November surprise: Blacks giving GOP another look?


That one word sums up my reaction to the midterm election results. This was a total repudiation of the Obama administration, along with the national Democratic Party.

Not only did Republicans take control of the U.S. Senate, they also expanded their margins in the U.S. House of Representatives and among governors.

As usual, most of the post-election analysis has been woefully short of any substance. Yes, Republicans taking over the Senate is major, and yes, increasing numbers in the House and among Republican governors was impressive; but the real story was where we won.

Democrats have been stuttering all over the place trying to explain how Democrats lost governors’ races in Massachusetts and Maryland. These are two of the bluest states in the country. The preliminary exit polls give some insight as to how this happened.

These are two of the most highly taxed states in the country. Their governors took great pride in taxing businesses and the wealthy — and then wondered why these businesses and wealthy individuals moved from their states.

With this mandate, Republicans must now prove to the American people that they can govern. I would strongly suggest that they pass a few non-controversial bills that have bipartisan support in both chambers.

They could start with repealing the medical device tax on medical equipment that was part of Obamacare; approve the XL Pipeline; and pass a bill that would lower taxes on corporations who repatriate their overseas money back to the U.S. It is estimated that corporations have over $2 trillion sitting offshore because of the high taxes they would have to pay to bring the money into the U.S.

This doesn’t mean that Republicans should be hesitant to stand up to President Obama when he is pushing policies that are in conflict with our beliefs. So, if and when he attempts to unilaterally give amnesty to those in the country illegally, I hope our side has the spine to block it.

Another opportunity for the Republican Party that no one is talking about is the black vote. They are furious with Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party. Blacks are begging the Republicans to give them a reason to vote Republican. One report estimated that 30 percent of blacks in Maryland voted for the Republican candidate!

It’s not the GOP’s platform that’s the issue; it’s the tone and the optics. Republicans need to get rid of the hyperbolic language coming out of the party, especially when referring to Mr. Obama.

When blacks look at the Republican Party, they see very few people who look like them. So either Republicans are colorblind or just blind to people of color.

House and Senate leadership should make a concerted effort to begin to engage with the black community at the highest levels. For example, I strongly advise that:

  • new members hire blacks to be on their staffs;
  • leadership make a point to invite blacks to testify at committee hearings;
  • the House and Senate campaign committees hire blacks on staff.

Blacks in Maryland have proven that they are no fans of high taxes and voted for a white Republican running against a black Democrat! How many times has that ever happened? This is the political story of the year. Blacks in Maryland voted against the black Democratic candidate because it was in their own best interest to do so. This is a tectonic shift in Maryland politics.

Larry Hogan, the incoming governor of Maryland, also had a black running mate, Boyd Rutherford, who is now the incoming lieutenant governor of Maryland. Former RNC chairman Michael Steele, you may recall, was the first black statewide elected official in Maryland’s history when he served as lieutenant governor under Bob Ehrlich. Isn’t it ironic? The Republican Party is constantly breaking racial barriers, but they get no credit for it. Nor does the party know how to leverage these historic accomplishments.

With Republicans now controlling Congress, I am optimistic that they will propose legislation to deal with the high unemployment rate within the black community, propose legislation that advances school choice and vouchers and have hearings on how to create a better business climate for small and minority businesses.

Mr. Obama has been derelict on these issues, and the Republicans thus have a great opportunity to use their majority to help solve some of the issues that blacks are extremely concerned about. This is good for blacks, good for Republicans and good for America.

The Case Against Rent Control: Bad housing policy harms lower-income people most by Robert P. Murphy

To someone ignorant of economic reasoning, rent control seems like a great policy. It appears instantly to provide “affordable housing” to poor tenants, while the only apparent downside is a reduction in the income flowing to the fat-cat landlords, people who literally own buildings in major cities and who thus aren’t going to miss that money much. Who could object to such a policy?

First, we should define our terms. When a city government imposes rent control, it means the city makes it illegal for landlords to charge tenants rent above a ceiling price. Sometimes that price can vary, but only on specified factors. For the law to have any teeth — and for the politicians who passed it to curry favor with the public — the maximum rent-controlled price will be significantly lower than the free-market price.

The most obvious problem is that rent control immediately leads to a shortage of apartments, meaning that there are potential tenants who would love to move into a new place at the going (rent-controlled) rate, but they can’t find any vacancies. At a lower rental price, more tenants will try to rent apartment units, and at a higher rental price, landlords will try to rent out more apartment units. These two claims are specific instances of the law of demand and law of supply, respectively.

In an unhampered market, the equilibrium rental price occurs where supply equals demand, and the market rate for an apartment perfectly matches tenants with available units. If the government disrupts this equilibrium by setting a ceiling far below the market-clearing price, then it creates a shortage; that is, more people want to rent apartment units than landlords want to provide. If you’ve lived in a big city, you may have experienced firsthand how difficult it is to move into a new apartment; guides advise people to pay the high fee to a broker or even join a church because you have to “know somebody” to get a good deal. Rent control is why this pattern occurs. The difficulty isn’t due to apartments being a “big-ticket” item; new cars are expensive, too, but finding one doesn’t carry the stress of finding an apartment in Brooklyn. The difference is rent control.

Rent control reduces the supply of rental units through two different mechanisms. In the short run, where the physical number of apartment units is fixed, the imposition of rent control will reduce the quantity of units offered on the market. The owners will hold back some of the potential units, using them for storage or keeping them available for (say) out of town guests or kids returning from college for the summer. (If this sounds implausible, consider just how many people in a major city consider renting out spare bedrooms in their homes, as long as the price is right.)

In the long run, a permanent policy of rent control restricts the construction of new apartment buildings, because potential investors realize that their revenues on such projects will be artificially capped. Building a movie theater or shopping center is more attractive on the margin.

There are further, more insidious problems with rent control. With a long line of potential tenants eager to move in at the official ceiling price, landlords do not have much incentive to maintain the building. They don’t need to put on new coats of paint, change the light bulbs in the hallways, keep the elevator in working order, or get out of bed at 5:00 a.m. when a tenant complains that the water heater is busted. If there is a rash of robberies in and around the building, the owner won’t feel a financial motivation to install lights, cameras, buzz-in gates, a guard, or other (costly) measures to protect his customers. Furthermore, if a tenant falls behind on the rent, there is less incentive for the landlord to cut her some slack, because he knows he can replace her right away after eviction. In other words, all of the behavior we associate with the term “slumlord” is due to the government’s policy of rent control; it is not the “free market in action.”

In summary, if the goal is to provide affordable housing to lower-income tenants, rent control is a horrible policy. Rent control makes apartments cheaper for some tenants while making them infinitely expensive for others, because some people can no longer find a unit, period, even though they would have been able to at the higher, free-market rate. Furthermore, the people who remain in apartments — enjoying the lower rent —receive a much lower-quality product. Especially when left in place for decades, rent control leads to abusive landlords and can quite literally destroy large portions of a city’s housing.

20141014_RobertMurphyABOUT ROBERT P. MURPHY

Robert P. Murphy has a PhD in economics from NYU. He is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism and The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Great Depression and the New Deal. He is also the Senior Economist with the Institute for Energy Research and a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. You can find him at

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Republicans Can Make Headway with Blacks

Last week’s midterm elections were historic. Republicans regained control of the U.S. Senate, increased their majority in the House, and expanded their majority among governors. While these gains were historic and impressive, there was a bigger story that no one is talking about.

According to early polling figures, Black participation in this year’s midterm was 12 percent, down slightly from 13 percent in 2010. Eighty-nine percent of Blacks voted for Democratic congressional candidates and 10 percent voted for Republicans. This year’s figures match the 2010 midterm figures for Democrats and represents a slight increase in support for Republicans, up from 9 percent in 2010 to 10 percent in 2014.

In Illinois, incoming Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner received 6 percent of the Black vote. He actively courted the Black vote, but did it the wrong way. For example, how many people in Illinois know that Rauner has endowed a full professor’s chair at historically Black Morehouse College in Atlanta? There was no reason why he should not have earned upwards of 25 percent of the Black vote with his history in the Black community. But, as with many White Republicans, his White consultants and staff thought they knew more about the Black community than Blacks.

The exit polls further noted that 11 percent of Black millennials, 12 percent of Gen Xers, and 7 percent of those ages 45-64 voted Republican. The RNC, under the leadership of Reince Priebus, is the only Republican entity that “gets it” when it comes to the Black vote. The House and Senate campaign committees and the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) are still living in the dark ages when it comes to the Black community.

I know Republicans are still in love with this idiotic notion of being “colorblind,” but if they can’t look around at their staffs and realize that they are surrounded by Whites, then they have a real problem. Either they are truly colorblind or just blind to people of color.

So while last week’s national elections were historic for Republicans, they were not transformative. However, what happened in Ohio was not only transformative, but it was also a tectonic shift in the political landscape of America.

Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich received 26 percent of the Black vote. He was endorsed by the Call & Post, Ohio’s leading Black newspaper. In their editorial of endorsement, they listed two specific examples of how Kasich addressed issues of concern to the Black community. Kasich expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income Ohioans and supported set-asides for minority contractors on the Opportunity Corridor construction project in Cleveland.

According to the newspaper, “Opportunities like the Opportunity Corridor usually means ‘inopportunity’ for us [the Black community]…Of the $267 million in construction contracts on the Corridor, Kasich set aside a staggering 20 percent for minority-owned and disadvantaged firms. That’s about $22.7 million dollars ‘specifically’ for Black-owned businesses, not to mention an additional half a million dollars thrown in for job training of area residents. And even this came with some maneuvering from him on our behalf with the federal government and Turnpike Board.”

Contrast that with Obama’s record of issuing fewer Small Business Administration (SBA) loans to Blacks than George W. Bush.

Ohio’s is home to the political story of the year.

So, to the House and Senate campaign committees and the RGA, now we have empirical data that shows Blacks will vote Republican if given a reason. But when GOP candidate continue to make racist insults or, in the case of Illinois governor-elect Bruce Rauner, fail to mention things they’ve done that will resonate with African Americans, the GOP will not attract Black voters who are disgruntled with the Democratic Party and looking for an alternative.

Obviously, left to their own devices, GOP candidates can’t do this on their own. That’s why they need to look beyond the White male consultant who offer bad advice on how to reach the Black community. I ask my Republican friends: When will you begin to hire Black consultants to cultivate this fertile movement in the Black community? When will you hire Blacks who are not ashamed of their Blackness for staff positions? When will you spend money with Black media buyers?

Republicans hire more Black Democrats to work their campaigns than they do Black Republicans. Years ago, I committed to never voting for or working with any Republican that didn’t have any Blacks on their staffs or as consultants; and I have made good on that commitment.

Republicans should make a public commitment to broaden their base to truly look like America. If Republicans transformed the way they interact with the Black community, especially by using Black Republicans and Black political operatives, that indeed would be both historic and transformational.

How should the GOP position themselves for 2016?

Peter Feaman Republican Party of Florida National Committeeman gives an overview of 2014 mid-term election. Feaman gives his views on the direction the GOP should take in Washington, D.C. and how they should position themselves for the 2016 elections.

When Will the NAACP Truly Help Their People?

Upon reading a post election article in which the NAACP is all fired up about supposed black voter suppression, my response was when will these people ever seriously do something to help black people? Folks, I am sorry, but the NAACP and others in their civil rights syndicate are a despicable bunch. All they really care about is furthering Liberalism and increasing their political power. They are disgusting.

In their typical we know we can count on the MSM to help us “play” black voters and portray Republicans as the modern KKK, the NAACP and their race-baiting posse are insisting that the newly elected congress pass a robust Voting Rights Act Amendment.

Yes, heaven knows we black folks desperately need that. Why waste time and resources on fixing trivial things like black on black crime, blacks aborting themselves into extinction, epidemic high school dropouts, black baby daddies outnumbering fathers and record high black unemployment under Obama? Let’s triple down on our efforts to create victim mindsets in blacks and racial hate. That will surely empower and enhance the lives of blacks.

Every time the NAACP and their MSM suck-ups launch another of their deplorable whitey-is-out-to-get-cha narratives such as black voters were disenfranchised during this election, it is shrouded in an we’re-smarter-than-you arrogance. Not only are these vile people feeding us a load of crap, they are superior about it.

Charlie Rangel tried to scare blacks to the polls by saying that the GOP wants to return blacks to slavery in America. This is trash folks. This evil little man is a disgrace.

First lady Michelle Obama tried to bribe blacks with a reward of fried chicken for their vote. Heck, why didn’t Michelle throw in permission for blacks to indulge in an extra large slice of watermelon for dessert? A white politician making the same offer to blacks as Michelle would be tarred, feathered and run out of D.C. on a rail. When will black Americans wake up and smell the condescension, manipulation and exploitation coming from the Democrats; fronted by black traitorous operatives.

I could go on and on about black traitors in the Democratic Party screwing their own to please their socialist/progressive liberal massas. But why keep repeating what I have written in countless articles?

Let’s talk about the broken promises, unfulfilled and wasted lives resulting from black leaders selling out their own to the Democrats’ enslaving big government programs for 30 pieces of political silver. Real people. Real lives.

My late cousin Poochie (Lawrence) comes to mind. He was the eldest in my Aunt Bummie’s cradle-to-grave welfare household; five fatherless sons. Poochie was the lone survivor who broke free from the government welfare system. Miraculously, Poochie worked his way through college and achieved great success. His four siblings all died young on welfare; drugs, AIDS, serial out of wedlock impregnating and crime. An idol mind truly is the Devil’s workshop.

Urban blacks are finally beginning to smell the betrayal of so-called black advocates, white liberal socialist/progressives, the Democrats and Obama.

A talent agent once told me that he had seen numerous black kids with Michael Jackson talent living in the projects. According to this agent, kids in the projects were doing the moon walk before Michael brought it to the national stage. Fatherless households, drugs, teen pregnancies, quitting school and crime prevents many black youths from fulfilling their God given talents, gifts, potential and dreams.

Meanwhile, black Democrat operatives are running around trying to destroy and silence non-whiny successful blacks; laser focused on delivering blacks to the polls every election cycle scared and angry at whites.

Presuming that blacks are clueless idiotic sheep, the best the Democrats are offering blacks is a promise to stop white cops from shooting them at will, preventing the GOP from reinstating black slavery, lighter sentences when they are caught dealing drugs, free Obama phones, food stamps and more crumbs. Oh, and permission to eat fried chicken, if they are really good.

Black retired gifted neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson gained international fame for his groundbreaking work separating conjoined twins. Carson came from humble beginnings raised by a single mom. What if Carson was amoung the extremely high number of black abortions? Could a brilliant black baby destined to cure Cancer have already been aborted?

Why on earth do blacks in the Democratic Party and Obama celebrate, protect, fund and vehemently defend Planned Parenthood who have a disproportionate high number of offices in black communities?

Blacks kill their babies in higher numbers than other races. Why are so-called black leaders so high on abortion? The answer is socialist/progressives intrenched in the Democratic Party believe babies contribute to destroying the planet. Blacks who supp at the socialist/progressive’s table sacrifice black babies for their seats, keeping massa happy.

So, right on NAACP, push forward with you scheme to shame congress into passing your absurd unnecessary politically calculated Voting Rights Act Amendment.

Meanwhile, black lives are going down the toilet thanks to your failed government programs and refusal to seriously deal with real issues.

And may God have mercy on your wretched souls.

It’s Official: The Democrats are the Party of the Devil

Perhaps the first clue, or the ten thousandth, was when many Democrats opposed the reinsertion of God into their party’s platform in 2012 and booed the judgment that the measure to do so had passed. But now it’s official:

The Democrats are the party of the Devil.

Here’s the story, courtesy of CBS Boston:

Ruth Provencal is a devout Catholic whose favorite phrase when saying goodbye has now thrust her into controversy.

“I would say ‘thank you for voting, God Bless you,’” Provencal explains.

After serving as an election volunteer five times, the 67-year-old was told to stay home on November 4th, sacked by Derry [New Hampshire] officials who argued that her reference to God might be an illegal effort to influence voters.

“I just can’t believe that you’re telling me that I can’t say the word God,” she told the elections official. “Then she said ‘no you can’t.’”

My, it didn’t take long for the Democrat mantra to change from “Yes, we can!”

The article actually states that Derry election officials believe saying “God bless you” could be electioneering. Now, let me apply a little white male linear logic here. Since we don’t yet have a Satanist Party on the ballot (give it time) and I don’t believe one of the other minor parties was the concern, I’m going to take a wild guess and say it was thought that the alleged electioneering could be an influence with respect to one of the two major parties. And here’s what this means:

One of our major parties is so closely associated with godlessness, with evil, with everything so antithetical to the divine that even the mere mention of God’s name in a polling place constitutes a message in opposition to that party.

I’m going to take another wild guess and assume this party was not thought — even by the liberal election officials — to be the Republican Party.

What’s funny is that I seem to remember another party officially opposed to God. It was once dominant in places such as the Soviet Union, Hungary and Albania and still masquerades as its old self in China. I don’t think it started with “D,” though, but was one letter back.

So should the Democrats henceforth be known as the Demonrats? Will their new symbol be the Pentagram? Will they trade the donkey for the Tasmanian devil? Will their (relatively few) election winners be sworn in this coming January on a book written by Anton LaVey?

This also explains why the Democrats’ campaign tactics seem to perfectly align with occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” It also should shape Republican campaign tactics in future elections. Forget spending millions of dollars on ads, political strategists, data mining and get-out-the-vote efforts. All they really need do is hire an army of exorcists.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

EDITORS NOTE: The featured graphic is courtesy of the Doo Doo Economics blog.

U.S. Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch would be Eric Holder in a skirt!

Discover The Networks has an extensive profile of Loretta Lynch. Lynch’s background and experiences make her ill suited as the next U.S. Attorney General. Here is the Lynch profile on Discover the Networks:

  • Served as a U.S. Attorney under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
  • Believes that the American criminal-justice system is rife with discrimination against nonwhite minorities
  • Favors the use of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders
  • Supports the restoration of voting rights for convicted felons who have completed their prison sentences

Loretta Lynch was born in 1959 in Greensboro, North Carolina. In 1981 she earned an A.B. from Harvard College, where she was an original member of Delta Sigma Theta, a newly formed African-American sorority chapter; another noteworthy original member was Sharon Malone, who subsequently went on to marry Eric Holder.

After completing her undergraduate studies, Lynch in 1984 earned a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was a member of the Black Law Student Association. From 1984-90 she was a litigation associate for the New York-based firm of Cahill, Gordon & Reindel.

In 1989 Lynch donated $550 to the New York City mayoral campaign of Democrat David Dinkins, who defeated both the incumbent Ed Koch (in a five-way Democratic primary) and Republican challenger Rudolph Giuliani (in the general election).

From 1990-2001, Lynch worked in various capacities for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. In 1999 President Bill Clinton appointed her as U.S. Attorney for that District, a position she held until the end of the Clinton administration in January 2001.

In 2000, Lynch was a member of the trial team in the highly publicized United States v. Volpe civil-rights case against a New York City police officer who had brutalized a black Haitian immigrant named Abner Louima. Also during her years in the U.S. Attorney’s office, Lynch was a frequent instructor in the Justice Department’s Criminal Trial Advocacy Program, and she worked as an adjunct professor at the St. John’s University School of Lawduring the fall 2000 semester.

From October 1994 to January 1998, Lynch was a partner with the Connecticut-based Ujamaa Investment Group. “Ujamaa” is a Swahili term signifying a commitment to the practice of “shared wealth” and a repudiation of economic inequality.

Lynch has long opposed capital punishment because of its alleged bias against blacks and Hispanics. “Apply the death penalty to securities fraud prosecutions [committed mostly by whites] and [you’ll] wipe out [the racial disparity] just like that,” she said sarcastically during a 2002 roundtable discussion. But when the defendants of certain crimes are mostly poor and minority, she charged, “you don’t have anybody there on the floor of Congress saying, ‘Wait a minute.’”

By Lynch’s reckoning, capital punishment would be immoral even if it were applied without any racial bias at all—because of the disparate impact it would continue to have on nonwhites, who commit homicides (i.e., the crimes subject to the death penalty) at much higher rates than whites: “That, to me, has always been the problem with the death penalty. Because you can be as fair as possible in a particular case, but the reality is that the federal death penalty is still going to hit harder on certain groups.”

In 2002 Lynch began an eight-year stint as a partner with the New York law firm of Hogan & Hartson, where her practice focused on commercial litigation, white-collar criminal defense, and corporate compliance issues. From 2003-05 she served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

In 2008 Lynch initially supported Hillary Clinton‘s presidential campaign. But after Mrs. Clinton was defeated in the Democratic primaries by Barack Obama, Lynch donated a combined $9,200 to Obama For America (later known as Organizing For America and Organizing For Action) and the Obama Victory Fund.

In May 2010, President Obama appointed Lynch to the same post she had held towards the end of the Clinton administration—U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In that capacity, she was responsible for overseeing all federal and civil investigations and cases in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, as well as Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island.

During her four-and-a-half years as U.S. Attorney, Lynch developed a close relationship with Attorney General Eric Holder. In early 2013 she was named chair of Holder’s advisory committee, and she collaborated with the AG in a high-profile Justice Department investigation that ultimately (in July 2014) forced Citigroup to pay a $7 billion fine for having helped trigger the financial crisis of 2008. Specifically, Citigroup was charged with:(a) making mortgage loans that had material defects and a high probability of default, and (b) securitizing and selling pools of these defective loans to investors. Said Lynch: “[A]fter collecting nearly 25 million documents relating to every residential mortgage-backed security issued or underwritten by Citigroup in 2006 and 2007, our teams found that the misconduct in Citigroup’s deals devastated the nation and the world’s economies, touching everyone.” By contrast, Lynch made no mention of the various government policies—most notably the Community Reinvestment Act—which, in the name of social and economic justice, had required banks to knowingly lend money to underqualified borrowers, particularly nonwhite minorities.

In 2012, when the 66-year-old Shiite imam Kareem Ibrahim was sentenced to life-in-prison for the role he had played in a failed plot to firebomb New York’s JFK Airport five years earlier, Lynch said that Ibrahim had “abandoned the true tenants [sic] of his religion” by participating in the conspiracy.

During a 2013 speech which she delivered at the Martin Luther King Center in Long Beach, New York, Lynch asked the young people in the audience: “What is it that makes you feel oppressed? Is it the prison of racism?”

Lynch believes that voter ID laws are part of a racist effort to suppress minority turnout at the polls. “Fifty years after the civil rights movement,” she said in 2013, “we stand in this country at a time when we see people trying to take back so much of what Dr. [Martin Luther] King fought for…. People try and take over the State House and reverse the goals [gains] that have been made in voting in this country.” In line with this view, Lynch emphasized that she was “proud” of the Justice Department for having filed suit against North Carolina’s voter ID laws that “seek to limit our ability to stand up and exercise our rights as citizens.”

Lynch has also suggested that school discipline policies, which result in higher rates of suspension and expulsion for nonwhite children than for whites, are racist. “The dream is still continuing not only in the courts but in our schools,” she told a mostly black audience in 2013. “And we all know, education is the key. And we understand that discipline is important. We understand that rules are important, but we also know that when we sit and look at schools that have these zero-tolerance programs, they are often used, and they take our babies, minority children, black children, Hispanic children, and they put them out of school before they have a chance to learn.” Building on this theme, Lynch praised the Department of Justice for having “gone into the South, although we’re looking further, and brought the first … ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ cases against school districts in Alabama.”

In April 2014 Lynch participated in a panel titled “Strengthening the Relationship Between Law Enforcement and Communities of Color,” along with such notables as Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, and Bill de Blasio. One of the panel’s action items stated: “Remember that racial bias is pervasive. Research has shown that people who are not consciously mistrustful of African Americans or intentionally racist can still behave in a way that is influenced by racial bias.”

In August 2014 Lynch spoke about the need to “eliminate,” from the American criminal-justice system, all forms of “racial discrimination” against “the most vulnerable members of society.” She stated that she and Eric Holder were focused “not just on the prosecution of crime, but on eradicating its root causes as well as providing support for those re-entering society after having paid their debt to it.” Lamenting that the U.S. “currently … imprisons approximately 2.2 million people” who are “disproportionately people of color,” Lynch emphasized the need to “reform … this aspect of our criminal justice system,” which she described as a “drain on both precious resources and human capital.”

Lynch contends that “stringent mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug crimes” should be “reserved [only] for the most serious criminals”—on the premise that, “quite often, less prison can also work to reduce crime.” Advocating the implementation of “alternative programs in place of incarceration,” she stresses the need to “provid[e] formerly incarcerated people with fair opportunities to rejoin their communities and become productive, law-abiding citizens”; to “restore voting rights to those who have served their debt to society, thus ending the chain of permanent disenfranchisement that visits many of them”; and to “identify [and eliminate] policies that result in unwarranted disparities within criminal justice.” Vis à vis the latter, Lynch has supported “the expansion of the federal clemency program,” “the retroactive reduction of penalties for non-violent drug offenders,” and “the reduction in the sentencing disparity” between crimes involving crack cocaine (a drug most often used by poor blacks) and powder cocaine (whose users are typically more-affluent whites.

In addition to her work in government and with private law firms, Lynch also served a stint as an advisory board member with the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

On November 8, 2014, President Obama nominated Lynch to succeed Eric Holder, who had recently announced his intent to step down from the post of attorney general.

RELATED ARTICLE: What Happened to Main

5 Economic Myths That Just Won’t Die by Corey Iacono

A persistent set of economic narratives still plagues us.

Most people get their economic information through Internet memes and hit pieces filled with nonsense. A common theme is that the forceful hand of government is all that is needed to make things right.

For example, everyone “knows” that government laws ended child labor, and that the New Deal ended the Great Depression, but are these actually valid claims?

Here are five such myths that too many people just accept as true.

Myth 1. The idea that economic growth helps the poor is trickle-down economics … it doesn’t actually help them.

In a 2001 paper titled “Growth Is Good for the Poor,” economists Art Kraay and David Dollar of the World Bank found that when average incomes rise, the average incomes of the poorest fifth of society rise proportionately. This result held across regions, periods, income levels, and growth rates. In 2013, more than a decade after their original paper, Kraay and Dollar explored the relationship between economic growth and poverty again, using data from 118 countries over four decades. They came to the same conclusion. According to the economists,

This evidence confirms the central importance of economic growth for poverty reduction … institutions and policies that promote economic growth in general will on average raise incomes of the poor equiproportionally, thereby promoting “shared prosperity” … there are almost no cases in which growth is significantly pro-poor or pro-rich.

This means that policies that enhance economic growth through methods such as limiting the size of government and lowering barriers to international trade are key to alleviating poverty. Economic growth, not transfer programs, is in fact the primary driver of poverty reduction, and this empirical truth has been proved for a long time.

Myth 2. Free trade doesn’t lead to better economic outcomes in the real world.

Paul Krugman once quipped, “If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations ‘I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage’ and ‘I advocate Free Trade.'” However, critics of free trade, such as development economist Ha Joon Chang, have made very odd statements such as this one:

There is a respectable historical case for tariff protection for industries that are not yet profitable. … By contrast, free trade works well only in the fantasy theoretical world of perfect competition.

Comments like these are puzzling because proponents of free trade don’t assume there is perfect competition. They simply recognize that if one country can produce a product at a lower opportunity cost than another, trade between the countries (or individuals) is mutually beneficial. (This is known as the theory of comparative advantage.)

Economists have examined countless times whether or not freer trade leads to greater economic growth. In regard to trade liberalization — reform that lowers barriers to international trade — the evidence consistently shows that such reforms improve economic performance over time.

According to one study that examined 141 trade liberalizations and compared economic performance before and after liberalization (after controlling for confounding factors), “Per capita growth of countries [after]liberalization was some 1.5 percentage points higher than before liberalization, and investment rates were 1.5–2.0 percentage points higher.”

Subsequent research from Antoni Estevadeordal and Alan M. Taylor took the analysis further by comparing growth rates before and after 1990, when a wave of trade liberalizations occurred. The economists divided countries into an experimental group (the countries that liberalized trade regimes) and a control group (those that did not). According to a summary of their research, the authors “find strong evidence that liberalizing tariffs on imported capital and intermediate goods raised growth rates by about one percentage point annually in the liberalizing countries.” Research has also shown that trade liberalization has caused greater economic performance in sub-Saharan Africa, a region desperately in need of growth.

Reforms that result in freer trade generally lead to superior economic outcomes. This is a well-documented observation. Although there may be situations in which freer trade is undesirable, these situations are not the norm, and free trade policies are still the “reasonable rule of thumb,” as Paul Krugman has put it.

Myth 3. The government ended child labor. In a free market, child labor would still exist.

The assertion that government laws and regulations ended child labor is endlessly repeated and often used as “proof” that without such laws, child labor would be pervasive in the market economy. The Economic History Association (EHA) has shown this is not the case:

Most economic historians conclude that [child labor] legislation was not the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, “While bans against child labor are a common policy tool, there is very little empirical evidence validating their effectiveness.”

Not only is there little evidence supporting the effectiveness of these laws; there is evidence that such laws actually make the families they are intended to help worse off. Research on child labor bans in India found that “along various margins of household expenditure, consumption, calorie intake and asset holdings, households are worse off after the [child labor] ban.”

Myth 4. Countries like Sweden and Denmark prove that high taxes don’t harm economic growth.

Saying that high taxation doesn’t harm economic growth because its effects aren’t superficially visible in one country, or a few, is like saying that cigarettes don’t harm an individual’s health because many young and healthy people smoke them and there are no immediately clear detrimental effects. Many factors affect economic growth. In order to see how high taxes affect growth, researchers control for confounding variables and use large national and international data sets.

According to research published by the European Central Bank that used annual data from 1965 to 2007 for 26 economies, “the effect of an increase in taxes on real GDP per capita is negative and persistent: an increase in the total tax rate (measured as the total tax ratio to GDP) by 1% of GDP has a long-run effect on real GDP per capita of –0.5% to –1%.”

Numerous other studies on government size and economic growth have come to the same conclusion. Furthermore, a study of the macroeconomic effects of Danish taxation found that

Danish taxation generates an overall efficiency loss corresponding to a 12 percent reduction in total income. It is possible to reap 4/5 of this potential efficiency gain by going from a high-tax Scandinavian system to a level of taxation in line with low-tax OECD countries such as the United States.

However, even relatively low-taxed countries like the United States are not immune to the detrimental effects of taxation. A seminal paper by Keynesian economists Christina and David Romer found that taxes are often raised during times of economic expansion and cut during times of economic downturn. This tendency makes it harder to observe the effect of taxes on economic growth. However, the Romers found that they could accurately estimate the effects of tax changes by examining those that were undertaken for reasons unrelated to economic growth. According to the Romers’ estimates, “tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.” Specifically, they find that increasing taxation by 1 percent of GDP shrinks GDP by 3 percent!

Overall, it seems clear that higher levels of taxation stifle economic growth and that countries with a higher total tax burden have slower-growing economies than countries with smaller tax burdens, holding other things equal.

Myth 5. Capitalism isn’t economically superior to socialism.

A considerable amount of research has examined how a transition from socialism (or a repressed-market economy) to a market economy (or a freer market economy) — a process known as economic liberalization — affects economic growth.

For example, using data from 140 countries over the time period 1960–2000, economists from Bocconi University compared countries that underwent economic liberalization to those that didn’t. After controlling for other relevant variables, they found that

economic liberalization is good along all dimensions: it is accompanied by better structural policies and better macroeconomic policies, and it is followed by improved economic performance. This timing suggests a causal interpretation, at least with regard to economic outcomes.

Subsequent research published in the Journal of Economic Surveys has found that “there are strong indications that liberalization … stimulates economic growth.” For a specific example, look no further than China.

Research from Oxford University’s economics department has found that China’s economic growth, which has been driving its massive poverty reduction, was fueled by trade liberalization, rapid privatization, and sectorial changes. As a result of these reforms, China’s GDP per capita grew 4.1 percentage points faster than it otherwise would have, lifting millions out of poverty.

A review of over 40 studies on the relationship between economic freedom and economic growth (with economic freedom measured using the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index) found that research consistently demonstrates that freer markets are robustly associated with greater economic performance. Studies have shown that economic freedom causes economic growth; the relationship is not a mere correlation.

Empirical research also finds that “countries can increase the utility of their national resources by approximately 45% simply by converting to market-based economies” and also consistently finds that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.


It is often assumed that government is a tool for creating better economic and social outcomes, but what if government is actually an obstacle to these ends? The evidence cited here suggests that governments cannot simply legislate problems out of existence. In fact, intervention often exacerbates the problems it was meant to solve.

Furthermore, the assertions that traditional economic theories don’t apply to reality are false. Research shows that taxes do distort the economy, growth is good for the poor, and freer trade does lead to greater economic performance.


Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics.

Why the Sarasota Herald-Tribune’s Tom Tryon just doesn’t seem to get it

Opinion Editor for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Tom Tryon did a column titled “Post-election enmity won’t help schools.” Tryon used the word enmity when referring to Bridget Ziegler, a newly elected member of the Sarasota County School Board.

Enmity is defined as, “the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.” You know like being opposed to things that are absurd, and people who are bad or evil.

Tryon is concerned that  in the local community there is “a palpable sense of hostility, enmity and animus.” Tryon wants to be the “can’t we all just get along” Rodney King of Sarasota, Florida. You know, think alike, be alike, don’t stand out from the crowd for your ideas and ideals. Perhaps Tryon should write a letter to President Obama on his enmity toward Republicans, rather than picking on a working mother who is doing her civic duty.

Tryon wants this new school board member to go along to get along. To fully embrace Common Core State Standards (a.k.a. Florida Standards) even though she campaigned against it because teachers and parents are against it. In the name of just getting along Tryon wants this newly elected school board member to abandon those who have enmity toward Common Core.

He wants this school board member to embrace government secrecy and behind closed door “workshop” meetings in the name of being nice.

He wants this new school board member to lovingly embrace the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association that repeatedly used the district email system, even after Superintendent Lori White sent out a warning that it violates district policy, to defeat her. Perhaps district staff member Gary Ferguson, who used his office and the district email system to support Ziegler’s opponent, didn’t get the memo, which he probably wrote?

What about the district staff and SC/TA enmity toward Ziegler?

Tryon wants this school board member to forget what she stands for and stands against in the name of uniformity of purpose.

Tryon wants this school board member to abandon those parents, teachers, administrators and citizens who voted for her in the name of friendship with those on the School Board who openly and publicly attacked her at a behind closed doors school board “workshop.”

Tryon wants this newly elected school board member to forget how her fellow school board member Democrat Shirley Brown and her fellow Republicans Caroline Zucker and Jane Goodwin did everything in their power to undermine her election. Brown used the school district email system to fund raise for her opponent. Zucker brought her opponent to a North Port Republican Party event as her guest. Goodwin did a robo-call endorsement of her opponent. Isn’t three against one bullying?

But let’s let bygones be bygones. Just slip into bed with the enemy and all will be right as rain.

Abandon your principles, says Tryon, and you will be loved. Tryon has one thing right, the 2014 mid-term election is over. But the bad policies of the school board continue. Policies like:

  1. Embracing Common Core State Standards (Florida Standards) that takes away every teachers ability to teach. A centralized one size fits all education system.
  2. Holding school board workshops off camera, throwing government transparency under the bus.
  3. Holding SC/TA negotiations at their offices rather than in the open, live and on camera at the district so all can see.
  4. Putting the tax referendum on an off year March ballot (thereby suppressing the vote), while costing taxpayers $500,000, rather than during the regular November election cycle.
  5. Teaching to the test as required by No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top federal legislation.
  6. Allowing school board members, the district staff, SC/TA and others to use the taxpayer funded district email system for political purposes.

Tryon seems to want a 5-0 vote on everything district staff brings to the board for action. Heaven forbid that any school board member ever questions any district action or school board policy because it is considered unfair, wrong or just plain bad policy by parents, students and ordinary citizens.

Maybe Tryon needs to tell Brown, Zucker and Goodwin to stop the enmity toward those who don’t think like them such as parents and students?

We do agree with a couple of Tryon’s comments like Brown, Zucker and Goodwin avoiding “creating the appearance that the School Board is their private club.” We also like Tryon’s idea, which he took from us,  to make “Union leaders to help themselves and their members by creating their own email system.”

Maybe Tom Tryon is actually reading what we write? No, that can’t be it.

Enmity is a good thing. Marching in lockstep is a bad thing, just as it is in Washington, D.C. and at Sarasota school board meetings. Different ideas must be heard, discussed in a civil manner and then voted on. That is the Constitutional Republican way.

Tryon is trying to use his editorial pen to pound a round peg into a square hole. Good luck with that Tom.

Should Google Run a City? by Mark Lutter

Let the search powerhouse experiment with governance.

Would you want to live in a private city?

No? What if Google were running the city?  Would that change your mind?  Google building and running cities is less crazy than you think.

Google has expressed interest in constructing cities, and Larry Page wants to create autonomous zones that can experiment with social rules. Combined, these two ideas have the potential to transform the world. Institutional change can jumpstart economic growth while competent, efficient administration can ensure those gains are not lost to corruption.

The idea of private cities typically invokes fears of a dystopian future, where malevolent corporations ruthlessly exploit the population for profits. Government is seen as a last defense against private tyranny. However, by replacing a nameless corporation with Google, the thinking changes. Rather than fear predation, we appreciate the benefits of efficient administration.

Companies like Google think long term. They are unlikely to sacrifice their hard-earned reputations for short-term gains. Further, Google is pragmatic. It will think outside the status quo, adopting the best policies to attract residents. Finally, Google is sufficiently big; it will not be intimidated by rent-seekers trying to live off others’ work.

Despite these benefits, many will be skeptical. People living in the United States and Europe tend to have good lives and fairly well-run cities. The recent battles between Uber and taxi cartels show the potential for improvement, but to a Westerner, the benefits of allowing Google to run cities are marginal.

The real potential for Google and others creating private cities is in the developing world. Poor countries are poor because they have predatory governments. These governments prevent their citizens from engaging in entrepreneurship. They also give monopoly privileges to their friends and family, enriching them at the expense of everyone else in society.

These restrictions typically benefit the elite of those societies, condemning the masses to poverty. Without secure property rights and the rule of law, economic development is a pipe dream. Google could offer hope.

Because Google is worldwide and sufficiently well known, it could negotiate with developing nations’ governments for institutional autonomy to run private cities. Governments would merely need to get out of the way. This may seem like a tall order: abdicating power is rare. Luckily, it is already happening.

Honduras passed a law allowing for ZEDEs (zonas de empleo y desarollo económico), or autonomous regions. ZEDEs allow Honduran regions to opt out of civil and commercial law and import a legal system of their choosing. Further, ZEDEs are able to create their own administrative systems, allowing reprieve from corruption.

Honduras is just the start. El Salvador and Costa Rica are considering creating their own autonomous regions. Whether the decision makers at Google choose to get involved is up to them. But Honduras offers a great opportunity to follow the company’s stated goals.


Mark Lutter is finishing his dissertation on proprietary cities at George Mason University. He is also helping to plan a ZEDE in Honduras.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Voters Reject the Green Political Agenda

What the midterm voters wanted was an economy that returned to its average 3.3% annual growth since the end of World War II. For six years of the Obama presidency, growth has all but disappeared. In 2013, as measured by the World Bank, it was barely 1.9% That translated into a lack of jobs, stagnant middle class income, and what Obama correctly called the Great Recession, but could not end.

Instead, in the lead-up to the midterm elections, he was still talking about “climate change” as the greatest threat to the nation and the world. For the voters, however, climate change wasn’t even on its list of priorities and with good reason, there is nothing anyone or any nation can or should do about the great forces of nature that determine what the Earth’s climate will be; starting with the Sun.

The day after the elections two major environmental organizations, the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth (FOE), wrote to their members. Their message was similar and their conclusions were absurd.

“The election’s over and the planet lost,” wrote Erich Pica, FOE president. “The next Congress will be controlled by politicians elected with millions of dollars of the Koch brothers’ oil money—putting at risk the vital environmental protections we’ve fought so hard to achieve.” FOE has more than 2 million activists in 75 nations including the U.S.

What Pica does not mention in his letter is the estimated $85 million spent on six Senate races by what The Hill described as “the nation’s top environmental groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate…”

So the Koch brother’s money is evil, but environmental organizations’ money is okay?

As far as FOE’s Pica is concerned, “The truth is, President Obama hasn’t always done the right thing for the environment. He should have denied the Keystone Pipeline years ago, he should be rolling back unchecked fracking, and he should have taken stronger action on climate both at home and in international negotiations.”

FOE could care less about the thousands of jobs the Keystone pipeline would create, plus the revenue from refining the oil it would transport to the Gulf States. As for fracking, it is not “unchecked.” It has to be done within the context of safety and environmental laws. As for the climate, China and India are just two nations increasing the use of coal to generate the electrical power they need to stimulate industrialization and improve the lives of their citizens by bringing power where he has never been before.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, wrote that “Friends of Big Oil have taken control of the Senate” claiming they have “a 100-day action plan that reads like Big Oil’s wish list. Our opposition is about to have free reign to implement their anti-environment agenda. And approving the Keystone XL pipeline and destroying proposed environmental regulations top their list.”

Oh, really? If the polls and elections are any indicator, a lot of Americans want to see the pipeline construction. As for the “anti-environment agenda”, that too is pure fiction. What Americans oppose is the forced closure of electricity generation plants in the name of a global warming that is not happening. Or a climate change over which no government has any role or control.

To drive home his doom-and-gloom message, Brune added that “Rare species of wildlife already hanging by a threat will not survive this onslaught.” Consider the absurdity of the claim that a Republican controlled Congress will be responsible for species extinction. For good measure, Brune, like the FOE, mentioned the Koch brothers, labeling them “big polluters.” Since when is drilling for oil and providing it to a world that runs on it “pollution”? It’s not. It’s progress that benefits humanity.

Commenting on the elections, Dr. Jay Lehr, the Science Director of The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, characterized them as “the repudiation of the President’s policies” and the nation’s political pundits all agree. Dr. Lehr called for “a bill to require the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline which has bipartisan support and has passed every environmental test.”

Dr. Lehr called on Congress to “require the government to open up public lands to environmentally safe mineral and energy exploration as well as speed up approval of permits to drill and mine for resources on already approved lands. This will ensure our resource independence in both areas for centuries to come.”

High on my list of priorities was reflected by Dr. Lehr’s call for Congress “to take charge of the funding of the Environmental Protection Agency which has gone rogue in efforts to impede virtually all economic development in our nation, and eventually phase out the EPA, passing on its responsibilities to a committee of the whole of our fifty state environmental protection agencies.”

A November 6 article, “Climate change supporters suffer losses”, published in The Hill, reported that “Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn’t fare well on Election Day.” Even so, the Sierra Club’s Brune was quoted saying, “Public support is solidly behind action to tackle the climate crisis. While we have lost friends in Congress, we are gaining them in the streets, as our movement grows stronger and broader.” NOT!

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, echoed Brune’s empty boasts. “Whatever may have driven individual races, the American people want action on climate change.” NOT!

As far as the environment is concerned, it is way down on the list of the voter’s priorities and the change of leadership and control of Congress reflects that. The voters don’t want a lot of vapid, idiotic talk of climate change and other environmental fantasies. They want jobs. They want an economy that will provide them. They want a better future for themselves and their children. And whether they know it or not, they want a conservative approach to government.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Obama’s Obsession with Iran

AA -  Mural US Iranian Embassy

Iranian mural on former US embassy in Tehran.

On November 4, 1979 as part of the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah, a group of “students” seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took sixty of our diplomats hostage. They held them for 444 days until the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Every year since then Iran has celebrated that date as a national holiday. What does that tell you about how its leaders really feel about America?

The negotiations with Iran regarding a nuclear program it insists is only for peaceful use were supposed to be concluded in July, but were extended to this month and, given Iran’s ability to use such negotiations in the past to provide years’ more time to get closer to creating nuclear warheads for its missiles, they could be extended again with any hint from them of “progress.”

We have just learned that President Obama has been secretly writing to the current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an effort to get his blessing for a deal. In 2012, Khamenei called for the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. On a website called Alef, he said that the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification’ to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel and in that the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

Khamanei’s predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, called America “the great Satan” and expressed the belief that “If one permits an infidel to continue in his role as a corrupter of the earth, his moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel and this stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him.” This insane justification of genocide is being ignored by President Obama who, unless he is a Muslim, should be troubled by such fanaticism.

Iraniian Komeinei

Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini.

The first rule of survival is not to negotiate with people who have expressed their intention to kill you. Obama has put the security of America, Israel, and all other nations at risk.

What is curious is Obama’s obsession with Iran that goes back to the earliest months of his first term. In May 2009, he was eager to “begin discussions soon” and believed that “we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction.” They have been moving in the wrong direction since 1979. On October 1, 2009, Obama said, “Our patience is not unlimited.” It is now 2014 and he has been secretly writing Ayatollah Khamanei.

For six years Obama has been proclaiming that negotiations will yield a result that everyone else knows cannot be achieved. Iran’s nuclear program is not peaceful.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies publishes an “Iran Press Review” in which it reports on what Iranian ayatollahs and political leaders are saying. The most recent report on November 8 included remarks by Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami who said, “Even if the nuclear issue is resolved, the hatred of arrogance (by the United States) will not leave the souls of the people of Iran and the screams of death to America of the Iranian people is loud.”

The good news is that the leaders of a Republican Congress that takes power in January have made it clear that they will not permit Obama to sign off on a bad deal with Iran.

In a June edition of The Washington Times, Clifford D. May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies wrote that the current Supreme Leader and other Iranian politicians and its military “are convinced that the U.S. government is as feckless and self-deluding today as it was” when Khomenei derided its failure to take strong action to secure the return of its diplomats. “When the threat of force is credible,” said May, “the use of force often becomes unnecessary.”

Why would Ayatollah Khomenei or any other leader of the global jihad believe they have anything to fear from President Obama?

Current events bear this out. The President who got elected by promising to remove all of our troops from Iraq and leave a small remnant in Afghanistan has gone to Congress with a request to fund 1,500 more troops be sent to Iraq as “advisors.” Claiming they will not engage in ground combat with the Islamic State is delusional and deceptive.

Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, writing in November of last year, pointed out that “the American goal for the accord was that Iranians not ‘advance their program’ of building a uranium nuclear bomb (and perhaps a plutonium bomb too); the apparent deal exactly permits such advancement, plus sanctions relief to Tehran worth about US $9 billion.”

“This wretched deal,” wrote Dr. Pipes “offers one occasion when comparison with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 is valid. An overeager Western government, blind to the evil cunning of the regime it so much wants to work with, appeases it with concessions that will come back to haunt it. Geneva and Nov. 24 will be remembered along with Munich and Sep 29.”

On November 8, the Associated Press reported that a confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, concluded that “Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures” to conclude that its nuclear weapons program is not moving ahead.

Obama keeps moving the U.S. and its negotiation partners toward a world in which Iran will announce they have nuclear weapons. Ignoring history and all the reports that confirm Iran’s intentions, he is putting the world at the greatest risk it has ever faced.

Obama’s obsession with an Iranian “deal” and his domestic and foreign policy decisions reveal a man who has been judged by the voters to be unfit, mentally and intellectually, to be President.

© Alan Caruba, 2

Congressional Black Caucus: Blacks Own Worst Enemy

Black Democrats are the most despised people on the face of this earth and they have worked hard to deserve this designation.

They vote upwards of 90 percent for Democratic candidates for president and get very little in exchange for their loyalty. They constantly deliver victory to Democrats, only to see the spoils of victory go to other groups: homosexuals, illegals, and White women.

Jimmy Carter had very few Blacks in his administration. Bill Clinton had more, but threw Lani Guinier, one of his closest personal friends and a top campaign supporter, under the bus because of threats by Republicans not to confirm her as Assistant Attorney General. Obama has even refused to interview a Black female jurist for consideration to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, I was thoroughly stunned by the comments of the Democratic chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) during their annual conference two weeks ago here in D.C.

Here is a direct quote from her:

“I hope you will spend this much time with your local elected officials. I guarantee you most people in this room have not done that. With your school board, with your city council, and so then you won’t be calling me talking about somebody didn’t come and pick up your trash. You need to call your city council person for that.

And I say it that way because, I need you to understand we all have a role to play and the Congressional Black Caucus cannot do it all by ourselves. Everybody has to do their part …The black caucus fights for you every day. Even when you won’t fight for yourself. We fight for you. Whether its immigration or education, whether it’s food stamps or housing, we fight for you every day. So my message to you is to contain your complaining.”

Now mind you, the CBC is the same group that criticized Obama for telling them to stop complaining at their annual dinner in September of 2011, “Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes; Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We have work to do.”

Isn’t it amazing that both Fudge and Obama’s tone to this group of Blacks was extremely condescending? They both showed a great deal of disdain for their own people. Now just suppose that a White Democrat had said the same thing. These very same Blacks would have lost their minds screaming bloody racism.

With Fudge and Obama it may not be racism, but it is liberal elitism at its finest.

Fudge claims that the CBC is fighting for Blacks even when they won’t fight for themselves. Really? How is supporting amnesty for illegals helping the Black community? Every analysis done has concluded that amnesty would drastically increase the Black unemployment rate. How is denying poor mothers the power to choose which schools to send their kids to helping better the lives of those forced to attend subpar schools? I find it ironic that most CBC members refuse to send their kids to public schools. There are more Americans on food stamps now than at any point in our country’s history and Blacks are disproportionately represented in this number.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the past five years, the number of households on food stamps has greatly increased. In fiscal year 2009 – Oct. 1, 2008 through Sept. 30, 2009 — the number of households on food stamps was 15,232,115. Five years later, in 2013, that amount had increased by 51.3 percent to reach 23,052,388 households (or 20 percent of all households). Twenty two percent of Blacks receive food stamps during this time period, though Blacks are 13 percent of the U.S. population.

How does the CBC expect Blacks to be able to afford to buy a home, if they are promoting policies that continue to keep the unemployment rate at high levels?

Fudge and the CBC seem to talk about fighting for welfare as though it should be a badge of honor. Would it not make more sense to brag about how their policies are increasing employment opportunities for Blacks, therefore those needing food stamps is going down. That would be worth celebrating.

If Republicans would take this message into the Black community, not only will we take over the Senate; but we will win the White House with double digit support from the Black community. Would this not be a “conservative” approach to dealing with some of the issues affecting the Black community? Would this not be a worthy expenditure of campaign funds?

The Black vote is up for grabs during this congressional election and beyond. The question for Republicans is who will turn a deaf ear to their White consultants who constantly tell them that the Black vote is unattainable? Just food for thought.

Ferguson, Missouri: Cops or Thugs?

To stand or not to stand with America’s law enforcement officers, that is the question. Racist thugs are attacking American law enforcement officers in Ferguson, Missouri. Which side are you on? The cops or the thugs?


Ferguson protesters put a $5000 bounty on Darren Wilson; donated by an investor

Black teacher goes off on ‘crackers, kill yourselves’ rant; ‘Ask why she’s still employed’

Democrats reveal the ‘secret’ of the Republican win

In an email to supporters, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced the “secret” behind the Republican win on November 4th, 2014 – a day that will live in infamy for the loyal followers of President Obama.

No, it is not his failed domestic policy that has left tens of millions of Americans without jobs. It is not the illegal alien invasion bringing with it the deadly EV-D68 virus into public school classrooms across America. It is not the mishandling of the Ebola virus pandemic that has for the first time reached America’s shores. It is not Obamacare, the stone walling of the Keystone Pipeline, climate change, the inability to stop the Islamic State and Iranian nuclear program, Russia in the Balkans and Ukraine or the administration throwing Israel under the Palestinian bus. Its not even the unsustainable national debt and failed stimulus program.

It is “obstructionism.”

The email features the below image of Paul Krugman:

krugman obstructionism

The DCCC email states, “In other words, the Republicans broke Washington. Then, they spent millions of dollars of secret money running against a broken Washington.” I appears the voters know who”broke Washington” and voted accordingly on November 4th.

Just who are the Republicans obstructing and sabotaging? Why President Obama and his Collectivist agenda. Paul Krugman got it right, as did the American people. While President Obama was not on the ballot his policies were, as the President so eloquently pointed out.

The “sabotage” of the Obama agenda was and remains priority one for the lame duck 113th Republican House of Representatives and will continue under the new Republican majority in the U.S. Senate and expanded Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 114th Congress. This strategy will continue until the 2016 Presidential elections when it is expected that Republicans will offer a stark alternative to the Collectivism of President Obama.

As Redstate’s Erick Erickson noted the American people got a taste of socialism under Obama. It is now clear they did not like it and spit it out.

The DCCC email concludes that in President Obama’s final two years, “There’s no sugarcoating it. Full Republican control of Congress won’t be easy.”

Who will become the obstructionist when legislation is passed by both houses of the 114th Congress and placed on the Presidents desk for signature?

For Democrats this has always been about Obama. For Republicans it has always been about Obama.

Its the President’s policies, stupid!



DNC chief: We have a problem – The Hill

Poll Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein shouldn’t run again, majority of voters say – LA Times