperate attempt to gain attention. However, unannounced protests on motorways also had their price: one woman was killed, and hundreds injured in protests that were held on motorways not closed down by police.
Some protests have turned violent in city centers, where particularly large crowds are clashing with police forces.
“We shouldn’t underestimate the impact of these images of the Champs-Élysées […] with battle scenes that were broadcast by the media in France and abroad,” government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux told a news briefing. “Behind this anger there is obviously something deeper and which we must answer, because this anger, these anxieties have existed for a long time.”
President Macron reacted to the protest by calling for the rule of law to be protected. His government had already introduced a special energy subsidy for those in need, in order to cope with the tax. However, this hasn’t managed to stop the anger of the yellow vests, who are bound to continue their protests.
Uncoordinated and Unpolitical
The yellow vests aren’t a political movement, even though their requests are political. However, they risk being politicized by letting themselves be integrated into France’s party political movements. This isn’t new: political parties are mastering the art of undermining legitimate movements and claiming them for themselves. Both France’s far-left and far-right believe that the yellow vests could be an essential electoral boost to them before the impending European elections in this coming May.
But even if we assume that this movement manages to resist the attempts of being swallowed by either political side, what future can it have in such a tax-friendly country? The yellow vests are no Tea Party: they lack the structure and ideological backing that fueled the Tea Party.
The yellow vests are certainly fed up, but one thing would likely differentiate them from American conservatives: the Tea Party understood that in order to cut taxes, you need to cut spending. In France however, expectations to win just as many people over on the promise of cutting spending are grim.
When president Macron talked about “slackers,” “people who are nothing,” and an “unreformable country,” Politico called it an “arrogance problem.” Surely, passing an elite school and doing banking for Rothschild bears that risk. Be that as it may, the essential question is how reformable France really is. People arguing to cut taxes is a wonderful thing, but it also needs to be offset with the belief that the government isn’t here to solve all of your problems. We’re not hearing that from the yellow vests.
France’s far-right under Marine Le Pen also argues for considerable cuts in income taxes and other taxes, which has given some on the American right reason to believe Le Pen would qualify as a US conservative. There again, cutting taxes without cutting spending is just going to shift the problem to debt and inflationary policies.
If the yellow vests want to become a movement that has an actual voice in the process of reforming France, then it needs to be ideologically sound.
France should either cheer on the Paris Climate Accord for its great virtue or burn tires over sky-high petrol taxes introduced to curb carbon emissions. You can’t really have both.
Bill Wirtz is a Young Voices Advocate. His work has been featured in several outlets, including Newsweek, Rare, RealClear, CityAM, Le Monde and Le Figaro. He also works as a Policy Analyst for the Consumer Choice Center.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is taken from the YouTube video posted by Huffington Post France.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/yellow-vests_2-e1543538443104.jpg353640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2018-11-29 19:40:562018-11-29 19:42:24France’s Tax Revolt: What Separates the Yellow Vests from America’s Tea Party
This morning, I received a message from my father-in-law. It contained a link of a Spanish language Facebook post in a page named Habitante, which translates to “Inhabitant.” The post appeared on April 8, 2018. I was unable to confirm the authenticity and identity of Habitante, but his words and insights are so compelling and authentic, regardless of the author’s identity that I must share it with you today.
What follows is my translation of the post written by Habitante (In trying to stick to his message, I have, to the best of my abilities, not disturbed his grammar and paragraph structure).
Tell me if it does not fit the Democrats’ agenda.
Musings from a Cuban of 85 years of age who, at 30 years of age, adored Castro.
What is COMMUNISM and how does it function?
Here comes the overarching concept:
First, they promise you many beautiful things. Equality, health, “free”, education, “free”, this “free”, that “free”, etc. etc. EYE on the word FREE, this is the first lie from those communist demagogues.
After they assume power, they tell you that the opposition is your “enemy”, the gringos are your “enemies”, your family and friends on the right are your “enemies”, etc. etc. EYE on the word ENEMIES.
They need a ghost enemy, first to polarize the people, then to divide families, and lastly to blame the “Yankee Imperialists” for every one of their failures.
Then they take your weapons with the one hand, and with the other, they give them to their sympathizers. Then they nationalize the industries, take all the businesses, they tell you that you cannot sell your properties (your car, your house, etc.) nor may you open your own business.
Everything belongs to the state, or as they say, to “the people”. They lower the salaries (only those of the professionals; the soldiers are “purchased” with higher salaries), because all those “free” services have to be paid and the payment comes out of your wages. In other words, you earned 1000 now they give you 200. The remaining 800 is for your “free” health and education. But with those 200 you can neither eat nor fix your house that time is deteriorating, nor your car, which is already old. Then they subsidize your food and they give you a series of “accounts” where each month you can go to the grocery store and get 1 egg, 1 pound of potatoes, and . . . there is nothing else.
They cause hunger, the people no longer have time to innovate, nor money to invest, nor incentive to study. Your time is employed “inventing”, devising ways to survive where there is famine, your children are malnourished, your buildings look like ruins, the people envy what little you can get, your brothers are exiles, your uncle is in prison because of political issues, your friends have disappeared, and you are left disillusioned.
Then comes the cruelest part. It turns out that the government is officially “ATHEIST”. The churches are off limits. The bishops were expelled, the priests and the pastors were sent to a concentration camp, a type of modern day slavery.
You have spiritual needs, but there are no open temples, you cannot pray in public nor should you have a Bible in hand. Life has hit you hard (really communism was the one that knocked you out) and left you without goals or aspirations.
Communism hemorrhaged you, but worse, it took the spiritual part of you, that part which takes us beyond our ephemeral existence of flesh and bone, beyond the dust and the sad reality that surrounds us.
Everything was lost, the soul, the desires, the education, a complete corruption of all our values, of everything that makes us humans. THAT IS COMMUNISM. If you want to prove it, just study Cuban history. Not the history that Castro tells you. The real history without censorship. Talk to the old people who saw the former Soviet Union, with those from East Germany.
You don’t have to go that far, ask the Venezuelans what they think of the socialist hand in the 21st century. For that reason, my dear Latin American, I AM AND CONTINUE TO BE 100% ANTICOMMUNIST. The problem is not the United States, the problem is your opportunistic dictator who sells you a utopic and failed philosophy. Neither Castro, nor Che, nor Chavez are examples to be emulated.
Enough of looking at the disaster they left us. Everything I have told you, all this is their legacy. As to everything else, LOOK FOR GOD, LOVE YOUR COUNTRY AND DON’T EVER LET THEM TELL YOU THAT YOUR BROTHER IS YOUR “ENEMY”. WORK, STRUGGLE FOR WHAT IS YOURS, DON’T LET THEM GIVE YOU ANYTHING FOR “FREE” AND ELIMINATE FROM YOUR LAND ANYTHING THAT SMELLS LIKE COMMUNISM!!!
Please do not erase this as doing so means you are bothered by having your friends read this in your wall, and in so doing becoming an accomplice of a certain reality!!!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ross-sokolovski-115060-unsplash-e1543505209287.jpg388636Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-11-29 10:27:452018-11-29 10:27:45A Plea Against Communism From a Former Castro Lover.
First lady Melania Trump welcomed media attention to how the administration is confronting the opioid drug crisis during her appearance Wednesday at a “town hall” on the subject at Liberty University.
That would be a change of approach, she said.
“I would like that they’re focused more on what we’re doing, and what we want to achieve, and spread awareness. It’s very important for the country and the whole world,” the first lady said of the news media.
Political commentator Eric Bolling, host of CRTV’s “America,” invited Trump to the town hall discussion, which also featured Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.
Pop singer Demi Lovato’s mother, Dianna De La Garza, was scheduled to appear but had to cancel. Lovato nearly died from an opioid overdose in July.
Family tragedy prompted Bolling to raise awareness of the opioid crisis and to look for solutions after his 19-year-old son Eric Chase died in September 2017 from an accidental overdose of Xanax laced with fentanyl.
“The fight against opioid deaths in America just took a turn for the better,” Bolling told The Daily Signal before the town hall. “There is no doubt in my mind that first lady Melania Trump joining me in this war on the deadliest health crisis to ever hit the United States will have a significant and positive effect.”
In a statement provided to The Daily Signal, the first lady’s communications director, Stephanie Grisham, said of Bolling:
The first lady has been inspired by his commitment to combating the opioid epidemic. To use his own personal family tragedy to help save lives is the epitome of strength and selflessness
Here are five big moments from Trump’s appearance and other portions of the town hall:
1. The First Family’s Compassion
After recounting the night he found out his son had died from opioids, Bolling reiterated that it was never his desire to become an “accidental expert.”
“I’ve made it my passion to talk to people, to talk to young people,” he told the students at the university n Lynchburg, Virginia.
Bolling said President Donald Trump and the first lady called him while he and his wife Adrienne were in Colorado to retrieve their son’s body.
The president, he said, told him: “I can’t imagine what you’re going through, but whatever you need we’ll take care of it.”
The Trumps called again on Thanksgiving last year to check in on the Bolling family and express their condolences.
2. The First Lady’s Motive
Melania Trump’s “Be Best” initiative aimed at American children has three prongs: general well-being, social media use, and opioid abuse.
Until recently, she has focused mainly on young mothers and babies afflicted with neonatal abstinence syndrome, which occurs when a baby is born addicted to opioids because of the mother’s use of the drugs while pregnant.
“When I took on opioid abuse as one of the pillars of my initiative Be Best, I did it with the goal of helping children of all ages,” Trump said.
The first lady commended the Bolling family for their activism in the wake of Eric Chase’s death:
It takes such a strength and grace to take the grief I know you and Adrienne deal with each day and use the loss of your son Eric as a catalyst for good. You honor him every day through the lives that you are saving. I am inspired by the work you are doing, and hope you know that my husband and his entire administration are committed to fighting the opioid epidemic.
And, Bolling asked, what about those red Christmas trees inside the White House that have drawn some criticism?
“We are in [the] 21st century, and everybody has a different taste. I think they look fantastic,” the first lady said with a laugh.
3. The Demographic Is Everybody
Azar, the president’s health and human services secretary, told the audience that addiction awareness is key.
“Frankly, they ought to scare you,” Azar said of the ads.
Azar, who has a pharmaceutical background, said the targeted demographic is “everybody,” unfortunately, with nearly 133 Americans dying each day from opioids.
He did point out one optimistic statistic, saying that under the Trump administration, legal prescribing of opioids is down by 23 percent.
“The majority of people who become addicted to opioids today were prescribed a legal painkiller for wisdom teeth, a knee surgery, something like that,” Azar said.
4. A Pound of Fentanyl Can Cause 150,000 Deaths
Nielsen said the Department of Homeland Security is focused on stopping illicit drugs from coming across the border, including on ships or airplanes.
She singled out fentanyl, one of the most dangerous opioids on the streets.
“The most difficult part to get at is most of the fentanyl is still coming from China through the mail,” Nielsen said.
The president signed legislation called the Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention (STOP) Act, which gives the U.S. Postal Service the ability to prescreen international shipments for illegal substances.
To help private mail companies such as FedEx or UPS, homeland security officials use the agency’s National Targeting Center to spot shipping patterns that seem off. China also has cooperated by providing advance information about shipments so the department can better target resources.
5. Getting Rid of the Stigma
The first lady also addressed a major obstacle in the battle.
“We must commit to removing the stigma of shame that comes with addiction and helping change public opinion, so that people find evidence-based treatment before it is too late,” she cautioned.
It’s a sentiment that Bolling has shared and discussed in depth over the past year.
Addiction “is not a moral failing, it is a medical issue,” Azar said.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/MelaniaTownHall-1260x650-e1543500374326.jpg378640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-11-29 09:06:222018-11-29 09:06:225 Key Themes at the First Lady’s Opioid Town Hall With Eric Bolling [+Video]
Where do you begin if you’re thinking about homeschooling? Can you do it if you’re not a teacher? And how can you make sure your kids get enough socialization? We’re joined by a special guest, Colleen Trinko—yes, Kate’s mom! Colleen, who is a teacher, homeschooled her five children for many years, and now works with other homeschool families to advise. Plus: A feminist is kicked off Twitter, seemingly for saying “Men aren’t women.”
We also cover these stories:
President Donald Trump is now threatening additional tariffs on cars in response to General Motors Co.’s announcement of layoffs and plant closings.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says there’s no “direct reporting” linking the Saudi crown prince to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
In an interview, Ivanka Trump made the case for why her use of a personal email was not at all the same as what Hillary Clinton had done.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and podcast is republished with permission. Photo: Ingram Publishing/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/181128_mom-1250x650-e1543498114885.jpg374640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-11-29 08:29:172018-11-29 08:29:17Podcast: A Homeschooling Mom Shares Why, and How
Without challenging this overarching narrative, the Manhattan Institute fellow said, “there is going to be no end to identity politics.”
The rise of identity politics has become a phenomenon not just in America, but in the West in general.
In many ways, debates over identity are defining and shaping the politics of our time and pose a unique challenge in particular to the United States, a vast, multi-ethnic country with potential identity fault lines that far exceed the more homogenous societies of the world.
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and Mike Franc, director of D.C. programs at the Hoover Institution, brought together a diverse set of thinkers to hash out why identity politics is on the rise and how to address it.
Besides Mac Donald, they included John Fonte, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; Michael Lind, a visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin; and Andrew Sullivan, a writer for New York magazine.
Each highlighted the problem.
Hudson’s Fonte outlined what has become the framework for identity politics on the left.
“Multiculturalism, the diversity project, and critical theory” are the three major cornerstones of this creed, Fonte said.
In a 2013 article in National Review, Fonte described the “diversity project” as: “[T]he ongoing effort to use federal power to impose proportional representation along race, gender, and ethnic lines in all aspects of American life.”
Multiculturalism comes in a hard version and a soft version, he said.
The soft version celebrates ethnic subcultures, examples being St. Patrick’s Day and Cinco de Mayo.
The hard version, Fonte said, has damaged society. He concisely summed up its tenets:
The United States is a multicultural society in which different cultures—African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and women—have their own values, histories, and identities separate from and sometimes in opposition to dominant Anglo, white, male culture.
This creed divides America into many peoples and has become the dominant ethos taught in American schools.
The diversity project’s demand for statistical equality for groups, or “group proportionalism,” as Fonte calls it, is another integral element of identity politics. But taken to its logical extent, the diversity project is incompatible with a free society, he said.
There is simply no way to create perfect, equal representation of all groups in all fields, the Hudson Institute scholar said. Any attempt to do so would require state coercion on a massive scale.
Finally, Fonte said, critical theory—which explains the difference in group outcomes by classifying groups as privileged or marginalized—further undermines free society because it directly opposes the concept of “liberal, democratic jurisprudence.” Individual justice is subordinated to social justice—the oppressors and the oppressed.
These concepts fundamentally undermine our republic, Fonte said, and while he had no answer to solve the threat, he said a return to patriotism and national identity was a better way forward.
Hoover’s Berkowitz reiterated the obsession of identity politics with “race, class, and gender.”
These classifications become the essence of who a person is, and subordinate individual differences and individual justice.
“Group rights are distributed on the basis of the discrimination or oppression that the group to which you belong has suffered,” Berkowitz said.
Thus, he said, victimhood becomes a “virtue” and a moral status symbol demonstrating that one deserves greater political power.
Distinctions exist between the postmodernist ideologies of the 1980s and 1990s and the early 21st century, he said. A key feature defining the identity politics of today is that it has moved on from the relativism of earlier eras and become dogmatic in its certainties.
Identity politics adherents on the left, for example, are now certain in their assessment that the West—including America—is racist and sexist.
Dissent from this narrative is taken as “an act of violence, an expression of racism and hatred,” Berkowitz said.
These ideas not only have become dominant on college campuses, he said, but are a threat to the fundamental nature of liberal societies. They cannot coexist with concepts like free speech, due process, and limited government.
American universities won’t counteract the identity politics creed, Berkowitz said, and so Americans who oppose it need to find outside solutions if they want to preserve their free society.
Berkowitz, who has written extensively about restoring the value of liberal education, said such solutions may come through alternative paths to education at the K-12 level—homeschooling and charter schools—as well as more programs to provide alternative curricula to parents and young people.
Lind spoke about how identity politics is becoming a flashpoint for the most fundamental divides not only in the U.S., but throughout the West.
Half of America—mostly in the rural regions and exurbs—accepts and lives out the concept of the “melting pot,” while the other half—in urban environments—embraces and lives with predominant multiculturalism, Lind said.
This city vs. country divide sets this era apart from earlier ones where region was more of a factor.
For most of American history, the concept of the melting pot has worked, but Lind said he is pessimistic for its future because of demography.
“The native fertility rate in Western societies is below replacement … we need to have replacement immigration of some kind in order to prevent the population from just collapsing,” Lind said.
However, the continually low birth rates in these societies will put pressure on them to increase immigration, he said, and so feed the constant political base for multiculturalism.
Mac Donald, also a contributor to City Journal, said people of “courage” need to confront the ideology of identity politics directly for the sake of the nation’s future.
She summed up what she said is the crux of of the debate and the oppression narrative:
The main driver is race—women are sort of a fast second place—but the main driver of all this is the lingering racial disparities, and we both need to close them and be honest about what’s driving them.
I would say family breakdown is the biggest driver and other behavioral disparities and culture [are also drivers]. Those need to be closed because if not, the oppression narrative is going to be with us to our enormous misfortune.
Sullivan said that while identity politics has existed in the past—notably in the 1990s—it’s “different now.”
People debated the concepts of identity politics in earlier eras, and often vehemently opposed them, but now identity politics has taken over “all teaching in the humanities” and has been fully embraced by an entire generation of “the elite,” the writer said.
Sullivan, an early supporter of same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama, said that it’s “staggering” how the ideas of identity politics have been universally accepted by the young elite, without question.
These ideas have spread beyond the college campus, Sullivan wrote earlier this year, and entered the mainstream of debate in America.
“It is staggering how people under the age of 30 buy all of this, have never even regarded it as questionable, that it’s become completely routine to believe these things,” Sullivan said.
Sullivan attributed this, in part, to parenting.
Parents tried so hard to create safe spaces for their children, he said, that the children were simply unable to handle disagreement or anything that made them feel unsafe.
Sullivan also said social media fuels surface-level hot takes and “virtue signaling,” rather than deeper thought.
What’s remarkable, he said, is that identity victimhood politics comes at a time when many of these groups are thriving more than ever before in history.
“We should talk about the successes that have occurred without this stuff,” Sullivan said. “In fact, I sometimes wonder whether this stuff is a function of having succeeded, because you’re terrified you’re going to lose the struggle you always lived with and you have nothing to do with your life.”
Reporters from The Daily Caller spent some time with a group of African-American conservatives Wednesday, following them as they visited Senate offices lobbying for a bill that aims to take the “first step” toward overhauling America’s criminal justice system.
The “First Step Act,” which passed easily in the House of Representatives last summer, would roll back some of the initiatives of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act —also known as the “Clinton Crime Bill.” Most importantly for its supporters, the bill intends to combat recidivism, which is the rate at which released prisoners return to criminal behavior.
If passed, the bill would allow some people in federal prisons to earn “good-time credit,” which would set them up for early release if they participate in programs which allow them to demonstrate improved behavior and preparation for life on the outside. The bill would lead to the release of an additional 3,900 prisoners in the first year of its implementation, according to estimates.
The group of mostly black conservatives met with Republican Sens. Steve Daines of Montana, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Tim Scott of South Carolina and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They also found their way into the offices of a few other senators, not all of whom were available to meet with them.
Candace Owens and Gianno Caldwell lead a group of African-American conservatives in the Hart Senate Office Building on Wednesday, Nov. 28, as they lobby in favor of the “First Step Act” (TheDC/Jon Brown)
Among them were prominent young conservatives like Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk and Gianno Caldwell, each of whom spoke to The Daily Caller about why they are so passionate about ensuring the bill’s passage.
“It’s worked in Texas, it’s worked in Louisiana, it’s worked in other states,” Charlie Kirk, of Turning Point USA, said of the proposed reforms in the bill. “It’s in some ways an atypical issue for conservatives to be taking on, but that’s what I love most about [President Donald Trump], is that he’s willing to take on issues that are traditionally not always being taken on.”
“I don’t think anyone can make the argument that our prison system works, that somehow the prison system is working exactly how it should,” Kirk continued. “Once people leave prison, they’re much more likely to commit crimes after that. We as conservatives are worried about the financial burden that has on our society. We’re worried about societal burden. Obviously, we care a lot about freedom and we care a lot about justice and things like that, but it doesn’t help anyone when prisoners have the high recidivism rates that they have.”
African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s office Wednesday, Nov. 28, to lobby in favor of the “First Step Act” (TheDC/Jon Brown)
“[Criminal justice reform] is one of the biggest issues in the black community, without question,” Owens said. “Every single one of us [in this group] has a family member that has served prison sentences. I know I certainly have. I have multiple family members that have served prison sentences. And we’ve all been outspoken black conservatives.”
“We’ve taken a lot of heat because of that,” Owens claimed.
“I personally spent time speaking to inmates down in the correctional facility in Tallahassee, Florida,” she continued. “They all say the same thing: If the system was not punitive, and instead was rehabilitative, we would see a difference in our recidivism rates.”
When asked what impact she believes passing bills like this will have on attracting minorities to the Republican Party, Owens said, “This is it. I think what we’re realizing is that Republicans don’t know how to approach the black community. They don’t know how. For so long they have handed the reins over to the Left and the Republicans have been falsely accused of racism. They don’t even know how to enter into the black community. This is it. This would be a major win if it passed, and it would allow them to knock on doors and broker conversations with our community.”
“And Republicans have all the power right now to deliver it,” Owens maintained. “So it’s something that hits close to home. And it’s something that feels like it’s within our control to actually implement.”
Gianno Caldwell, a political consultant and analyst, has been working for half a decade on issues of criminal justice reform. “This is something that is very impactful for me because it statistically impacts literally every member of the black community,” he said.
“In 2014, there were 6.8 million people within the prison system — and when I say ‘prison system,’ I’m talking about federal prisons, state prisons, jails and on parole. And of those 6.8 million — which, as you know, is the largest population in the world under the corrections system — 34 percent of those folks are African-American, or 2.3 million.”
“So statistically, it impacts every African-American in this country. So certainly, knowing what happened with the effects of the ’94 crime bill, I think that we absolutely have to take opportunities like these with the First Step Act — the literal first step, in terms of reversing those very draconian effects from that bill.”
“I think we can do more, but even changes like this — which some people are saying are modest— I think have a very large effect and impact on not just the black community, but those who want second chances across the country. So this is a great opportunity to start the work and hopefully, at some point after, continue the work.”
African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s office on Wednesday, Nov. 28, to lobby in favor of the “First Step Act” (TheDC/Jon Brown)
This bill would also allow judges to insert their own discretion into certain cases in order to circumvent mandatory minimums. Since having passed in the House, it has stalled in the Senate — but recently picked up steam after receiving the president’s endorsement.
Despite widespread bipartisan support, the bill still faces opposition from both liberals and conservatives. Referring to it as the “jailbreak bill,” critics on the Right worry that the bill would release dangerous criminals into the general population. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton made such a case in a column for National Review, saying that it “goes against core conservative principles,” and allows for the early release of “violent felons.”
Critics on the Left argue that the law doesn’t go far enough, because it only affects the federal prison population. The number of inmates in federal prisons comprise only 183,000 of the nation’s 1.5 million inmates.
The First Step Act is currently not set for a vote, though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is under pressure to bring it to the floor. Supporters believe they have the 60 votes necessary to send the bill to the president’s desk.
Last Sunday (Nov 25th) a group from the “Caravan,” a group of Central American migrants marching to the U.S. border, breached the border and tried to elude Homeland Security officers. In the process, some hurled rocks and bottles at U.S. officials who, in turn, shot tear gas at the crowd to break it up. No lethal force was used and about 50 people were apprehended after illegally crossing the border. All will likely be deported.
Conservatives see the “Caravan” as a legitimate invasion of our sovereignty, and they support President Trump’s deployment of military personnel along the border to prevent this from happening. They are also in favor of closing the Mexican border should the Caravan persist in trying to enter the country illegally.
Liberals, on the other hand, portray the members of the Caravan as sympathetic characters who are destitute and deserve help. It is easy to sympathize with such people, but when they wave their own flag during their march, it is obvious their loyalty is with their homeland and are only interested in the economic benefits the United States has to offer, such as medical care, education, shelter, and food.
The difference between Left and Right here is whether it is necessary to follow “due process” in entering the United States.
Whereas Conservatives are inclined to follow the rule of law, the Liberals want the borders opened for anyone to enter. Again, such a policy would threaten our sovereignty and ultimately bankrupt the country trying to pay for a massive influx of immigrants.
Let’s be clear about this, we cannot possibly accommodate anyone and everyone wanting to enter our country. We may be the greatest country in the world with a charged-up economy, but we simply cannot take care of everyone; it is not economically feasible to do so.
Central America has long been known for corruption, drugs, and strong-armed government tactics. Regardless if they claim to be free and independent republics, their label of “Banana Republics” has not gone away, particularly those participating in the Caravan, including Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, et al.
Historically, America has sent these countries money as foreign aid, which is typically plundered by their governments; military weapons, which are used to keep the populace in check (and the dictator du jour in power), and; food and medicine to nourish the needy, but this often fails as well. Instead of planting the seed grain and reap the harvest, there is the temptation to consume the grain instead. Frankly, none of this has truly altered conditions in Central America which has stagnated for many decades.
How about something different, such as education? We’ve done this on a small scale with the Peace Corps and other groups, but we need to go beyond the basics and offer advanced courses. If outsiders truly believe America is great, they should want to replicate us, which begins with education. This includes teaching them to teach themselves.
Our founding fathers, such as Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, and Adams were remarkable primarily because of their education. They were well versed in such subjects as law, philosophy, mathematics, languages, history, geography, architecture, speech, and theology. Without this background, it is unlikely the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution would have been written. This, of course, led to our separation from Great Britain, and allowed us to become the great country everyone wants to come to.
Education was deemed critical to the success of our new country, based on the premise it encouraged patriotism and citizenship, hence the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was created by our first Congress. The legislation includes verbiage stating, “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” This led the public education system we know today which children are required to attend. Prior to this, only the children of rich families attended private schools. This also led to the creation of the first college in the northwest, Ohio University in 1804, my alma mater.
The point is, by cultivating education in other countries, we would not just be improving their skill sets, but we would be encouraging the populace to think for themselves and determine a proper form of government; something that feeds and protects its people, encourages invention and innovation, thereby creating jobs. There would be no reason to flee a country with peace and economic stability. And the United States would no longer be faced with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
The big question though is, do they really want to improve their homeland or forever seek handouts from other countries? If it is the latter, it will be necessary to toughen our immigration laws and borders. If it is the former, education will build better and more self-sufficient neighbors, as well as better trading partners. So, will it be education or tear gas? Forget sending them money, food and arms, invest in education instead. The return will be mind-boggling. Our own history proves it.
Just remember, the inscription at the Statue of Liberty reads:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
It doesn’t read:
“Give me your deadbeats, your criminals, and those too lazy to improve their own country.”
EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. The featured photo is by Luke Stackpoole on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/luke-stackpoole-670781-unsplash-e1543493873181.jpg366640Tim Brycehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTim Bryce2018-11-29 07:18:172018-11-29 07:40:35What To Do About Illegal Immigration?
Now that Florida’s Keystone Cops, whiny Jim Acosta’s tantrum and other nonsense is in the rearview mirror, it’s time to take a look at what is happening in the real world — the world that the media is largely ignoring.
Hmmmm…looks like National Security Advisor John Bolton is quietly crushing the Make America Weak And Her Enemies Strong Obama Doctrine throughout this hemisphere.
Bolton has identified what he calls a “troika of tyranny” that includes Havana, Caracas and Managua, that is a root cause of enormous amounts of human suffering in those countries and in adjoining countries. Further, he says these three create much of the regional instability we are seeing that is leading to the expansion of gangs and the continual flow of migrant caravans northward toward the U.S. border.
Bolton called Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua “the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism in the Western Hemisphere,” at a recent speech at Miami’s Freedom Tower, the 17-story structure where Cuban refugees were processed in America after fleeing Fidel Castro’s brutal regime.
Identifying and isolating this troika of tyranny is a total break from the previous administration. Bolton said, “…we will no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores in this Hemisphere.”
The Obama administration took its normal approach with dictators — whether Communist, or Muslim, or nationalist (Russia) — which involved either doing nothing and whistling past atrocities with fine words and no actions, or actually rewarding some of them for no reason and with no positive outcome. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry said during Obama’s second term that the “era of the Monroe Doctrine is over,” which basically turned out to be enabling language for a weak America.
The Obama-Kerry team continued the Obama-Clinton team policies of giving financial and diplomatic rewards upfront to some of the worst tyrants, in return for the same vacuous “hope and change” he promised to Americans — and with the same awful results. It failed spectacularly in Iran with the totally one-sided nuke deal, it failed in Russia with the childish reset button and it failed through Central and South America.
For instance, the Obama Doctrine of appeasement and giving goodies did absolutely nothing in Cuba. Despite the glories of Jay-Z and Beyonce strolling Havana for propaganda pictures by the Havana tyrants, restoring diplomatic relations and travel did nothing but strengthen the still-iron grip of the Communist regime on the long-suffering Cuban people.
In Venezuela, Obama hugged that nation’s killer president, Hugo Chávez, and then punted any American policy to Brazil, thinking the neighboring country would help stabilize things. That was never going to end well and it didn’t, as Brazil itself spiralled into corruption and internal strife.
The same lack of vision and gumption allowed for the return of powerful Communist dictator Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Neighbor Honduras and Nicaragua are the two countries from which people are now escaping northward. Allowing Ortega back in power and appeasing and ignoring him is a part of the reason we are now facing a migrant crisis.
By identifying these three tyrannical governments, Bolton has ended the Obama-Clinton-Kerry troika of do-nothingness.
Ending the bad old policies is only the start. In the same speech, Bolton announced that the United States would be issuing new penalties against dozens of entities linked to Cuba’s oppressive military and intelligence services, plus restricting business and travel to the island.
Further, President Trump has signed new executive orders placing sanctions on Venezuelan gold; and sanctioned Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, his wife, and his associates and supporting government officials. Cutting off money to tyrants is often a way of strangling them out of power.
These are solid steps toward weakening those regimes and the hold they have on their own people, and the instability they project to their neighbors.
And finally, Bolton and the White House are considering appointing a “czar” that would directly handle American policy with the troika of tyranny, along with those three countries’ connection to Russia. There are Russian fingerprints on all three and Putin will likely work to prop them up and make everything in our neighborhood worse unless the United States is aggressive in stopping them at the root.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/david-pennington-562462-unsplash.jpg396638Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2018-11-28 18:12:392018-11-28 18:16:00John Bolton Erases The Obama Doctrine, Puts America First
