Virginia: Property Rights versus Muslim Supremacy

A battle is going on in exurban Henrico County in central Virginia between legacy property rights of a private road and expansion of the Islamic Center of Richmond (ICR). The ICR website estimates there are 1,500 Muslim residents in the West End of Richmond. The battle is not about freedom to worship protected under the First Amendment and federal laws granting exemption waivers from local land zoning laws. Instead it is about the abuse of the courts through lawfare to create a Muslim preserve in Central Virginia through force majeure, harassment and intimidation. The actors in the dispute are Sylvia Hoehns-Wright, an expert horticulturalist and author versus the land agent for the ICR, Yunus Vohra, a commercial property developer embroiled in bankruptcy proceedings and litigation. Vohra contended at an August 2014 County Planning hearing that the delay in rezoning applications by the ICR reflected anti-Muslim bias.

Among the few national groups endeavoring to raise public awareness of the Hoehns-Wright litigation battle brought by Vohra, ICR land agent, is the National Security Task Force of the Lisa Benson Show airing Sundays on KKNT AM960 The Patriot.

On September 28, 2015, a four day trial will be held on a complaint brought by Vohra, a land agent for the ICR, against Wright. A State Court proceeding held in Henrico County on August 7, 2015 ruled against Wright who filed a compel order on February 18, 2015 seeking discovery rights to information providing the basis for the complaint brought by Vohra. Judge Lee H. Harris in the State Circuit court ruled in favor of Vohra on the grounds that his attorney’s review of the information was sufficient to proceed to trial as he trusted his representations as an officer of the court. Vohra has ratcheted up the litigation by filing a witness list that amounts to a dragnet of local and state planning officials up to and including the Commonwealth Attorney assigned to Henrico County, Virginia, Shannon Taylor. They allegedly support Vohra’s position that the ICR is being subjected to a conspiracy laced with alleged racist overtones; specious on its face as Islam is a belief system, its adherents don’t constitute a race. The trial in Henrico County State Circuit Court will culminate a four year battle for possession of a legacy private road providing access and egress for nine residences in the subdivision of Hoehns Lakeview Farms in Henrico County.

The complaint was originally brought in November 2013 by Vohra against the dominant landholder, Ms. Sylvia Hoehns-Wright, an expert horticulturalist, and her neighbors seeking possession of the private Hoehns Road. It was expanded in January 2014 to include others, some who reside in the complex and others who do not reside in the area, alleging that they and Wright constituted a “business conspiracy” depriving Vohra and his ICR invitees of egress to an adjacent parcel to build a Muslim village. Wright and counsel contended in a June 2014 hearing in state court that the ICR already has sufficient egress to their property. The ICR complaint is seeking treble damages and reimbursement of the costs of the litigation estimated at $1.5 million and possession of the private Hoehns Road. Problem is that Vohra’s request for a survey was turned down by the County Planning Commission.

Yunus Vohra of ICR trespassing on Hoehns Road.

Wright and her neighbors have had repeated violations of active trespass on the private road by Vohra and ICR members who have accused Wright and county planning board members of racism for blocking access and development of the property. In the run up to the September 2015 civil trial Vohra filed a police report accusing Wright of violating his property by planting ornamental flowers on the road’s periphery which is an activity protected by “property rights” recorded in the Henrico County records room. To add to the already toxic climate, one of Wright’s witnesses reported finding a dead snake and mole, positioned in such a manner to represent Islamic symbols of an evil intent and theft. The expanded complaint, coupled with evidence of aggressive trespass and threats of intimidation are in furtherance of the ICR’s objective of block busting the subdivision so that it can develop a so-called Muslim village on an adjacent parcel to the private Hoehns Road. The legal definition of “block busting” is:

The practice of illegally frightening homeowners by telling them that people who are members of a particular race, religion, or national origin are moving into their neighborhood and that they should expect a decline in the value of their property. The purpose of this scheme is to get the homeowners to sell out at a deflated price.

An unscrupulous real estate agent will subsequently sell the vacated homes to minority group members at an inflated price, thereby obtaining a large profit. Fair access to housing is defeated by blockbusting.

Map of Hoehns Road. Source: WTVR

The rights to the easements present-day known as Hoehns Road were granted to Ms. Wright’s father in 1939 by his mother under Virginia’s “quiet possession” laws. The original property was acquired by Ms. Wrights’ Quaker family who settled there in 1838. Ms. Wright was granted the land and its easements rights in 1983. In 2011 a relative sold seven acres with several small outbuildings to Vohra, who then gifted half of the property to the ICR for construction of a 31,000 square foot mega mosque complex, inclusive of sanctuary, Muslim school and community center. Ms. Wright contested the original County approval in 2012 of the ICR project and the County scaled down the size of the plan to 10,000 square feet. Wright’s neighbors, on her behalf, filed a request in June 2012 with former US House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. He submitted the question on the dispute to the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division then headed by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, now Labor Secretary in the Obama Administration. Perez replied in a letter dated September 5, 2012 sent to Cantor, he determined that the dispute involved property rights and not exemption waivers from local land zoning under the Federal Religious Land Use and Incarcerated Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). In his letter to Cantor, Perez concluded:

Complaints related to this site appear to be the result of a failure to be respectful of the property rights of nearby property owners and the surrounding community’s expectation of public safety and welfare. While Henrico County is operating under a consent decree issued by the United District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia related to a dispute to rezone property to build a mosque on Impala Drive, the Hungary Road site’s issues fall outside of this purview. Enforcement of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) should not interfere with the County’s standard regulations and procedures.

According to a report on RLUPIA cases the U.S. Department of Justice:

RLUIPA, enacted in 2000, contains a number of different provisions protecting churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other places of worship from discrimination and undue interference with religious exercise through application of zoning and landmarking laws.

The consent decree involving mosque building in Henrico County that Perez referred to was entered into the Eastern Federal District Court of Virginia a year earlier on September 12, 2011 involved a dispute that arose over an application for a mosque in 2008. The background and scope of the consent decree created the basis for County Planning Department reviews imposing diversity training for officials and staff was summarized in this USDOJ RLUIPA case report:

The case arose from the county’s denial of a 2008 application for construction of a mosque by 1241 Associates, LLC, a Muslim organization. The government’s complaint, which was filed with the court along with a proposed consent decree, alleged that the county’s denial of the rezoning application was based on the religious bias of county officials and to appease members of the public who, because of religious bias, opposed the construction of the mosque. The complaint further alleged that the county treated the Muslim organization differently than non-Muslim groups that regularly have been granted similar rezoning requests.

As part of the settlement, the county agreed to treat the mosque and all religious groups equally and to publicize its non-discrimination policies and practices. The county also agreed that its leaders and various county employees will attend training on the requirements of RLUIPA. In addition, the county will report periodically to the Justice Department.

Based on a legal memorandum prepared for a Brentwood mosque application in Williamson County Tennessee, existing RLUIPA case law will not prevent Henrico County, like many other localities in the same quandary across America, from using existing police powers to conduct background investigations of mega-mosque applications.

Trashed Hoehns Road No Trespassing Signs.

The exurban area in Henrico County, the locus of the ICR civil trial proceedings against Wright and subdivision neighbors is zoned as mixed agricultural and residential lands. Following the acquisition of the land by ICR Wright filed complaints with the County of traffic and excessive unrestricted parking on the site for observances using the existing outbuildings on the property. Some have questioned this activity at the ICR as amounting to “parking Jihad.” Signs on the private Hoehns Road warning about trespassing were frequently defaced and trashed. Vohra and other ICR members have been photographed in episodes of aggressive trespass blocking passage by Wright and neighbors.

Watch this September 4, 2015 CBS Channel 6 WTVR News Richmond, Virginia video interview with Sylvia Hoehns-Wright:

Vohra, the land agent for the ICR who applied for their plan of development, as principal in a local motel property limited liability corporation, Shree Arihant, has been caught up in a web of litigation arising from the default on a $1.75 million loan with the former Bank of Richmond for acquisition of the Economy Inn located in the so-called Diamond district of Richmond. Richmond BizSense (RBS) reported in January 2014 that Shree Arihant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Dec. 27, 2013 ahead of a scheduled foreclosure auction of the Economy Inn. Shree Arihant president Yunus Vohra also controls Shaan LLC, an entity that previously owned the Red Carpet Inn. Vohra lost the rights to use the Red Carpet and Scottish Inns names in 2012, In July 2014. RBS reported the auction of the Economy Inn property in bankruptcy to satisfy the creditors of the defaulted debt with Shree Arihant principal Vohra alleging he had two offers of $2 million and $1.45 million for the property.

A check of the Justicia website revealed further commercial litigation involving Vohra, Shree Arihant and Shaan, LLC:

  1. Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Shree Arihant of Richmond, Inc. et al  for trademark infringement, April 9, 2010 Fourth Circuit Virginia District Court;
  2. Hospitality International, Inc. et al v. Shaan, LLC et al for trademark infringement, June 18, 2013 Virginia Fourth District Court; and,
  3. DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. VOHRA  for Unlawful Reception Broadcast Signal i.e., Satellite, Third Circuit Pennsylvania Eastern District Court.

Then there are questions about the original land acquisition transaction by Vohra for the ICR in 2011. How was it financed as there was apparently no title insurance purchased until after the sale by Wright’s relatives to Vohra? Further, there is the matter of tax treatment of the gift of the acquired property conveyed by Vohra to the ICR.

The forthcoming four-day trial in the Henrico State Circuit Court on September 28th will be preceded by a pre-trial conference. Without discovery of the underlying documentation and depositions of the drag net of witnesses listed in Vohra’s amended plaintiff complaint against Wright et.al., how could this upcoming trial begin? The outcome of which, in the absence of the facts, might result in the forced sale of the residences in the Hoehns Lakeview Farm subdivision at distressed values should the jury issue a decision in favor of Vohra. Any adverse decision reached in the jury trial would not be a victory for freedom of religious practice. Instead, it would constitute a victory for lawfare tactics by local Muslim leadership at the Islamic Center of Richmond seeking to create a Sharia compliant enclave at the cost of residents in the Hoehns Farm subdivision.

Following the US Department of Justice consent decree entered into with Henrico County in the Eastern Federal District Court in September 12, 2011 regarding land zoning waivers under RLUIPA for creation of mosques in central Virginia, a public letter was issued by the clergy association of the County. The letter expressed a welcome to Muslims establishing mosques in Henrico County signed by ministers and pastors of various Protestant denominations, the Catholic archdiocese and rabbis of local synagogues. As exhibited by the current litigation launched by Vohra on behalf of the ICR, this is hardly a grateful gesture to the residents of the Hoehns Lakeview Farms Subdivision for the welcome sought by the clergy of Henrico County, Virginia for the Richmond west end Muslim community.

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

Florida Senator Bill Nelson was against illegal immigration before he was for it

I was sent an interesting email with an attached letter from Florida Senator Bill Nelson sent to Don O’Nesky, one of his constituents, in in May 2006. The subject of the original letter from Senator Nelson was his stand on illegal immigration.

In the letter Senator Nelson states, “I believe the U.S. needs a smart, realistic plan to address illegal immigration – one that protects our borders and insures all immigrants play by the rules.” Nelson in his 2006 letter wanted to “deport” those who don’t “play by the rules.” Sounds somewhat like what Donald Trump is saying today.

In an email to Senator Nelson, reminding him of what he said, O’Nesky notes:

Senator Bill Nelson

FAX: 202-228-2183

Dear Senator Nelson:

Re: Illegal Alien/Immigration Issues

On May 23, 2006 we received the attached letter [below] from you agreeing that we have an illegal alien/immigration problem.  You indicated “we need to enforce our existing laws.”  Plus you pointed out additional things that needed to be done to protect the border.  You implied these items would be on the table when ‘the Senate considers this issue.’

Well, next spring will complete a decade since that letter was sent out and not only has the situation not been fixed, it is much, much worse.

At this rate, in another decade we will not have a border.  And as a reminder a country that does not enforce its border is no longer a free and independent nation.

This is a serious issue that has needed fixing for a very long time and it must be fixed now!

Sincerely,

Don O’Nesky

It seems politicians in general, and Democrats like Senator Nelson in particular, are willing to change their policy positions like the weather in the Sunshine State. With President Obama opening the U.S. borders and allowing increasing numbers of refugees from Muslim countries into local communities, Senator Nelson has reconsidered his position?

Here is the original letter sent to Senator Nelson:letter from fl senator nelson on immigration

Obama’s Mountain Sized Climate Denial

mountain of climate evidence obamaPresident Obama seems to have missed the three absolutes about the climate: 1) the climate changes; 2) the changes are cyclical; and 3) there is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles.

President Obama issued dire warnings of the climate changes such as famine, migration, melting ice, sea level changes, natural disasters and flooding. These all are the effects of the climate changing. The cause is the natural cycles of the climate changing.

The only thing mankind can do about climate change is prepare for the changes.

Paul Driessen, TownHall, in a column titled “Climate issues we do need to address” writes:

We need to fix the climate of fraud, corruption, and policies that kill jobs, hope and people.

[ … ]

Battered economies continue to struggle. Investment banks are pulling out of developing countries. An already exploding and imploding Middle East now confronts a nuclear arms race and human exodus.

Complying just with federal regulations already costs American businesses and families $1.9 trillion per year, the Competitive Enterprise Institute calculates. That’s more than all 2014 personal and corporate income tax receipts combined – and Obama bureaucrats issued 3,554 new rules and regulations last year.

EPA’s 2,691-page Clean Power Plan is designed to eliminate coal mining and coal-fired power plants – and minimize natural gas substitutes. The CPP requires that gas use can increase by only 22% above 2012 levels by 2022, and just 5% per year thereafter. On top of that, new natural gas-fueled generating units that replace coal-fired power plants absurdly do not count toward state CO2 reduction mandates.

The Daily Signal reports:

Katie Tubb wrote earlier this week on President Obama’s trip to Alaska:

President Obama gave a doom and gloom speech yesterday at the Global Leadership in the Arctic (GLACIER) conference in Alaska to build momentum for the U.N. climate deal in Paris this December.

So far less than one third of countries have submitted plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions by the Wall Street Journal’s count.

According to Obama, “Climate change is happening faster than we’re acting” and the world is facing a future of more fires, more melting, more warming, more suffering.

But there are at least two major problems with his focus on global warming as he’s presented it in Alaska.

  1. Ignoring Evidence On Climate Change

Obama continues to ignore science that doesn’t fit his narrative and has ignored sound evidence from people who disagree with him. Many of the environmental trends Obama has warned of do not appear to fit current realities.

In his speech he warned that,

“If [current] trend lines continue the way they are, there’s not going to be a nation on this earth that’s not going to be impacted negatively…More drought, more floods, rising sea levels, greater migration, more refugees, more scarcity, more conflict.”

global-warming-lies-heartland-institute

Click on the image for the full Heartland Institute report.

However, Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Institute for Technology and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing over “very substantial disagreement about climate change that arises from:

  • Insufficient observational evidence
  • Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. models)
  • Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
  • Assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance
  • Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science

All this leaves multiple ways to interpret and reason about the available evidence.”

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Mt. Baker glaciers disappearing? A response to the Seattle Times

Report: The Top 10 Global Warming Lies of the Left

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Barack Obama, right, accompanied by Secretary of State John Kerry, left, speaking at the Global Leadership in the Arctic: Cooperation, Innovation, Engagement and Resilience (GLACIER) Conference at Dena’ina Civic and Convention Center in Anchorage, Alaska, Monday, Aug. 31, 2015. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Study: Criminals Don’t Get Guns From Legal Sources

police gusnNumerous studies conducted by academic researchers and by the federal government have shown that criminals do not use legal markets to obtain guns. And now we have more evidence of this reality, this time looking at criminals in Chicago.

Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Pollack conducted interviews with criminals being held in the Cook County Jail.  Their primary findings were that criminals get guns from their “social network,” i.e. friends and persons known to them, but generally not from the various legal sources available to them.

They do not buy guns in gun stores.  They do not get guns at gun shows. They do not buy them from Internet sources.  The study even found that criminals only rarely steal guns.

Cook and colleagues also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know.  Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

The findings were clear.  Criminals do not engage in activities that would make them subject to any sort of a “universal” background check requirement or any of the other common proposals put forth by the anti-gun crowd.  As usual, this study illustrates that laws and regulations only impact the law-abiding.

So what did these findings lead the researchers to conclude?  If you thought the “obvious,” you’d be disappointed.

They concluded that since criminals do not hold guns long, “disrupting” the supply chain would have a positive effect on criminal gun use. That seems like a safe conclusion driven more by common sense than any evidence from an expensive academic study.  But how this “disruption” can be achieved is not spelled out or suggested.

Of course, the authors refuse to offer the obvious conclusion many will draw from their results: expanding background checks would have no impact on the criminal acquisition of guns.  Since these criminals do not use gun stores, gun shows, or even legal private gun sellers, there is no point in the criminal supply chain where a background check would make any difference whatsoever.

But these researchers could not admit that glaring reality.

Instead of admitting that their own research argues against the primary goal of the anti-gun movement right now — expanded “universal” background checks — the authors reveal their pre-established bias.

It’s Almost Too Late America

It does seem as if the United States of America has devolved rom the land of the free and home of the brave into the land of the hemmed in and home of the cowards.  More and more, sovereign United States citizens are witnessing a literal unraveling of the very pillars of society, in particular, segments of the government and the economy.  Of course, the usual suspects are taxes that are too high, and regulations that are too many.  Elsewhere America is being plagued by knuckle dragging cowardly crooks ambushing police officers who are simply doing their jobs.

Racial tensions are being stretched to the point of almost breaking.  Primarily because the creepy black lives matter goons and your garden variety of thugs have been advertising their hatred of police officers and white people.   As of the writing of this column, the president of the United States has shown very little regard or concern for the fallen members of the thin blue line, who have fallen victim to thugs who are emboldened by Obama’s general disregard for the rule of law level.

Wherever one looks almost every aspect of society has been reversed and that is causing a general deconstruction of the very important fabric of society. Recently China conducted military operations and sailed war vessels off the coast of Alaska, while president Obama war there stressing over climate change and Glacier conditions.  Iran is laughing now that American congressional democrats have rallied to give Obama the OK to sign an agreement with Iran that endangers both America and Israel.

Other than Jimmy Carter who at least tried to get American hostages released from Iran, No other president in history comes close to Mr. Obama’s lack of real concern, regarding United States military preparedness.  Our economy has been in a non-recovery recovery for years and could soon collapse under the upcoming onslaught of the rights inhibiting Obamacare and continued government debt.

I have noticed how Obama policies, rhetoric and minions in the streets throughout America are instigating a massive age of division that rivals the civil war era.  This is all playing right into the hands of  puppet masters like George Soros who are utilizing their immense wealth and influence to literally bring about nationwide destruction via Agenda 21 for example.  One major aspect of Agenda 21 is the removal of your right to bear arms for the protection of yourself and your family.  Agenda 21 is also designed to help undermine United States sovereignty.

But the sad fact is that America did not have to find herself in the not so lofty position she is in today.  Many of the founding fathers left numerous warnings about what would occur if “We the People” no longer operated according to the principles that made her great.

To put it bluntly, our nation has turned her back on everything that led here to her past glory.  The government is now an aggressive enemy against those who merely want to live according to the Bill of Rights and the sovereign laws of God.  Even the majority of Christian churches have become non-influencing shadows of their former selves.  As a result, we now have throngs of Americans running around seeking warped interpretations of freedom and morality.

They now think the freedom to burn down businesses, or house illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities is freedom.  Others believe that preventing the free exercise of Christian beliefs on behalf of unnatural marriage couplings is freedom. Still, more believe that engaging in pedophile activities is freedom.  Yet others stupidly think they are free to beat people to a pulp because they happen to be white.

Because of a lack of enough authentic instruction on freedom as recognized in the founding documents of this nation, the interpretation of freedom has been corrupted, which has led to a dissolving of our republic into a mob ruled democracy.   So now, the United States is no longer one of the top five nations of real freedom on earth.

The bottom line is that if “We the People” do not seek God’s forgiveness for tarnishing this most blessed nation, the evil plots and plans of president Obama and others against this nation will be allowed to come to full fruition.

It is not yet to late America, but it is getting very, very close.

New York’s Taxi Cartel Is Collapsing — Now They Want a Bailout! by Jeffrey A. Tucker

An age-old rap against free markets is that they give rise to monopolies that use their power to exploit consumers, crush upstarts, and stifle innovation. It was this perception that led to “trust busting” a century ago, and continues to drive the monopoly-hunting policy at the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department.

But if you look around at the real world, you find something different. The actually existing monopolies that do these bad things are created not by markets but by government policy. Think of sectors like education, mail, courts, money, or municipal taxis, and you find a reality that is the opposite of the caricature: public policy creates monopolies while markets bust them.

For generations, economists and some political figures have been trying to bring competition to these sectors, but with limited success. The case of taxis makes the point. There is no way to justify the policies that keep these cartels protected. And yet they persist — or, at least, they have persisted until very recently.

In New York, we are seeing a collapse as inexorable as the fall of the Soviet Union itself. The app economy introduced competition in a surreptitious way. It invited people to sign up to drive people here and there and get paid for it. No more standing in lines on corners or being forced to split fares. You can stay in the coffee shop until you are notified that your car is there.

In less than one year, we’ve seen the astonishing effects. Not only has the price of taxi medallions fallen dramatically from a peak of $1 million, it’s not even clear that there is a market remaining at all for these permits. There hasn’t been a single medallion sale in four months. They are on the verge of becoming scrap metal or collector’s items destined for eBay.

What economists, politicians, lobbyists, writers, and agitators failed to accomplished for many decades, a clever innovation has achieved in just a few years of pushing. No one on the planet could have predicted this collapse just five years ago. Now it is a living fact.

Reason TV does a fantastic job and covering what’s going on with taxis in New York. Now if this model can be applied to all other government-created monopolies, we might see genuine progress toward a truly competitive economy. After all, it turns out that the free market is the best anti-monopoly weapon ever developed.

Jeffrey A. Tucker
Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

White House, Media Mislead on Crime Trends, Ignore Evidence that Could Save More Lives

Tragedy strikes – and the White House immediately shifts into exploitation mode, trying to use raw emotion to push “solutions” that don’t fit the facts. From Charles C. W. Cooke at National Review comes a timely reminder, however, that despite well-publicized crimes, the nation as a whole is getting safer and less violent.

As Mr. Cooke notes, the U.S. firearm homicide rate peaked in 1993 and has fallen dramatically since then. Meanwhile, he adds correctly, gun control has been rolled back and the number of firearms in private hands has increased dramatically. Yet 88% of the public were unaware of favorable crime trends in a May 7, 2013, Pew Research Center Poll. Mr. Cooke attributes this knowledge gap, in part, to the increasing prevalence of “round-the-clock news” and more powerful forms of social media.

It’s a sad commentary that more news and more communication may have somehow led to greater ignorance on important matters of public policy. Your NRA, for its part, has been doing its level best to keep the record straight, including with the reports mentioned here and here.

Yet it’s no accident on gun control advocates’ part that they mislead the public on the true state of affairs. As we’ve mentioned before, a PR firm hired to produce a gun control messaging guide advises, “Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence, not the political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics.” It also counsels advocates to act quickly after a highly-publicized event, while emotions are at their highest. As for the facts, gun control advocates are told, “Don’t wait for them.” Instead, “The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time.”

Once again, sadly, we see that advice in action. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, for example, was using Wednesday’s televised murders in Roanoke to call for universal background checks, even before the suspect had been apprehended and before news emerged that the perpetrator had, in fact, passed a background check to buy the gun he used.

Evil and violence are terrible things, and Americans understandably react with horror and sadness when confronted by them. Yet denying reality and exploiting emotions do not solve problems. Ensuring that peaceable, responsible people have the means to defend themselves is why NRA remains resolute in its mission to defend and protect the Second Amendment.

Rather than promoting “solutions” that offer false promises, like “universal” background checks, policy makers should study what’s working redouble their efforts on those fronts. Dismissing the crime deterring benefits of firearm ownership is neither smart nor compassionate. Empowering good people to defend themselves against violence is, and this defining principle will continue to drive everything that NRA does.

President Obama’s Two Americas

The two Americas phrase referred to social stratification in American society, made famous in a 2004 speech by former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards. Fast forward to today and we see the realities of President Obama’s two Americas. Obama’s  two Americas is more than the haves and have-nots (i.e. 99% anarchist movement). Much more.

Perhaps President Obama’s two Americas is best understood in the context of the slaughter of two CBS employees by Vester Lee Flanagan, an unemployed angry black homosexual.

vester-lee-flanagan

Vester Lee Flanagan (a.k.a. Bryce Williams)

Flanagan (a.k.a. Bryce Williams) slaughtered an unarmed white female reporter and her white cameraman in Virginia. Pierre Thomas, Jack Cloherty, Jack Date and Mike Levine via ABC’s Good Morning America, report:

Sources familiar with the investigation tell ABC News that in his attack, Flanagan used a Glock 19 — a firearm similar to one that Cho used in his mass attack.

In Flanagan’s often rambling letter to authorities, family and friends, he writes of a long list of grievances. In one part of the document, Flanagan calls it a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family.”

He says he has been attacked by black men and white females. He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man. He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work.

[ … ]

He chronicles the “tough times” he’s faced, including some “financial crashes.” He says he used to work as a male escort but, “I am proud of it” because he “made thousands.”

alison-parker-shooting

Allison Parker moments before being shot by Vester Lee Flanagan.

Since his election in 2008 President Obama has:

  1. Created a black white racial divide.
  2. Created an economic divide, which created social stratification (i.e. more haves and abandoned the have-nots).
  3. Used government regulations and departments to attack opponents.
  4. Introduced Common Core into public schools nation wide to indoctrinate not educate.
  5. Created a divide between Christians and anti-Christians (e.g. Muslims, homosexuals, satanists, collectivists).
  6. Created a social divide between naturalized citizens and illegal aliens.
  7. Created class warfare (i.e. the 99% versus the 1%).
  8. Created a war on fossil fuels, especially coal, using Environmental Protection Agency rules.
  9. Created a barrier between law enforcement and citizens (e.g. in cities like Baltimore, Ferguson, Detroit)
  10. Created a war against lawful gun owners rather than addressing criminals like Vester Lee Flanagan.
  11. The war against unborn children – over 55 million causalities and counting.
  12. The Planned Parenthood Industrial Complex – selling dead, mostly black, babies for profit.
  13. Created a opaque government rather than his promised transparent government.
  14. Created a political divide between Democrats and all others opposed to his policies, including some Democrats.
  15. Created a divide between America and Israel.
  16. Created a foreign policy divide between America and global freedom loving movements.
  17. And on, and on, and on…

Before President Obama Americans did not see issues like being black, Hispanic, homosexual or bulling as important. President Obama has made these policies the keystones of his administration.

Question: Can you see that the slaughter of two white CBS employess by Vester Lee Flanagan, an angry black homosexual, is a natural outcome of President Obama and his policies?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Killer-newsman was an Obama lover! Had to be reprimanded over campaign button

U.S. and world are ruled not by parties, but clans – Pravda

RELATED VIDEO: Bryce Williams / Vester Lee Flanagan Road Rage recorded 6 July 2015:

Market Corrections Inspire Dangerous Political Panic by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Some kinds of inflation people really hate, like when it affects food and gas. But now, with the whole of the American middle class heavily invested in stocks, there is another kind inflation people love and demand: share prices that increased forever.

Just as with real estate before 2008, people seem addicted to the idea that they should never go anywhere but up.

This is the reason that stock market corrections are so dangerous. The biggest danger is not economic. It is political. Such corrections push politicians and central bankers to undertake ever-more nutty political in do order to fix them.

To make the point, Donald Trump immediately blamed China, which has the temerity to sell Americans excellent products at low prices. Bernie Sanders blamed “free trade,” even though the United States is among the most protectionist in the world.

Nothing in this world is more guaranteed to worsen a correction that a trade war. But so far, that’s what’s been proposed.

Tolerance for Downturns

It was not always so. In the 1982 recession, the Reagan administration argued that it was best to let the market clear and grow calm. Once the recession cleaned up misallocations of resources, the economy would be well prepared for a growth path. Incredibly, the idea was sold to the American people, and it proved wise.

That was the last time in American history we’ve seen anything like a laissez-faire attitude prevail. After the 1990s dot com boom and bust, the Fed intervened in an effort to repeal gravity. After 9/11, the Fed intervened again, using floods of paper money to rebuild national pride. That created a gigantic housing bubble that exploded 7 years later.

By 2008, the idea of allowing markets to clear became intolerable, and so Congress spent hundreds of billions of dollars and the Fed created trillions in phony money, all to forestall what desperately needed to happen.

Now, with dramatic declines in stock markets around the world, we are seeing what happens when governments and central banks attempt to counter market forces.

Markets win. Every time. But somehow it doesn’t matter anymore. There’s no more science, no more rationality, no more concern for the long term, so far as the Fed is concerned. The Fed is maniacally focused on its member banks’ balance sheets. They must live and thrive no matter what. And the Fed is in the perfect position now to use public sentiment to bolster its policies.

The Right and Wrong Question 

In the event of a large crash, the public discussion going forward will be: What can be done to re-boost stock prices? This is the wrong question. The right question should be: What were the conditions that led to the unsustainable boom in the first place? This is the intelligent way to address a global meltdown. Sadly, intelligence is in short supply when people are panicked about losing their retirement funds they believed were secure.

Back when people thought about such things, the great economic Gottfried von Haberler was tapped by the League of Nations to write a book that covered the whole field of business cycle theory as it then existed. Prosperity and Depressioncame out in 1936 and was republished in 1941. It is a beautiful book, rooted in rationality and the desire to know.

The book covers six core theories: purely monetary (now called Chicago), overinvestment (now called Austrian), sudden changes in cost (related to what is now called Real Business Cycle), underconsumption (now called Keynesian), psychological (popular in the financial press), and agricultural theories (very old fashioned).

Each one is described. The author then turns to solutions and their viability, assessing each. The treatise leans toward the view that permitting the recession (or downturn or depression) run its course is a better alternative than any large policy prescription applied with the goal of countering the cycle.

Haberler is careful to say that there is not likely one explanation that applies to all cycles in all times and in all places. There are too many factors at work in the real world to provide such an explanation, and no author has ever attempted to provide one. All we can really do is look for the primary causes and the factors that are mostly likely to induce recurring depressions and recoveries.

He likened the business cycle a rocking chair. It can be still. It can rock slowly. Or an outside force can come along to cause it to rock more violently and at greater speed. Detangling the structural factors from the external factors is a major challenge for any economist. But it must be done lest policy authorities make matters worse rather than better.

The monetary theory posits that the quantity of money is the key factoring in generating booms and busts. The more money that flows into an economy via the credit system, the more production increases alongside consumption. This policy leads to inflation. The pullback of the credit machine induces the recession.

The “overinvestment” theory of the cycle focuses on the misallocation of resources that upsets the careful balance between production and consumer. Within the production structure in normal times, there is a focus on viability in light of consumer decisions. But when more credit is made available, the flow of resources is toward the capital sector, which is characterized by a multiplicity of purposes. The entire production sector mixes various time commitments and purposes. Each of them corresponds with an expectation of consumer behavior.

Haberler calls this an overinvestment theory because the main result is an inflation of capital over consumption. The misallocation is both horizontal and vertical. When the consumer resources are insufficient to realize the plans of the capitalists, the result is a series of bankruptcies and an ensuing recession.

Price Control by Central Banks

A feature of this theory is to distinguish between the real rate of interest and the money rate of interest. When monetary authorities push down rates, they are engaged in a form of price control, inducing a boom in one sector of the production structure. This theory today is most often identified with the Austrian school, but in Haberler’s times, it was probably the dominant theory among serious specialists throughout the world.

In describing the underconsumption theory of the cycle, Haberler can hardly hide his disdain. In this view, all cycles result from too much hoarding and insufficient debt. If consumer were spend to their maximum extent, without regard to issues of viability, producers would feel inspired to produce, and the entire economy could run off a feeling of good will.

Habeler finds this view ridiculous, based in part on the implied policy prescription: endlessly inflate the money supply, keep running up debts, and lower interest rates to zero. The irony is that this is the precisely the prescription of John Maynard Keynes, and his whole theory was rooted in a 200-year old fallacy that economic growth is based on consumption and not production. Little did Haberler know, writing in the early 1930s, that this theory would become the dominant one in the world, and the one most promoted by governments and for obvious reasons.

The psychological theory of the cycle observes the people are overly optimistic in a boom and overly pessimistic in the bust. More than that, the people who push this view regard these states of mind as causative of economic trends. They both begin and end the boom.

Haberler does not deny that such states of mind are important and contributing elements to making the the cycle more exaggerated, but it is foolish to believe that thinking alone can bring about systematic changes in the macroeconomic structure. This school of thought seizes on a grain of truth, and pushes that grain too far to the exclusion of real factory. Interestingly, Haberler identifies Keynes by name in his critique of this view.

Haberler’s treatise is the soul of fairness but the reader is left with no question about where his investigation led him. There are many and varied causes of business cycles, and the best explanations trace the problem to credit interventions and monetary expansions that upset the delicate balance of production and consumption in the international market economy.

Large-scale attempts by government to correct for these cycles can result in making matters worse, because it has no control over the secondary factors that brought about the crisis in the first place. The best possible policy is to eliminate barriers to market clearing — that is to say, let the market work.

The Fed is the Elephant in the Room

And so it should be in our time. For seven years, the Fed, which controls the world reserve currency, has held down interest rates to zero in an effort to forestall a real recession and recreate the boom. The results have been unimpressive. In the midst of the greatest technological revolution in history, economic growth has been pathetic.

There is a reason for this, and it is not only about foolish monetary policy. It is about regulation that inhibits business creation and economic adaptability. It’s about taxation that pillages the rewards of success and pours the bounty into public waste. It is about a huge debt overhang that results from the declaration that all governments are too big to fail.

Whether a correction is needed now or later or never is not for policymakers to decide. The existence of the business cycle is the market’s way of humbling those who claim to have the power and intelligence to outwit its awesome and immutable forces.

Jeffrey A. Tucker
Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

Florida: Lawsuit filed to stop ‘Blue Zone Project’ in Collier County Public Schools

There is a new initiative making its way across America and the Sunshine State called “The Blue Zone Project.” The name is soothing, much like green zones, but the goal is pure collectivism. The Blue Zone Project targets entire communities including public schools.

One Collier County parent has filed a lawsuit to stop the Blue Zone Project in Collier County, Florida. Read the Bracci vs. Patton lawsuit here.

Melhor Marie Leonor from the Naples Daily News wrote:

Collier County public school parent Steven Bracci filed a lawsuit this week against district Superintendent Kamela Patton, alleging that Blue Zones planning meetings dealing with potential school policies should have, but did not, follow the state’s open meetings laws.

According to its website, the Blue Zones Project is, “[A] community-wide well-being improvement initiative to help make healthy choices easier for everyone in Southwest Florida.” “Help make healthy choices” is code for control of individual behaviors.

According to the lawsuit Superintendent Kamela Patton joined the Blue Zone Steering Committee, thereby abrogating her district decision making authority. There are no parents or citizens of Collier county on the committee. All of the members are elected, appointed or individuals such as Bill Barker, publisher of the Naples Daily News.

This new initiative is really an old form of creating social change, without the consent of the governed. 

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

The Blue Zone Project is the ideal that each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group and the group alone.

The Oldest Fallacy in Economics by Donald J. Boudreaux

The quote of the day comes from pages 476-477 of the 5th edition (2015) of Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics:

At one time, it was believed that importing more than was exported impoverished a nation because the difference between import and exports had to be paid in gold, and the loss of gold was seen as a loss of national wealth. However, as early as 1776, Adam Smith’s classic The Wealth of Nations argued that the real wealth of a nation consists of its goods and services, not its gold supply.

Too many people have yet to grasp the full implications of that, even in the twenty-first century. If the goods and services available to the American people are greater as a result of international trade, then Americans are wealthier, not poorer, regardless of whether there is a “deficit” or a “surplus” in the international balance of trade.

Yes. And it matters not how Americans (or, more generally, how denizens of whatever country is considered to be the “domestic” one) gain greater access to goods and services produced globally.

If the Chinese become zealous devotees of a religion whose doctrine requires that they serve Americans by shipping to Americans goods and services free of charge, then Americans are made better off.

If the Chinese innovate in ways that lower their costs of production — and distribution and, thus, enable them to sell goods and services to Americans at lower prices — then Americans are made better off.

If the Chinese invent new products and offer to sell these new products to Americans at prices that Americans find attractive, Americans are made better off.

If the forces of international competition oblige Chinese producers to lower their export prices to levels closer to their costs of production, then Americans are made better off.

If the Chinese government forces Chinese citizens to subsidize the production of goods and services sold to Americans so that Americans can purchase these goods and services at artificially low prices, then Americans are made better off (although Chinese citizens, other than those involved in the export trade, are made unjustifiably worse off).

If the Chinese monetary authority buys US dollars with newly created yuan in order to (of necessity temporarily) make Chinese exports artificially inexpensive for Americans to buy, then Americans are made better off (although Chinese citizens, other than those involved in the export trade, are made unjustifiably worse off).

The above reality is missed by people, such as Donald Trump (but hardly limited to him) who judge trade to be “successful” only if the jobs and businesses that it visibly — that is, directly — creates in the domestic economy are perceived as being greater than the number of jobs and businesses that it visibly destroys.

This error is among the oldest and most difficult to kill in economics — not only because this error is serviceable to domestic producers who greedily seek protection from competition, but also because it appeals to people who refuse to think beyond what is immediately and blindingly obvious.

A version of this post appeared at Café Hayek.

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Hypocrites and Half-Wits.

Breaking News: High Tax States STILL Hemorrhaging Income

Tax high income earners at high rates, and they leave…at high rates. Are progressives blind to this seemingly obvious point? I was recently alerted to the pending release of the IRS Statistics of Income Division, state and county migration data for the calendar year 2012 through 2013, by my friend and former campaign spokesman, Jim Pettit who has written previously about the disappearing tax base in high tax blue states.

So, who are the losers? The deep blue, high tax states – New York, California, Illinois, and Connecticut – on net, lost a staggering 15 billion dollars in taxpayer income.

The stories of businesses and people exiting high tax, deep blue states for the friendlier economic confines of low-tax, largely red states are readily available using a simple Internet search but the recently released IRS data is damning. The data shows that the mass income exodus from high tax states is continuing.

So, who are the losers? The deep blue, high tax states – New York, California, Illinois, and Connecticut – on net, lost a staggering 15 billion dollars in taxpayer income.

And, who are the winners? My home state of Florida gained an incredible 8.3 billion dollars and the top four states, low-tax Florida, Texas, South Carolina and North Carolina gained an enormous 17.5 billion in income.

Despite all the nonsense from the Left about how taxing away people’s hard-earned income magically makes them wealthier, people vote with their feet, while their wallets are voting for states with low taxes, right-to-work, sensible regulation, and smaller government burdens. And, although the standard progressive response which states “taxes aren’t the only reason people leave” is true, it ignores the obvious point that it is a reason, and a significant one. This is a silly, delusional point to make. Is the Left’s question that people leave the states they govern for all kinds of reasons – so let’s ensure that we make that decision easier for them by taxing them to death?

With the collapse in global equities markets today, there is no better time to sound the alarm about the dangers of high tax rates. The Obama administration and their, “Never let a crisis go to waste” opportunism are already using today’s economic trouble to call for MORE government spending despite the trillions they have already thrown down the drain.

Today’s data is additional evidence that this is economic poison, not an elixir.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review.

The ‘Fatal Flaw’ in the U.S. Supreme Court Gay Marriage Case

Marriage between a man and woman has been codified in America since the 1600s when marriage licences were first issued. The deconstruction of marriage has been a goal of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and the progressive feminist movement since the early 1900s.

The prime objective is to make government the ideal marriage partner.

For it is only government that can be the true leader of the new family, one where love, monogamy and biology are irrelevant. Marriage is defined by the state in order to create dependency and increase control over the individual. Homosexual marriage has now fallen into that carefully setup government trap, as have those in traditional marriages much earlier. Government now totally controls gay marriages. Traditional and gay marriages are no longer real marriages.

Tia Ghose in her column History of Marriage: 13 surprise facts, writes:

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, [Stephanie] Coontz, [the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage,”] said.

“There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say ‘I can take a second wife,'” Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., a senior fellow of Human Life International and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, in his column Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Negates Both Reason and Reality writes:

The fatal flaw in the recent Supreme Court decision lies in its failure to recognize the nature of marriage and its consequent judgment that the very limits which give marriage its meaning are discriminatory restrictions that should be abolished. Thus, five justices believed that, by removing one of the essential factors of marriage to accommodate the wishes of same-sex couples, they would enlarge it. The truth is that by flagrantly disregarding the nature of marriage — particularly the male-female requirement — these justices have embarked on a course to disparage, if not to destroy, marriage.

Marriage is defined in terms of several factors that distinguish it from all other forms of human alliance. It requires the mutual consent of two unmarried people who have no blood ties, are of appropriate ages and are members of the other sex. Traditional marriage is not marriage in its abbreviated or abridged form. It is real marriage.

Dr. DeMarco notes that in the 1972 American “National Gay Rights Platform” (endorsed by Canadian homosexuals), calls for:

  1. the abolition of all laws governing “age of sexual consent,” thus enabling adults to have sex with consenting children of any age or either sex;
  2. the repeal of all laws against sodomy and adult or child prostitution; and
  3. the repeal of all laws that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.

Read more:

As Tina Turner asked in her song, what’s love got to do with it?

Reduce Firearm Ownership, Say Anti-Gun Researchers

A new “study” by David Swedler, trained at the (gun control crusader Michael) Bloomberg School of Public Health, and co-authored by longtime anti-gun researcher David Hemenway, of the Harvard School of Public Health, uses rigged methodology to conclude that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered in states that have higher levels of gun ownership. As a result, Swedler and Hemenway say, “States could consider methods for reducing firearm ownership as a way to reduce occupational deaths of LEOs.”

In what may be the understatement of the century, Swedler and Hemenway concede that it’s “possible” that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered than other Americans because they have “more frequent encounters with motivated violent offenders.” To say the least. According to the FBI, from 2004 to 2013, 46 percent of officer murderers had prior arrests for crimes of violence, 63 percent had been convicted on prior criminal charges, 50 percent had received probation or parole for prior criminal charges, and 26 percent were under judicial supervision, including probation, parole, and conditional release, at the time of the officers’ murders.

On the other hand, Swedler and Hemenway say, law enforcement officers are able to defend themselves because they carry handguns, an argument that on its face endorses the carrying of handguns by private citizens, which is certainly not what the anti-gunners intended.

In painstaking academic detail, economist John Lott shows that Swedler and Hemenway skewed their study by comparing the number of law enforcement officers murdered with firearms in each state, to the percentage of suicides committed with firearms in each state, pretending that the latter accurately measures each state’s level of gun ownership. Additionally, the anti-gun researchers didn’t extend their comparisons over time to determine whether law enforcement officer murders increased or decreased in each state or did so in comparison to other states.

The anti-gunners also try to measure gun ownership with survey data, which is problematic, because over-reporting takes place in states where people are more supportive of gun ownership, while under-reporting takes place in states where anti-gun viewpoints are more common.

For the obvious reason, Swedler and Hemenway didn’t point out that law enforcement officer murders have been decreasing while ownership of firearms has been increasing dramatically. From 1993 to 2013, the most recent year of data from the FBI and BATFE, the annual number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms dropped 61 percent, while the American people acquired 140 million new firearms. In 2013, the number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms was less than half the annual average of the last 20 years.

That, however, is not what you want to point out if you’re jockeying for a cut of the $10 million that President Obama has asked Congress (p. 8) to throw at so-called “gun violence research” or to continue to promote an anti-gun agenda.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the NRA/ILA website.

When Judges Quit Protecting Liberty by David S. D’Amato

How do we decide if a government action is legitimate?

When courts are asked to determine whether a government action has violated an individual’s rights, they apply one of several different “standards of review” or “levels of scrutiny,” ranging from “strict scrutiny” (reserved for a very narrow category of cases) to “rational basis scrutiny.”

Rational basis tests erect the lowest possible legal hurdles for the government, yet they are applied in cases that implicate some of our most important liberties, such as the right to earn a living, simply because they were not listed by name in the Bill of Rights.

For example, a law requiring an expensive permit to arrange flowers will only merit a rational basis review. And while rational basis review is a test for constitutionality, it doesn’t have anything to do with the Constitution or its history.

As Timothy Sandefur pointed out in the Cato Unbound issue on judicial activism, such rational basis tests have “no foundation whatsoever in the Constitution of the United States.” Rather, they were simply made up, fashioned by judges out of whole cloth during a period when courts were increasingly willing to defer to legislators and bureaucrats and their arbitrary and needless interference with private enterprise.

Rational basis review amounts to carte blanche for petty tyrants in legislatures, city councils, and regulatory agencies. Since the New Deal, courts have refused to give any real constitutional protection to the basic right to choose your profession and earn an honest living.

The 1934 Supreme Court decision in Nebbia v. New York is an important episode in the creeping evolution of rational basis. Leo Nebbia, a grocer, was convicted of the heinous crime of selling milk at a price that was too low, according to the bullies at New York’s “Milk Control Board.”

Writing for the Court, Justice Owen Roberts declared that as long as a law has “a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose,” the courts have no authority to strike it down.

Though he admitted that “the reasonableness of each regulation depends upon the relevant facts,” Roberts still maintained that, once a law is enacted, “every possible presumption is in favor of its validity.” If a “policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare,” judicial review is basically over.

As a practical matter, this strange, circular reasoning means that a legislative body determines for itself whether its bills are constitutional. Merely by passing the law, the legislature settles the question and obliges the courts to accept any explanation offered for it. Such a theory eviscerates meaningful judicial review and leaves the individual defenseless, without any legal recourse against the nearly omnipotent modern state. And, since the Nebbia decision, the courts have only become more deferential.

Conservatives mistakenly associate judicial “activism” with the progressive left, but the New Deal-era progressive judges were actually the architects of the judicial “deference” that reigns today. Traditional common law protections were discarded in favor of expedience: the desire to get out of government’s way as it systematically planned, monitored, and regulated society as it saw fit.

The liberalism of the previous century was likewise treated with an arrogant and imperious contempt. Quaint notions of individual liberty and inviolable natural rights gave way to the irresistible march of modernity and “scientific” progress, shepherded by their natural steward, the state.

Rational basis tests invert legitimate due process. The burden of proof should be on the government to prove that a law or regulation serves the general welfare. The government should have to factually demonstrate the connection between the law and public health and safety, not merely assert that one mightexist.

But, instead, judges have decided that person challenging a law must confront and rebut every possible argument and hypothetical that the government (or judge) might conjure up in support of its law.

The rational basis test demands that a victim of government overreach prove the impossible, refuting an infinite universe of possible scenarios and rationales that could justify the law. Forget the actual empirical facts — rational basis has no time for such distractions.

On the contrary, the test requires judges to help the government by inventing counterfactual stories that could have justified the law. Even if the law has nothing to do with community health or safety, even if it is openly protectionist, it must be upheld if any flight of fancy could justify it.

Thus, the rational basis “test” is no test at all. It is a hollow, perfunctory gesture as the court abandons its duty of judicial review and leaves the hapless individual at the mercy of capricious government officials and special interests.

The right to choose your occupation is as fundamental a liberty as the right to speak, an indispensable aspect of self-ownership and self-determination. The freedom to make important, personal decisions about your career and your property is the bedrock of peaceful cooperation and civil society. In any society even moderately committed to freedom and legitimate due process, the rational basis test would be inconceivable. The presumption of liberty, like the presumption of innocence, would be the individual’s default position under the law.

Sadly, judges have abandoned their posts, doing the bidding of arbitrary governments and politically powerful economic interests who use the law to prevent competition. To fulfill the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, and to restore our lost liberties, we must scrap the rational basis excuse.

David S.  D'Amato

David S. D’Amato

David S. D’Amato is an attorney and independent scholar whose writing has appeared at the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Future of Freedom Foundation, the Centre for Policy Studies, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.