Amending the U.S. Constitution by Fiat – Part II

/in , , , /by

A great many Americans, including a substantial number of my own readers, remain confused about the question of who is and who is not a “natural born” citizen, eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.  They remain doggedly convinced that Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio are all eligible to serve merely because they were born on American soil.  That simply is not the case.  From the comments I have received in response to a recent column titled, “Amending the U.S. Constitution by Fiat,” it appears as if some either read much too quickly, or are a bit lacking in reading comprehension skills.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution tells us, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  It’s pretty straightforward.  Nevertheless, it appears that when many read those words they are immediately struck by a strange form of dyslexia.  What their brains register is a clause beginning, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…” 

The qualifications related to the age of the president and the number of years of U.S. residency are not at issue… they are quite straightforward and leave no room for misinterpretation.  It is the status of the candidates’ citizenship that causes problems for many people… many of whom read the clause as if the legislatures of thirty-eight states had just approved an amendment dropping fourteen words from the middle of the presidential eligibility clause.

Clearly, the use of the word “or” early in the clause tells us that a natural born citizen is someone entirely different from a mere citizen.  That was true on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, and it is still true today; the provision has not been amended.  The term “citizen” encompasses a broad range of citizenship categories, including “native born,” “natural born,” and “naturalized.”  The term “natural born” refers to a specific sub-set of citizens.

When the Founders met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.  So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have produced a Constitution that would allow an individual holding dual US-British citizenship to serve as commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?  It is a preposterous notion on its face.  To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.  Yet, that is precisely what those who use the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably would have us believe.

To illustrate, let’s pretend that we are present at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on a cold winter’s day in January 1789.  It is just seven months after the people of New Hampshire voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution, making it the official law of the land.  The third session of the Continental Congress has just been called to decide who should be selected to lead our new nation as president of the United States.  The Constitution required that the man they selected had to be either a natural born U.S. citizen… or… a citizen of the United States on the day that the Constitution was ratified, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the U.S. for at least fourteen years.

If those who drafted Article II of the Constitution had insisted upon the same qualifications for president and vice president as they had for members of Congress and members of the federal judiciary, including members of the United States Supreme Court, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution would have begun, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…”  In a nation of 4 million people, nearly every male citizen over age thirty-five would have qualified.

But if the Framers had produced a document that began, “No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President…” they would have been presented with an insoluble problem because, in 1789, when the first president of the United States was elected, the only natural born citizens in the entire country… those born after the signing of the Declaration of Independence to U.S. citizen parents… were less than thirteen years old.

Fortunately, the authors of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution had foreseen the problem and, realizing that there could be no thirty-five-year-old natural born citizens during the earliest years of the republic, provided language making it possible for those born prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to parents who were not U.S. citizens, to serve as president or vice president.

It is not as if the country did not enjoy an excess of strong and capable leaders, men of major accomplishments.  General George Washington, who led the continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was available.  He was born in Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before the Declaration of Independence.  Eighty-four-year-old Benjamin Franklin, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention and one of the most prominent men of the time was available.  Franklin was born in Massachusetts in January 1705, and lived most of his life in the U.S.  George Mason, a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention who came to be known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” was available.  Mason was born in Virginia on December 11, 1725, and lived his entire life in the U.S.

However, none of the three were “natural born” citizens because they were born to parents who were subjects of King George III, but who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed.  And since the Framers had foreseen the problem and had provided a “grandfather” clause to cover the situation, all three were made eligible under the Article II, Section 1 language reading, “or a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

In fact, none of our first seven presidents… Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, or Jackson… were natural born citizens.  Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, born to U.S. citizen parent at Kinderhook, New York, on December 5, 1782, six years after the Declaration of Independence, was our first “natural born” president.  Every president since Van Buren, with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British

subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth, has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Those who doggedly insist that all that is necessary to be a “natural born” citizen is to be born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status, have an obligation to explain why the Framers were so careful to distinguish between the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” while setting out the qualifications to serve as president of the United States.

Why did the Framers make that distinction?  Although it is impossible for parents to know beforehand how their children will ultimately develop, we can all agree that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development.  It was that hope of parental and environmental influence on which the Framers pinned their hopes for a Christian nation comprised of Godly citizens who would be capable of maintaining a constitutional republic.

What the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born,” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment or a foreign political ideology that might cause him to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

No president has been more emblematic of the worst fears of the Framers than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania, Ave., Barack Hussein Obama.  His father was a Muslim and a black African socialist; his mother was a left wing socialist flower-child; his stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim, subject to Sharia Law; his grandparents were dedicated socialists, perhaps communist sympathizers; his father figure during his teen years, Frank Marshall Davis, was a nationally known Communist Party writer and propagandist; the people who were instrumental in launching his political career in Chicago were radical Weather Underground terrorists who had participated in the killing of U.S. law enforcement officers; and his religious mentor during his post-college years in Chicago was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an America-hater of the first order.  Nothing good can come from a lifetime of exposure to such people, so is it any wonder that he has dedicated himself to “fundamentally transforming” the government and the culture of the greatest nation on Earth?

Anyone wishing to take up the challenge outlined above might also wish to enlighten us by preparing a comprehensive list showing how Barack Obama’s governing principles mesh with governing principles contained in the U.S. Constitution.  After eight years of Obama rule in the White House, it may help us to decide which poses the greater danger: a) a competent socialist who knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it, or b) an incompetent socialist who hasn’t the foggiest notion of what he’s doing or how it might impact the greatest nation on Earth.  Of the many unknowns surrounding Barack Obama, this may be the most profound.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama May Have Been Elected With Illegal Votes – Judicial Watch

Is Conservative Talk Radio Too Negative?

/in , , , /by

I caught a prominent TV preacher whom I respect accusing conservative talk radio of being too negative. He specifically criticized Rush Limbaugh. He said Rush finds the negative perspective in every news story. The preacher said God is in control and we must cast all our cares upon Him.

While as a Christian I believe God has everything under control, Christians are called to make a difference; to be salt. As a conservative writer, I struggle with this issue of always reporting bad news. At times, I feel like the last thing people want to read is another article about how Obama and his army of leftists are warring against America.

But something inside me says someone must inform the people. Hosea 4:6 says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” All average American Joe knows is he is working harder, but bringing home less. His wife notices a gallon of bleach cost a buck not long ago, now costs 3 bucks. Joe’s kids are calling him an extremest for owning guns. Other signs say things are not right. Average Joe doesn’t know why.

My calling and passion is to write in a way that every day American Joes who are not paying close attention will understand what is going on. And yes, sometimes the facts are extremely negative. I always pray for God to give me wisdom regarding how to add a little sugar to the bitter medicine; leaving patriots hopeful and inspired to continue fighting Leftists’ evil.

Years ago, conservatives lost another political battle. Depressed, I wrote an article about it. A publisher emailed saying he would not publish my article. It was too negative. I later thanked him. God has placed me in a role of leadership. The Bible says to whom much is given, much is required. Thus, I am not allowed to be depressed or at least state it publicly. Still, from time to time I must be reminded that God is in control. Patriots, our job is to stay faithful to our mission of restoring America no matter how many skirmishes we lose. And most of all, trust God.

As for the TV preacher criticizing Rush and other conservative talk radio hosts for always pointing out the negative, I think they should be applauded for providing a crucial service. The mainstream media lies to us every day. They are in cahoots with Obama, Democrats and other Leftists to deceive the American people at every turn.

And make no mistake about it. Everything the MSM reports and the Left does is intended to deceive Americans for the purpose of furthering their socialist/progressive, far left radial, anti-God and anti-American agenda. It is inescapable. The relentless furthering of the Left’s agenda is everywhere. Even where you least expect it; in cooking TV shows, home and garden TV and pro sports, the Left pushes its agenda in our face. Given time, the Left will figure out a way to interject homosexuality into lawn care. Thank God we have courageous voices over the airways sounding the alarm and telling the truth.

From time to time, Rush babies (young adults who grew up hearing Rush via their parents), call into his radio program to thank Rush for teaching them how to spot MSM liberal spin. The Left appears to own millennials.

Both mom and dad have to work for families to survive. Parents are not keeping a close watch on school boards the way they did when I was a child. Leftists dominate public education. They have had free reign to mold and shape our kids. Youths are taught that anything less than full embrace/approval of homosexuality is bullying and bigotry. Fairness and social justice means not holding blacks accountable for anything including bad behavior. We cannot sit back and allow the Left’s imposed new norms to go unchallenged.

I have been frustrated with the Christian community for some time now. Obama is an anti-American zealot in the driver’s seat of a monster tractor tiller stretching from our Canadian border to the tip of Florida. It has massive sharp blades. He is steamrolling across America grinding up every tradition, institution, conservative principle and value in his sight.

And yet, preachers instruct their congregations not to criticize or be negative – be more tolerant in the name of love. Meanwhile, Leftists are jailing Christians for not accepting what God describes as a perversion of His concept of marriage. In response to SCOTUS making homosexual marriage law, a prominent preacher said, “Don’t over react, it’s just the world acting like the world.”

Recently, I was reminded that Jesus turned over the tables and drove the evil money lenders out of the temple using a whip. This kind of blows the whole passive Christian thing out of the water. No, I am not suggesting violence in any way, shape or form. I am merely saying Christians must stand up and fight evil Leftists in responsible legal ways. Show up at school board meetings to protest new liberal indoctrination initiatives. Fight the Left with your pocket books. As much as she hates their liberal politics, my wife is still addicted to Starbucks. Pray for her folks.

I caught Matthew Hagee on TV preaching about the Left’s war on Christianity. His message was titled, “Enemy of the State”. Folks, I was blown away, blessed and encouraged by his courage and boldness in sounding the alarm. That’s what I am talking about.

Pundits say Americans are “war weary” as a reason not to fight ISIS. Well folks, that is not how the adult real world works. Decent people hate war. But sometimes, war is your only option. War weary or not, you fight until you win or the aggressor backs off.

Trust me when I say I am war weary in the battle to restore America from Obama and his evil minions. Like the TV preacher who criticized conservative talk radio, I hate negativity. I am tired of having to report the Left’s daily attacks on Americans. But this is my responsibility. To my TV preacher brother in Christ, I respectfully say, don’t blame the messengers.

The good news is God is on our side and we will prevail.

Oklahoma: Muslim Brotherhood float in Veterans Day parade

/in , , , , /by

Tulsa, Oklahoma has allowed a float sponsored by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to be entered in the Veterans Day Parade in downtown Tulsa. U.S. Military veterans are appalled and up in arms.

Oklahoma growing Muslim community continues to infiltrate this Bible-belt state, and continues to push its’ agenda by coming after long-held and traditional venues. Encouraged by the Obama Administration, smaller communities across America such as Twin Falls, Idaho; Dodge City, Kansas; Spartanburg, South Carolina; Bowling Green, Kentucky, and now Tulsa, Oklahoma are under tremendous pressures as thousands of Muslims continue to be sent by the U.S. State Department for integration into American society and culture. The Muslim Brotherhood, and its’ many affiliate organizations, coordinate a sophisticated marketing program to convince Americans that relocating Muslims from Mid-eastern countries will be loyal Americans, and supporters of the U.S. Military.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was created by the Muslim Brotherhood to be a Hamas entity here in America. CAIR’s Founder, Omar Ahmad stated on July 4th, 1998, in Fremont, California at interview with the Argus Newspaper:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant…the Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

Larry Williamson, a member of the Tulsa 912 Project, a conservative organization, stated for news media: “…to ask veterans to march alongside people who represent our enemies in a current war is atrocious.”

Williamson further stated:

“I believe all American entrants who the parade is intended to honor should be made aware as soon as possible that they are to share their honor with the Muslim Brotherhood, sworn enemy of the United States and our ally Israel and an enemy in our current war on the Islamic jihad in which American soldiers are fighting and dying.”

The Bible-belt of America is under direct assault by the Islamic Movement. The clear and stated intent is to collapse the Bible-belt, implement division within the church community at-large, and ultimately collapse the Christian Heritage and principles by which America was founded. And the church is asleep, or uninterested.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pittsburgh, PA Mayor Peduto: Bring us Syrian Muslims!

OKLAHOMA: Tulsa’s Veterans Day Parade participant calls designated Muslim terrorist group’s participation in parade ‘atrocious’

Tulsa’s Veterans Day Parade participant calls Muslim group’s involvement ‘atrocious’ – Tulsa World: Religion

Vets appalled at ‘Muslim Brotherhood float’

EDITORS NOTE: According to Discover the Networks CAIR has strong ties to the terrorist group Hamas:

  • “[CAIR] was formed not by Muslim religious leaders throughout the country, but as an offshoot of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). Incorporated in Texas, the IAP has close ties to Hamas and has trumpeted its support for terrorist activities.”[6] Former chief of the FBI’s counter terrorism section, Oliver Revell, called the IAP “a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants.”[7]
  • CAIR’s head, Nihad Awad asserted at a 1994 meeting at Barry University, “I am a supporter of the Hamas movement.”[8]
  • Former FBI counter terrorism chief, Steven Pomerantz, stated publicly that, “CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”[9]

END NOTES:

[6] Emerson, Steve. “Foreign Terrorists in America: Five Years After the World Trade Center Bombing.” Testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, 24 February 1998.

[7] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33582

[8] Steve, Emerson. “Foreign Terrorists in America: Five Years After the World Trade Center Bombing.” Testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, 24 February 1998.

[9] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32242

Schumer Puts Military at Risk by Playing Politics with Their Sidearms

/in , , , , /by

In 1995, Bob Dole said of Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), “[t]he most dangerous place is between him and a camera.” Last Friday, Schumer publicly announced a plan to require bidders for a $580 million Department of Defense contract to supply the U.S. Army with handguns to submit to questioning regarding efforts to push a gun control agenda. The fact is, Schumer’s attempt to subject the vital fighting equipment of our nation’s servicemen and women to petty politics is nothing more than a cynical attempt to indulge his lust for press coverage, and is a reckless and dangerous threat to the safety of our service men and women.

The sole intent of the DOD procurement process should be to equip our fighting men and women with the best arms for their mission. To factor in the supplier’s willingness to kowtow to Schumer’s gun control demands alongside criteria such as accuracy and reliability risks supplying our troops with inferior equipment. Our soldier’s lives rely in part on the functional capability of their weapons, and to suggest that these soldiers should be used as a political pawn to enact gun control the Senator cannot achieve through our democratic process is reprehensible.

The specifics of the proposal are outlined in a letter from Schumer to Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh. Schumer is encouraging federal agencies to require that bidding manufacturers only sell firearms to the civilian market through dealers that do not transfer a firearm where (in his words) there has not been a “completed” background check. Of course, all gun dealers are already required to conduct a NICS check prior to transferring any firearm. However, if the FBI delays a transfer for further research into a transferee’s background, but after three days is unable to determine whether the person is eligible to possess firearms, the dealer may transfer the firearm. This is an important safety-valve that restricts the federal government from arbitrarily barring individuals from acquiring firearms by delaying them in perpetuity. In the rare case that a firearm is transferred to an individual after the safety-valve period and they are later found to be prohibited, ATF routinely sends people out to retrieve the firearm.

Further, Schumer wants federal agencies to “require all participating bidders to lay out a plan for the development and sale of smart or childproof guns and accessories.”

Unfortunately, Schumer isn’t the first to put forward such a careless proposal. Back in 2000, the Clinton administration tried to strong-arm firearms manufacturers into carrying out their gun control wish list by promising lucrative local police contracts to those who signed onto an agreement with several gun control provisions. Notably, then-Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary and current Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo threatened defiant gun companies if they did not comply. Cuomo made clear to one industry member that they risked business by defying the administration, stating, “I have a lot of push with these Democratic mayors.” A more recent attempt to influence gun companies through government contracting was carried out by Jersey City, N.J. Mayor Steven Fulop.

In a press release, Schumer said that his recent proposal is “a smart way to use the federal government’s market power to force gun makers to change.” Odd, those whose lives depend on the proper functioning of their firearms when their lives are in the balance seem to think this strategy is decidedly wrong-headed.

An April 2000 Los Angeles Times article detailed the pressure the Clinton administration attempted to exert on local police forces to purchase from certain manufacturers. Capt. Garry Leonard of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department told the paper, “Politics aren’t going to enter into how we choose our firearms… When you think of what we do for a living, we just can’t take chances.” President of the Fraternal Order of Police Gilbert G. Gallegos also made clear that “’Adherence to a particular political philosophy’ shouldn’t play a part in gun purchases.”

Even billionaire gun control bankroller Michael Bloomberg seemingly knows better than to play politics with the vital equipment of those who protect us. When asked in 2011 about a proposal to use the NYPD’s handgun purchasing power to boycott a particular manufacturer, then-Mayor Bloomberg brushed-off the idea, stating, “The trouble is, if we boycott one, you probably have to boycott all of them and then you go back to the days when the crooks had better guns than the cops. We don’t want our cops out-armed, out-gunned.”

Schumer’s radical idea to compromise the safety of our service members in furtherance of his own political agenda should be rejected out of hand. The U.S. Army is no place to conduct dangerous political experiments with proposals that the people and the legislatures have repeatedly rejected.

63% of Americans Blame Mental Health—Not Guns—for Mass Shootings​

/in , , , , /by

In another hit to the prospects of gun controllers, this week the Washington Post published the findings of a recent survey conducted by the Post in conjunction with ABC News. The results show that Americans overwhelmingly understand high-profile shootings as pointing to a problem with the country’s mental health system, rather than a lack of gun control laws.

The survey, carried out October 15-18, asked respondents, “Do you think that mass shootings in this country are more a reflection of (problems identifying and treating people with mental health problems) or (inadequate gun control laws)?” 63 percent of those questioned understood that these events are a result of improperly addressing those with mental illness. A mere 23 percent believed that a lack of gun control is the cause, while 10 percent answered that both were to blame.

Unfortunately, the wisdom of the American people is lost on much of the political class, who reflexively turn to decades-old gun control proposals as the solution to this exceedingly complex issue. Which is why, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton rail against guns and gun owners, each touting restrictive legislation repeatedly rejected by the American people and their representatives, NRA is working towards an actual solution.

In August, NRA announced its support for Senator John Cornyn’s (R-Texas) S.2002, or the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015, and applauded U.S. Representative Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) when she introduced the House version (H.R. 3722) this month. Both bills would encourage the states to forward prohibiting mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Further, in order to protect the rights of all Americans, including those who have experienced some form of mental health treatment, the bill includes safeguards on the types of records states may send to NICS; ensuring that prohibiting records comport with the due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover, the bill would remedy the Veterans Administration’s long-standing practice of reporting non-dangerous beneficiaries, who are simply assigned a fiduciary to help manage their finances, to NICS as prohibited.

It is important to note that the mentally ill should not be stigmatized as violent, as mental health officials recognize that mental illness alone is not predictive of violence. However, it is encouraging that the American public understands that this is a complex issue and that the focus of any policy to address high-profile shootings should not be about addressing the inanimate tool used by the perpetrator, but instead about the individual that carried out the violent act.

Jeb Bush Campaign: Out of Touch, Disconnected and on the Ropes

/in , , /by

The beginning of the end may be occurring with the Jeb Bush Presidential campaign. While a major reshuffle and downsizing has already taken place within the campaign, and while donations and general support have greatly rescinded, the looming Iowa caucus may be but another sign of disintegration of the Bush campaign. Consider the following internal campaign findings now being leaked publicly:

  1. The recent televised debate held in Boulder, Colorado was a loss for candidate Jeb Bush. Appearing bewildered and un-energized, candidate Jeb Bush presented weak, uncollected with his thoughts, and lashing out just to be heard and appear significant. His very poor presence at the debate was topped only by a lecture the next day at a campaign appearance wherein Bush gave a strong impression that there were other things he could be doing rather than seeking the presidency.
  2. Big named establishment donors are annoyed with the lack of sophistication, aggressive campaign team, and ability to steer the appearing rudderless campaign.
  3. The Jeb Bush campaign has barely made an appearance in Iowa, and has not worked diligently phone banks, direct mail, personal voter contacting, public appearances, and TV or radio Ads.
  4. The Bush campaign did, however, recently conduct an extensive candidate preference survey with astonishing results: Out of 70,000 phone calls, only 1,281 supporters were identified. This converts to approximately 1.8% of campaign phone canvassing support.
  5. An internal memo of the Bush campaign reveals this support was uncovered by phone survey only, and the candidate himself has not spent time in Iowa nor sought voters, nor has received any significant endorsements.

These findings are a clear message within the campaign’s highest level that barring a miracle of some massive and significant manifestation, Jeb Bush will lose Iowa and receive a terribly serious, even devastating blow against campaign survival. The Jeb Bush “brain trust” is comprised of many GOP establishment insiders and professional GOP political consultants and operatives. The environment within said group is reportedly anguish, tense, disbelieving and absolute confusion as to how two “outsiders” can be leading the nomination process when neither has any political experience. Furthermore, the same GOP political wonks are flabbergasted that there is even growing appeal for Senator Ted Cruz who is also seen as an “outsider,” and not accepted by the GOP establishment; much like Trump and Carson.

There is a complete disconnect between the GOP establishment like (Romney, McCain, McConnell, Boehner, Karl Rove) GOP establishment backed candidates like Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, Chris Christie, and even Carly Fiorina, and the general public across the Land. While the GOP establishment subtly positioned their chosen candidates, the complete not understanding the mood, the anger and the fear of the grass-roots further demonstrates just how out-of-touch and disregarding establishment politicians and operatives truly are toward the people.

The Jeb Bush campaign is a perfect example of this disconnect.

Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the FairTax by Rep. Dave Brat (VA-7)

/in , , , , /by

Adam Smith, the father of economics, published An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations nearly 240 years ago[i]. Soon after, an extraordinary flourishing of innovation and human well-being took off and transformed the globe. According to economist Deirdre McCloskey, the average American today is roughly 30 to 100 times better off than our ancestors in 1800[ii], the point when humanity began to escape crushing poverty. Notwithstanding modern prosperity, however, human nature hasn’t changed much. Smith’s insights remain relevant.

The Wealth of Nations considers taxation in Book V, Chapter 2: “Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society.” In the prior chapter, “Of the Expenses of the Sovereign or Commonwealth,” he describes the primary functions of the national government. Some—like defense—need to be paid for by general revenue, while others—like transportation infrastructure—can be built and maintained with fees paid by users.

Revenue policy should fund the necessary expenses of the government. Not to benefit this or that industry. Not to advance social objectives. Certainly not to suppress political speech.

Smith set out four goals for evaluating tax options. First, tax contributions should be proportionate to abilities. Second, the rules should be certain and not arbitrary. Third, taxes should be levied when and how its payment is most convenient. Fourth, collection should minimize administrative overhead.

He then evaluated possible tax bases using those principles: rents of land and houses, profits, wealth, wages, head taxes, and consumption. He concluded that the ideal tax bases are residential property and consumption, particularly on luxury goods.

What does Adam Smith have to do with the FairTax? Everything. Setting aside property taxes—a state and local issue—consider how his principles relate to a consumption tax like the FairTax.

Is it proportionate to abilities? Yes. Those who earn more also consume more, thus contributing proportionately more to the general revenue. Savings—which our current tax system discourages but the FairTax would not—provide no current consumption benefits. They are deferred consumption, which in the meantime enables others to borrow to finance education, infrastructure, factories, and much more while also reducing the trade deficit.

Is the FairTax certain and not arbitrary? Yes. Everyone pays the same, known rate on consumption.

Is it convenient to pay? Yes. Merchants include the tax in the prices of final goods and services, which consumers pay all at once. Businesses simply remit the revenue to the government from time to time.

The FairTax also minimizes administrative overhead. The U.S. has around six million businesses.[iii] Not all would collect revenue under the FairTax, since many don’t sell directly to consumers. Current tax law requires the processing of six million business returns, 150 million individual and household tax returns[iv] (some overlap), and various trust, foundation, and other returns that are processed today, all under a complex, burdensome, and unFairTax code.

A broad-based consumption tax like the FairTax has other benefits. It eliminates the bureaucratic discretion that enabled the illegal and corrupt targeting of political speech, as the Richmond Tea Party experienced first-hand. Less taxation on productive activities yields greater physical and human capital investment by businesses and individuals, which makes workers more productive, boosting their compensation and standards of living while also increasing returns to saving.

It eliminates a major source of favor trading between Congress and big businesses. The concentrated interests of businesses associations create enormous pressure for Congress to provide tax preferences. The FairTax dramatically reduces the ability of political insiders to manipulate the tax system.

After nearly a decade of poor economic performance, we need comprehensive, pro-growth, simplifying tax reform like the FairTax. That’s why I’m a proud cosponsor of H.R. 25. To fully restore the American Dream, however, we must also pursue major regulatory and spending reforms.

We can have even more of the market-tested innovations that improve our lives and that would have astounded Adam Smith and our ancestors. Smart policy reforms—like the FairTax—can clear the path.

[i] http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

[ii] https://www.aei.org/publication/perhaps-the-most-powerful-defense-of-market-capitalism-you-will-ever-read/

[iii] http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/econ/g12-susb.pdf, Appendix Table 1, pp. 7.

[iv] https://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats—Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income, “All Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items: 2013”

ABOUT CONGRESSMAN DAVE BRAT

Congressman Dave Brat represents Virginia’s 7th congressional district, serving since 2014 when he won a special election. Brat is a member of the House Budget Committee, Education and the Workforce Committee, and Small Business Committee. He has a Ph.D. in economics, formerly was a professor of economics and chairman of the economics department at Randolph Macon College, and previously worked for the World Bank and Arthur Andersen.

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about the FairTax please click here.

Bernie Sanders denounces “Islamophobia,” Hamas-linked terror organization thrilled

/in , , , /by

A Muslim student, Remaz Abdelgader, said to Sanders: “Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society. I’m so tired of listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my country.” Sanders replied: “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country. I will lead that effort as president.”

What race is Islam again? I keep forgetting. What race is Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays again? I just can’t seem to recall. That is what this controversy is really about: Ben Carson raised a legitimate question about the compatibility of Sharia and the U.S. Constitution. Sharia denies the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims before the law, and contravenes the Constitution in other ways as well. In 1960, John Kennedy was subjected to baseless prejudice as a Roman Catholic, and today Sanders and others consigns concerns about a Muslim President to an analogous baseless prejudice. But Kennedy actually addressed concerns, and assured Americans that he would obey and enforce the Constitution and no other law. Nowadays, asking a hypothetical Muslim candidate if he would obey and enforce the Constitution and not Sharia is “racism.”

So what would happen if a Sharia-compliant Muslim candidate did become President, and began working against the freedoms that the Constitution allows but Sharia does not? Would all those who voted for him simply congratulate themselves on their resistance to “racism” as their freedoms were eroded away?

“CAIR Welcomes Bernie Sanders’s Pledge to End Islamophobia and Racism,” Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, October 29, 2015:

CAIR logo(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/29/15) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today welcomed Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s pledge to end Islamophobia and all other forms of racism during a town hall hosted at George Mason University on Wednesday.

Yesterday, Sanders invited Muslim George Mason University student Remaz Abdelgader to join him on stage during a campaign stop and responded to her remarks about Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson’s position that a Muslim should not be president.

Abdelgader expressed to Sanders the personal impact that Islamophobia in the presidential election was having on her. “Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society,” Abdelgader said. “I’m so tired of listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my country.”

Sanders responded: “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country,” Sanders said. “I will lead that effort as president.”

“What should have been an unremarkable statement against racism was made noteworthy because only a handful of presidential candidates have gone on the record to denounce Islamophobia,” said CAIR Government Affairs Manager Robert McCaw. “Bernie Sanders’s willingness to vow to stand together in eradicating Islamophobia and all forms of racism is inspirational.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kerry: Middle East “home of populations that are energetic, youthful, forward-looking. It is in them that we place our faith.”

Islamic State on recruitment spree in Russia, “moderate” imams can’t counter the jihadis’ appeal

VIDEO: Christian Persecution on the Temple Mount

/in , , , , /by

This exclusive video expose’ of the holiest of Judeo/Christian sites where members of the Islamic Waqf force threw Danish Christian Jerusalem Jane Kiel off of the Temple Mount because she is accused of recently singing and praying FOR Israel on the Mount.

This is an extremely serious development especially as Muslims in America are running to Christian Churches and Jewish Synagogues trying to convince everyone that Islam is a religion of peace and part of the Abrahamic faith of Jews and Christians.

This incident makes it clear that Muslims despise Jews and Christians and are simply trying to gain acceptance for ulterior Islamic reasons.

Now, you see this enmity toward Jews and Christians being played out on the Temple Mount with our dear, brave, Jerusalem Jane!

Jerusalem, Israel – October 28, 2015 – At 9:30 this morning officials from the Islamic Waqf forced Danish Christian blogger “Jerusalem” Jane Kiel off the Temple Mount. During a peaceful visit, Jane was approached by a guard employed by the Jordanian-run Islamic Waqf who called her by name. “Jane, …we waited two months for you!” he announced labeling her a “born again” “believer.”

In a video of the incident (above), the Waqf guard pointed to the Hebrew inscription on her ring and claimed to be “Jordanian Police.” In an audio recording, he further produced what he claimed was a Jordanian Police identity card. The Waqf official insisted that Jane and her companion delete their video and threatened to arrest them if they did not leave the Temple Mount immediately. He then told Jane he was taking her to the Israeli police, but instead brought her to a man he referred to as the Waqf “boss” of the Temple Mount, who ordered her to leave.

This is the second time Jane was expelled from the Temple Mount; on a previous visit Waqf officials took her phone, deleting all the videos and photos.

Within the last ten months, Jane has received a series of death threats after documenting Muslim harassment of Jewish visitors on the Temple Mount. Jane’s activities have been lambasted on the “Quds” Arabic language website, which the guard pulled up on his phone during the encounter.

Here is the first video that went viral in the Arab world media, leading to Jane being targeted by Muslims and denied entrance to the Temple Mount. Jane sang Shema Yisrael On The Temple Mount:

So This is How Liberty Dies

/in , , , /by

“So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause.”

Although this quote could probably be attributed to millions of liberty-loving, patriotic Americans watching the thunderous crowds upon the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012, it didn’t come from them.

This is a quote from the character Queen Amidala in the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith movie.

With the upcoming release of the latest installment of the Star Wars movie franchise, I was reminded of this quote and the Hollywood left’s influence on the culture. Sadly, I was also reminded of President Obama’s painful legacy of complete, abject policy failure, which has destroyed millions of lives and will unquestionably wreak havoc far into the future, all the while the left celebrates these “accomplishments.”

At the recent Democratic presidential debate President Obama delivered a pre-taped address to the adoring debate crowd, and gauging by the enthusiastic response, you would think he had claimed a record number of presidential merit badges for his policy achievements. In fact, this administration has been a disaster for the American people based on President Obama’s own measures of what legislative success looks like. And yet the left celebrates his “accomplishments,” seemingly oblivious to his failure to live up to his own false-promises.

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by George Alexander | Flickr.

Lawfare: The Crucifixion of Geert Wilders

/in , , , , , , /by

Geert Wilders has, once again, been accused, of violating hate laws in The Netherlands over a  remark he made during a March 19, 2014  Freedom Party (PVV) campaign rally for the European Parliament elections that occurred in May of last year: “fewer and fewer Moroccans”.  Complaints were filed by alleged aggrieved Dutch Moroccans on the grounds that his remarks were racist and violated hate laws in The Netherlands.  These remarks in the U.S. would be protected under our First Amendment to the Constitution. No such protections currently exist under the laws in The Netherlands, let alone the EU. We noted this in a December 2014 Iconoclast post about a statement Wilders made before his interrogation by Dutch police in The Hague:

The words Orwellian, Kafkaesque appear inadequate to describe the trammeling of the Hon. Geert Wilders’  free speech by Dutch prosecutors at the Hague in The Netherlands.   We write this with the imagery of the fictional victim of Kafka’s posthumously published novel, The Trial. Joseph K was  arrested by police inspectors for unknown reasons and every word of his scrutinized before  his climactic death.

What Wilders is going through is not fiction, but a living nightmare.  All because he spoke his mind during a local elections Freedom Party (PVV) campaign rally last spring about “fewer Moroccans”. That was a reference to his platform of controlling mass immigration of Muslims who have exhibited substantial criminal behavior incited by Islamic doctrine and preaching by Imams in Dutch Mosques.

We thought his exoneration in the May 2011 Amsterdam District Court  trial on alleged hate speech  law violations would end his nightmare of prosecution for what we in the US take for granted as protected speech under the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Public Prosecutors in The Hague are preparing for a trial on these trumped up charges in 2016. Wilders was exonerated from similar charges in a well publicized 2011 trial in the Amsterdam district court. Wilders’ has retained one of the best known defense attorneys Geert-Jan Knoops. However, the trial judge remarks and denial of what we in US trial procedure would consider customary discovery requests would lead one to believe that The Hague  court proceedings on these charges are politicized and biased this bolstering of both Knoops and his client Wilders that a fair trial would not be possible. Those are the contention of this front page interview with Wilders and his defense counsel, Knoops in this De Telegraaf article by Messrs. Wouter de Winther and Rudd Mikkers. Wilders says, if that is the case then why show up at the trial, as the decision has already been made and the prosecution would be a proverbial media circus.

What follows is an English translation of the De Telegraaf  interview article,”Wilders awaits unfair trial”.

Der Telegraf Wilders article 10-29-15(1)Wilders awaits unfair trial
by Wouter de Winther and Ruud Mikkers
The Hague

PVV leader Geert Wilders awaits an unfair trial if he stands trial next year for stating that he wants “fewer Moroccans”. That is what his lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops says.

The lawyer is upset about the fact that the judge has allocated only 1 percent of the investigation requests of Wilders’ defense. “These include doing further research by experts. The defense has serious concerns about whether Mr. Wilders in his criminal case can adequately defend himself,” Knoops says in a statement. “When all reasonable requests are rejected, they apparently want to convict me at all costs,” the PVV leader concludes. Wilders is expected to appear in court sometime in 2016. “A correct picture of the context of the alleged statements of Mr. Wilders is essential,” says Knoops. “In order to present this picture to the judge, Wilders should get the chance that he gets the investigation he has asked for.” The lawyer says that Wilders is seriously harmed in his defense. “This way, Mr. Wilders does not get a fair trial.”

PVV leader Wilders feels provoked. He says he will not get a fair chance to defend himself in the trial in which he is being sued for group insult and incitement to hatred and discrimination. Almost all his requests to hear experts or to examine whether there has been tampered with declarations against him have been dismissed. He has appealed, because this way the chance of a fair trial would be reduced to nil.

What are the indications that suggest that you will not get a fair chance at a defense? “I notice that the judicial authorities get more intransigent as we rise in the polls. At the first meetings, the magistrate still said to me, ‘You are entitled to a fair chance; the law will be interpreted broadly. But the opposite has happened. The magistrate uncritically follows the prosecutor. If all reasonable requests are rejected, then they apparently want to convict me at all costs.”

Why would Lady Justice suddenly take off her blindfold for Geert Wilders? “For months, we have been working on the defense and therefore you suggest that further investigations be conducted. For example, what about government ministers who already declared me guilty before the trial had begun, such as [Justice Minister] Opstelten? And we also want to know what has happened with all the pre-printed complaint forms. We have discovered that various forms have same signatures on them! We also want to hear experts, for example about the accusations of racism. A nationality is not a race, so how can I be guilty of racism? I am convinced that if today I ask “Do you want more or fewer Syrians,” no one would take offense at that, let alone that there would be complaints would be filled.”

But then we are dealing with refugees without a residence permit. Not Dutch citizens who have already been here for thirty or forty years. “Yes, but I’m talking about the concept of nationality versus race. That is what everyone objected to, while I think that would now no longer be the case. If I would ask, ‘Do you want more or fewer Belgians; I do not believe that many people would feel offended. I want to hear the opinion of experts about this. I want to defend myself, but I must also be able to defend myself. The frustrating thing is that we have made 39 requests and zero have been granted. One of them has been kept in deliberation.”

During your previous trial, you had you done serious and less serious requests, you asked to hear Gaddafi or invite the Iranian president as a witness. What requests did you do this time? “I have noticed that the director of a mosque filed several complaints with different handwritings but the same signature. Hundreds of complaints were done on forms delivered in that mosque. About such matters I would want to hear the opinion of experts, because this cannot be allowed. I cannot give you all the names, because that information is not public.  For example, Tom Zwart, professor at the University of Amsterdam, and Professor Paul Cliteur were willing to testify. But they have been rejected. “

What is behind all this? I do not know. However, I have seen on television there are people in the judiciary who say that PVV members cannot become judges. In the newspaper I read that the Public Prosecutor had already appointed two media judges even before the decision to prosecute had been taken. And as we rise in the polls, the rejections from the judicial authorities become more blunt and unfriendly. If this continues, then it seems as if the verdict has already been written. Then I will have to consider whether I need to attend. Perhaps they should just rule in absentia. For me, it makes little sense to come. If this persists, it will be a political trial and a PVV-hate trial.”

Are you saying that the judiciary in the Netherlands is not independent? “I want to talk about my case. If this persists, it will not be a fair trial. Obviously, I am also referring to the statement by the judge who said that PVV members should not be allowed to become judges. That is the atmosphere in which this is all happening.”

You are again seeking the role of the underdog, you and the PVV fighting the established order on your own. Is that not becoming a bit déjà-vu? “I would rather not have been prosecuted, because I think I’ve done nothing wrong. I do not seek the role of the victim here because I would rather have preferred that I could defend myself. But if all requests are rejected, then it is no use. Let them then quickly sentence me in absentia. I hope it does not come to that. Because it will be a circus.”

What consequences will a conviction have for you? “I will always continue to say what I have to say. However, with the difference that I would only be able to express certain messages in the microphone of parliament. Because there I have immunity. If freedom of expression is curtailed, I can no longer express certain opinions anywhere.”

Virtually nowhere you get what you want. But when you do think your trial will actually be fair? “That depends on which requests are granted and in what way. Knoops also needs to have the impression that he can truly defend me. If such a person, the best criminal lawyer in the Netherlands says it is not fair … that’s quite something. Knoops is not someone whom you can abuse politically.”

Given all the hassle afterwards, don’t you regret having made the statements about “fewer Moroccans”? “I think an excuse to make it harder for the PVV will always be found. We are under more scrutiny than politicians of D66 or the Green Left because we are very outspoken. I understand that. We also oppose the establishment and do not mince our words. If you do that you do not make it easy for yourself.”

Ultimately, this trial is about the freedom of expression. You always draw the line very clearly at calling to violence, but should everything else be said? “I think you should be able to say if you want fewer Mexicans or Syrians. That is not discriminatory and certainly no call to violence. I will always continue. Nothing will stop me to express my opinion. Not a hundred judges, not a thousand verdicts or fatwas will be able to change that.”

Can you imagine that Moroccan Dutch people feel excluded by such a fewer Moroccans statement? “I do not really care what they feel or don’t feel. The point is whether it is illegal or not and I do not think that I have done anything wrong. If people feel hurt they should address a psychologist or someone similar.”

Today or tomorrow you would as easily say “fewer, fewer, fewer Syrians”? “I’m not saying I will do that, but if I would, it would in my opinion no longer cause a lot of commotion.”

Yet you do not say it so explicitly today. Has this reluctance to do with the
upcoming trial? “We are calling for fewer Syrians that is absolutely true. But today or tomorrow, I will not be holding such a speech as last year. But if I would, and if I would say it… then I think that nothing would happen. In America, any politician can advocate fewer Mexicans. No-one would object.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

There’s No Escaping Competition by Steven Horwitz

/in , , , , /by

People Need a Way to Decide Who Gets What. 

“The motives of fear and greed are what the market brings to prominence,” argues G.A. Cohen in Why Not Socialism? “One’s opposite-number marketeers are predominantly seen as possible sources of enrichment, and as threats to one’s success.”

Cohen further notes that these are “horrible ways of seeing other people” that are the “result of centuries of capitalist civilization.”

If only we had a different economic system where people viewed each other as brothers and sisters in a common effort rather than competitors trying to grab the largest share of the economic pie.

Implicitly drawing on Marx’s idea that the forces and relations of production determine the ideas people have and the way they behave, this criticism imagines that competition is a contingent feature of human interaction caused by capitalism.

But is it? Are we only competitive because capitalism makes us so?

By contrast, consider a line in my class notes for the day we start talking about competition in my Introduction to Economics course: “Competition is not a product of living in a capitalist society — it’s a product of not living in heaven.”

Despite the dreams of the socialists, competition is not going away any time soon. As long as resources are scarce and not all of our wants can be fulfilled, humans require some way of determining who will get which goods.

Competing Versions of Competition

Suppose for a moment that we want to figure out how best to allocate goods to consumers. In a market economy, we allow people to engage in competitive bidding to try to acquire the things they think are most valuable to them. But we can imagine other ways of allocating goods. Perhaps we ask people to line up. Or maybe we try to figure out who is more deserving. Perhaps we do it by the pure discretion of bureaucrats. Or we decide things Fight Club style. Would those end competition?

I don’t think so. All that those methods would accomplish is to divert competition into less productive forms. For example, if we distributed resources first come, first served, does anyone doubt that people would find new ways to compete for an early place in line? Or think of the people who camp out for sports or concert tickets and the opportunity cost of the time they spend waiting rather than doing other things.

Or if we did it by evaluating who is more deserving, wouldn’t people simply compete over what should count as the relevant moral criteria — and then compete to demonstrate that they deserve goods more than others do?

Imagine if a board of economic planners said they would distribute resources to the people who are most honest. It wouldn’t surprise us to see people then start to expend resources to convince the planners that productivity or intelligence were more important than honesty in distributing resources, nor would it surprise us for people to then compete to prove to the planners that they were the most honest, or productive, or intelligent. All of those forms of competition are wastes of resources compared to competing for consumers in the marketplace.

Or imagine goods distributed by government fiat. Wouldn’t people find new and creative ways to compete to persuade the relevant bureaucrats to favor them? In fact, isn’t this exactly what we see right now as lobbyists engage in competitive rent-seeking to persuade legislators and bureaucrats to allocate more government goodies in their direction? The rent-seeking that takes place in Washington and the state capitals is just another form of competition — appealing to politicians rather than customers.

Were resources distributed through might-makes-right, we can easily imagine the competition that would ensue for people to have the best weaponry or armor, or to hit the gym to get the strength and endurance they would need to survive the fighting. This, too, is competition, but of a very different sort.

As long as goods and services are scarce compared to wants, decisions will have to be made that involve some number of people not getting access to those goods. The fact of scarcity is what makes competition ubiquitous. And if there is a heaven, one of its defining characteristics is surely the absence of scarcity. Humanity has long dreamed of a Land of Cockaigne where roast chickens fly into our mouths without effort and where the seas are made of lemonade. Until that heaven arrives on earth, competition of some sort will rule the roost.

How Is Market Competition Better?

If we are going to have competition, then why prefer one sort over any other?

The competition we see in the marketplace has the important advantage of creating benefits for the rest of society and not just the competitors.

Consider rent-seeking. It’s true that the exchange between a lobbyist and a politician is mutually beneficial. The rent-seeker, if successful, gets resources allocated in her direction, while the politician receives the free lunches and fawning attention from the rent-seeker — as well as some possible leverage over the rent-seeker down the road.

The competition associated with rent-seeking, however, does not benefit anyone else. In fact, the whole criticism of rent-seeking behavior is that expending resources to generate transfers of wealth — not to create new wealth — is socially wasteful. We would be better off if those resources were used to produce new and better products rather than to persuade others to transfer wealth to us, or to reduce the wealth of others.

Similar arguments can be made about all other forms of nonmarket competition. They all involve expending resources in ways that do not benefit society as a whole because they do not create wealth. They just divert resources from other uses to become part of the attempt to transfer existing wealth to another person or group.

Why Price Competition?

The other problem with all of those other forms of competition is that they ignore the question of where resources come from. There is no connection between the distribution of resources (and the form of competition that generates) and the supply of those resources.

Put differently, how do any of those other processes create the knowledge signals and incentives needed to know what to produce and how to produce it to ensure that there are future supplies of goods? Think about Fight Club-style distribution. If everyone is busy pummeling each other to death to get existing resources, what incentive does that create for anyone to produce anything if they will have to spend even more resources to defend any wealth they might create? How would anyone know what to produce in such a world, and why would anyone want to produce it in the first place?

In a system where competition takes place through offering money to acquire resources, we get the emergence of prices, which serve as both the incentive for ongoing production and the information about what to produce. When buyers compete with buyers to acquire a good and thereby bid up the price, it tells existing and prospective producers that this good is more valuable and that they should produce more of it. Similar competitive bidding for the inputs into a production process informs other producers about what should and should not be used to make various goods and services.

Competition through money prices connects the competition over the distribution of goods with the production of goods in a way that no other form of competition does. In this way, market competition benefits not just the direct parties to the competition but all of us by encouraging the ongoing production of goods in ways that economize on resources.

Scarcity is a defining characteristic of the human condition, and scarcity means there will be competition over who gets what. Market capitalism has the great advantage of channeling that competition through the price system, which not only ensures an ongoing supply of goods but also encourages their efficient production.

We may not be in heaven, but the peaceful and socially beneficial competition of the market is downright heavenly compared to the alternatives.

Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

No, the GI Bill Does Not Prove “Free” College Is a Good Deal by Neal McCluskey

/in , , , , /by

As I’ve written before, the case for “free” college is decrepit, and Bernie Sanders’s op-ed in the Washington Post does nothing to bolster it. It sounds wonderful to say “everyone, go get a free education!” but of course it wouldn’t be free — taxpayers would have to foot the bill — and more importantly, it would spur even more wasteful over-consumption of higher ed than we have now.

Because I’ve rehearsed the broad argument against free college quite often, I’m not going to go over it again.

But Sen. Sanders’ op-ed does furnish some “evidence” worth looking at: the notion that the post-World War II GI Bill was a huge economic catalyst. Writes Sanders:

After World War II, the GI Bill gave free education to more than 2 million veterans, many of whom would otherwise never have been able to go to college. This benefited them, and it was good for the economy and the country, too.

In fact, scholars say that this investment was a major reason for the high productivity and economic growth our nation enjoyed during the postwar years.

I’ve seen this sort of argument before, as I’ve seen for government provision of education generally, and have always found it wanting, especially since we have good evidence that people will seek out the education they need in the absence of government provision, and will get it more efficiently. Since Sanders links to two sources that presumably support his GI Bill assertion, however, I figured I’d better give them a look.

Surprisingly, not only does neither illustrate that the GI Bill spurred economic growth, neither even contends it did. They say it spurred some collegeenrollment growth, and one says veterans ended up being better students than some high-profile college presidents expected them to be, but neither makes the Sanders’ growth claim.

Indeed, in line with what we’ve seen broadly in education, one says that at least 80 percent of veterans who went to college on the Bill would likely have gone anyway, and in seemingly direct opposition to what Sanders would like to see, the other notes that the Bill disproportionately helped the well-to-do, not the working class.

As the Stanley study says right in its abstract: “The impacts of both programs [the World War II and Korean War GI Bills] on college attainment were apparently concentrated among veterans from families in the upper half of the distribution of socioeconomic status.”

If we really want to do what’s best for the nation — not just what sounds or feels best — we need to ground our policies in reality. In education, as in Sanders’ op-ed, that often doesn’t happen.

This post first appeared at Cato @ Liberty.

Neal McCluskey

CNBC’s GOP Debate Mute About National Security by Ryan Mauro

/in , , , , , /by

Foreign policy and national security was disappointingly absent from last night’s Republican presidential debate. The event focused on financial issues because it was hosted by the CNBC business news channel, but the economy is intertwined with important debates about foreign policy, energy independence and global instability.  At one point, an incredulous Gov. Chris Christie mocked how more time was spent discussing fantasy football than the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) threat.

The following is a summary of the statements related to national security that were made by the candidates.

George Pataki

The most impressive national answers in my judgment were given by George Pataki during the first debate amongst the four lowest polling candidates.  He pointed out that his two sons served in the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The impact of cyber attacks on the economy were discussed in the undercard debate but were shockingly left out of the main event, even though Iran and North Korea (and others) have waged cyber warfare on the U.S.

Pataki said that the U.S. should sanction any company that engages in hacking and bar them from trade with the American market, including those of Chinese origin. He said that the U.S. should follow Israel’s example in establishing a single federal agency dedicated to cyber defense. He then linked the issue to the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s unsecured email server at her home and the likelihood that its contents was hacked by Iran, Russia, China and others.

Pataki is currently in 15th place among the 16 Republican contenders with an average of less than 1% nationally and less than 1% for the New Hampshire primary that is the focus of his campaign. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s answers related to national security earned the most applause. He said that the U.S. is too predictable and shouldn’t be constantly talking about how it will handle enemies like the Islamic State. The audience roared when he said that servicemen at military installations should be trusted to be armed, referring to the Islamist shooting at two sites in Chattanooga, Tennessee in July that killed five people.

Trump is the frontrunner nationally with 27%; is in second place with 21% in Iowa (behind Ben Carson); first place in New Hampshire with 30% and first place in South Carolina with 33%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Chris Christie

Chris Christie was also received very positively when he talked about national security, particularly when he lambasted the extremely condescending CNBC moderators (as other candidates did) and pointed out how fantasy football was talked about more than the Islamic State.

Christie warned of foreign policy isolationists that would leave behind fewer democracies around the world and criticized the Obama Administration’s record on promoting freedom. He also cited the FBI director’s statement that the stigmatizing of law enforcement is increasing crime and decreasing safety.

Christie is currently in 10th place nationally with 2% and 9th place in New Hampshire with 3%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham emphasized national security during the undercard debate and was met with thunderous applause when he said that he’d let dictators know that the “party is over” and “this crap stops” if he becomes president.

He warned of the danger of cuts to the defense budget and claimed that the Army will shrink to its smallest size since 1940. On the issue of cyber warfare, he said he’d tell China and others involved in hacking that the U.S. has a clenched fist and an open hand and their behavior will decide which one is used.

Graham is currently in 11th place nationally with 1%, 12th in New Hampshire with 1% and 7th in South Carolina with 3%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio’s only comments related to national security were about the hearings regarding the Islamist terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya in 2012 and Hillary Clinton’s testimony. He said that Clinton privately wrote emails stating that the violence was a terrorist attack linked to Al-Qaeda but that she and the administration blamed it on an out-of-control protest against a video criticizing Islam.

Rubio is currently in third place nationally with 9%; third in Iowa with 10%; fourth in New Hampshire with 8% and third in South Carolina with 8%. You can read out factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

National Security Highlights From First Democratic Debate

Carson Calls on IRS to Terminate CAIR’s Tax-Exempt Status

Clinton Releases 5-Point Plan on Iran

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) Votes for the Boehner-Obama Budget Busting Deal

/in , , , , , /by

Florida District 16 U.S. Representative Vern Buchanan was one of 79 Republicans to vote for the Boehner-Obama budget busting deal. It is now the Buchanan-Boehner-Obama budget.

When Vern Buchanan first ran for Congress he vowed to reduce the federal budget deficits and called for a Constitutional balanced budget amendment. In a June 2015 press release Rep. Buchanan called balancing the budget “an urgent priority”. Buchanan stated:

“[T]he United States can no longer afford to ignore its out-of-control spending problem…We’re going broke, it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when, unless we change what we’re doing. We need a standard and I think that standard is a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment– Florida balances the budget every year, we make the tough choices…

It’s immoral what we’re passing on to our kids and grandkids. I have a granddaughter and a grandson on the way and I feel horrible about what’s taking place up here. “

[Emphasis added]

Given all of his rhetoric he still voted, in his own words “immorally” and against the best interests of his children grandchildren and ours, for Obama’s budget.

Melissa Quinn from the Daily Signal reports:

Despite overwhelming opposition from the majority of Republicans, the House of Representatives voted to pass a two-year budget deal today that raises spending caps by $80 billion and suspends the debt limit through March 2017.

The deal passed, 266-167, with support from moderate Republicans and all but one of the Democrats. Just 79 Republicans supported it, and all of those opposing the fiscal agreement were Republicans.

[Emphasis added]

To find out how your Congressman voted on this budget deal click here.

Stephen Moore, in his op-ed column titled “This Is the Worst Budget Deal GOP Has Negotiated Since George H.W. Bush Violated No New Taxes Pledge”
writes:

Halloween is looking especially scary this year. On Monday, Republican leaders in Congress declared an unconditional fiscal surrender to President Barack Obama and the  left, negotiating a dangerous budget deal that eliminates all of the checks on Washington’s spend-and-borrow binge by breaking the budget caps, ending the sequester and raising the debt ceiling by over $1 trillion.

It’s the worst budget deal to be negotiated by the GOP since George H.W. Bush violated his no new taxes pledge in 1990 at Andrews Air Force Base.

The result of that capitulation was to make Bush a one-term president and to split the Republican party right down the middle. This deal has the same catastrophic potential.

Read more.

Citizens Against Government Waste reports:

Forty-six cents!  That’s how much of your individual income tax dollar the government squanders on wasteful spending programs.

donate

Another 31 cents goes to pay the $433 billion in annual interest on the national debt!

That leaves just 23 cents – or not quite one quarter of your tax dollar – to pay for the services that you expect from government!

 

RELATED VIDEO: Rep. Vern Buchanan on balancing the federal budget:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Lame Ducks, Lame Deal: The Boehner-Obama Budget Plan

Boehner-Obama Budget Deal Uses Same Accounting Gimmick as Obamacare

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of John Boehner and President Obama is by Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom.