Regulation Archives - Page 77 of 156

How State Government fanned the flames of Hawaii’s volcano disaster

May 14, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Must Read, Policy, Regulation/by Hawaii Free Press

Government fanned flames of volcano disaster

by Joe Kent, Grassroot Institute, May 9, 2018

As lava engulfs the homes of many unfortunate Hawaii Island residents, it’s important to remember that the state originally encouraged the building of homes in this dangerous area by offering lava insurance where no private company would.

In the 1990s, the town of Kalapana was destroyed by lava, and soon afterward, private insurance companies, after suffering millions of dollars in losses, stopped insuring land in Lava Zones 1 and 2.

Lava Zones on Hawaii Island

In response to the absence of private insurance, the state Legislature created the Hawaii Property Insurance Association (HPIA), whose job is to provide coverage for homes in areas that private insurance won’t touch.</span

The law requires private insurance companies to pool their money to subsidize the expense of offering insurance in high-risk lava zones.

HPIA describes itself as a nonprofit association, created to provide basic property insurance for persons unable to purchase homeowners coverage in the private market due to the ongoing volcanic eruption in Lava Zones 1 and 2 on the Island of Hawaii.

Its members are all licensed insurers that write property and casualty insurance in Hawaii, each required to be a member of the HPIA as a condition of their authority to transact business in the state. Together they participate in the writings, expenses, profits and losses of the HPIA, in proportion to their market share of property and casualty insurance written in Hawaii, according to the association.

It adds, “There is no public funding or taxpayers’ monies involved,” but certainly any losses incurred by the HPIA members are passed along to their broader base of Hawaii customers, resulting in an indirect tax.

In any case, ignoring the obvious risks of building homes in active lava zones, the law stated that any person “who has been unable to obtain basic property insurance from a licensed insurer may apply to the association for coverage.”

This resulted in a boom in the housing market below the active Kilauea volcano.

By 2008, there were more than 2,400 HPIA policies in the area, providing more than $700 million worth of insurance statewide to the highest-risk lava zones on Hawaii Island. At the time, the Honolulu-Advertiser said Leilani Estates resident Douglas Pase could not find any private company willing to insure the building of his house in the area:

“Pase called various insurance companies to price coverage and said HPIA was the only willing insurer he could find. That was critical because ‘without some way of insuring the house that we would build, building in Leilani would not be an option for us,’ he said. ‘Since no one else would cover it, that becomes really, really important.’”

In economic terms, this created a “moral hazard,” a term which economist Paul Krugman described as “any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly.”

The moral hazard of this new insurance program gave a false sense of security to homebuilders in Leilani Estates, some of whom were disappointed to find a gap in their coverage when HPIA issued a moratorium on new insurance following another lava flow in 2014.

A Pahoa home burns down in a lava flow in 2014.

At the time, Pahoa homeowner Corinne Traylor in testimony to the Legislature said that she and her husband could no longer refinance their house, and she couldn’t sell it either, “due to the sudden lack of insurance.”

Others said the moratorium was a “market failure” and urged the government to step in to help. Soon afterward, Gov. David Ige signed Act 32 in 2015, which mandated that the HPIA lift its moratorium and provide lava insurance, further fanning the flames of the moral hazard.

Today, that hazard is very real for families watching their homes be engulfed by magma. What was seen as a “market failure” was really a warning sign to those building in Lava Zones 1 and 2.

If the state had stayed out of the situation, probably fewer families would have built in the area, and today there might be less housing destruction.

After this disaster is over, Hawaii leaders should get out of the way and let the insurance market’s natural price mechanisms work to provide the valuable, even humanitarian, information needed regarding the areas in Hawaii that are simply too dangerous to build in.

RELATED ARTICLE:

2008: Red Hot Lava Menaces Old-boy Scam

The Downside of Regulating Facebook

May 13, 2018/in Culture War, Featured, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The end result would likely be a shift to a fee-based system, where users would have to pay to use Facebook and other platforms.

by James L. Gattuso

In congressional testimony last month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he would support regulation of his own company.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and John Kennedy, R-La., have now taken him up on the offer, introducing a bill, S. 2728, to impose broad new restrictions on how Facebook and other social media companies can collect and handle consumer data.

Taking Facebook to Task

The legislation—dubbed the Social Media Privacy Protection and Consumer Rights Act—was no surprise. Klobuchar and Kennedy had made clear weeks ago that they were planning to propose federal intervention in social media markets.

As Kennedy succinctly put it to Zuckerberg: “Your user agreement sucks.”

The goal was to address privacy concerns raised by the acquisition and use of consumer data from Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica data firm.

“We can do it the easy way or the hard way,” Kennedy bluntly stated regarding his regulatory plans, adding, “I do not want to regulate Facebook half to death, but we do have … problems we’ve discovered.”

The bill is a grab bag of mandates and restrictions on how social media networks operate. The most widely discussed provision is a requirement that social media platforms use “plain English” in their user agreements, so consumers can better understand them.

That line was memorable and garnered quite a bit of attention for the Louisiana lawmaker. But the irony is that Congress is hardly in a position to lecture private companies on the plain use of the English language, as anyone who has ever read congressional legislation can attest.

It’s About the Data

The meat of the bill, however, is not linguistics, but limits on the collection of consumer data by Facebook and other social media platforms.

Among its provisions, the bill would require social media networks by law to disable consumer data tracking and collection (when so requested by a user); to provide notice of a data breach within 72 hours; to delete user data when asked; and to provide copies of what has been collected about them.

The end result would likely be a shift to a fee-based system, where users would have to pay to use Facebook.

The bill avoids the most extreme restrictions that have been proposed. It doesn’t ban the use of consumer data, nor does it require an affirmative “opt-in” for such data to be used as a general rule.

But consumers should not celebrate. The Klobuchar-Kennedy plan is likely only the first volley in a probable bidding war over regulating social media networks. Even the mandates in the current bill could threaten the benefits consumers receive from social media platforms.

For instance, by making data more difficult to acquire and to use, advertising revenue may no longer be able to support social media platforms. The end result would likely be a shift to a fee-based system, where users would have to pay to use Facebook and other platforms.

That would be a net loss for most users, who—based on their usage habits—like the free access to social media made possible by advertising revenue.

So far, Facebook has not made a fuss over the proposed new rules. In fact, it has openly supported some of the provisions, including notifications of breaches within 72 hours and the “plain English” requirement.

We Don’t Need a New Law

But this should create no free pass. Regulations making it more difficult to use consumer data often make competition more difficult because smaller rivals may find it harder to absorb the regulatory costs.

The impact of regulations varies, of course, based on the specific regulation, but it’s a danger policymakers should always keep in mind.

Robust laws are already on the books addressing breaches of commitments to consumers.

This doesn’t mean government should do nothing to ensure that an internet-based company such as Facebook complies with its promises to consumers.

If data has been used in violation of commitments made to the users of a platform, the firm should be held accountable for the violation. But that does not necessarily require new regulation.

Robust laws are already on the books addressing breaches of commitments to consumers. Moreover, agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission already have rules that can—and often are—used to enforce privacy commitments.

Consumers can also use state contract law to sue Facebook for any breach of its commitments. No new rules should be imposed without a clear showing that the many existing tools are not already adequate to protect consumer privacy.

This may not be the “easy way” or the “hard way” of making markets work, but it is the right way.

Reprinted from the Daily Signal.

EDITORS NOTE: Many former Facebook users are go to new social media platforms. One of them is MeWe.com.

Same Policies That Failed to Stop Florida Shooter Exist in School Districts Nationwide

May 9, 2018/in Education, Gun Rights, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

Critics of President Donald Trump said his response to the Florida school shooting earlier this year was ill-conceived and a failure.

Yet a new startling revelation from school district officials in Broward County, Florida, shows the White House’s response was indeed appropriate—more than even the Trump administration knew.

On Feb. 14, Nikolas Cruz, a student with a long history of problems in and out of school, allegedly opened fire and claimed the lives of 17 students and adults at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Following the shooting, the Trump administration created a new school safety commission. One of the commission’s assignments is to consider the repeal of student discipline guidelines that the Obama administration issued in 2014.

Cue the negative spin: “Yet again, the Trump administration, faced with a domestic crisis, has responded by creating a commission to study an unrelated issue,” the NAACP told The New York Times.

Broward County Superintendent Robert Runcie also dismissed the move, telling Politico, “It goes with the whole narrative that anything under the Obama administration is no good and we have to get rid of it.”

Critics denied that there was a connection between the Parkland shooting, the district’s student discipline policies (called the “PROMISE” program), and federal student discipline guidelines. Cruz was never referred to PROMISE, officials said, so PROMISE couldn’t be to blame.

Runcie said at a press conference, “[Cruz] was never a participant in the PROMISE program” and “[there’s] no connection between Cruz and the district’s PROMISE program.”

As recently as a few weeks ago, Runcie said, “Let me reiterate this point: Nikolas Cruz, the shooter that was involved in this horrific accident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, had no connection to the PROMISE program.”

But last Sunday, Broward officials admitted Cruz had in fact been referred to PROMISE. To make matters worse, school officials cannot say whether Cruz actually attended the required sessions or if anyone tried to account for his absence.

The school district should clarify whether officials referred Cruz again to PROMISE based on his behavior in high school, and if not, why.

Cruz’s first referral was for vandalizing a bathroom in middle school, but The Washington Post reports that Cruz continued to display troubling behavior in high school. He made a threat and committed assault while a student at Stoneman Douglas—both offenses that would make him eligible for PROMISE.

The news that Cruz had been referred to PROMISE is critical because the PROMISE program and the Obama administration’s 2014 federal guidelines were announced with much fanfare and take similar approaches to dealing with student behavior.

At the PROMISE launch, Education Week reports, “Community members lauded the board and Runcie for their work, and its passage received a standing ovation.” NPR said, “Civil rights and education activists say the policy can be a model for the nation.”

Central to both documents is the idea that school personnel and law enforcement should limit student interaction with the justice system. Both documents also say school personnel and law enforcement should use exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions as a last resort.

Earlier this year, my research documented these and other philosophical and practical similarities between the 2014 federal guidelines and PROMISE.

Runcie went as far as to say that PROMISE inspired the federal guidelines in the first place. In a 2014 interview, he said, “Some of my staff joke that the Obama administration might have taken our policies and framework and developed them into national guidelines.”

Runcie was later featured at a 2015 White House event on school discipline.

Broward County officials must now explain to grieving families that the school discipline strategy they called “the most comprehensive thinking available to address socially unacceptable or illegal behavior” failed to stop a school shooting.

Meanwhile, dozens of school systems around the country are following the federal guidelines. This widespread adoption and the terrifying failure of PROMISE makes the White House’s call to rescind federal guidelines that mirror PROMISE a timely and fitting response to Parkland.

COMMENTARY BY

Jonathan Butcher

Jonathan Butcher is a senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy and a senior fellow for the Goldwater Institute and the Beacon Center of Tennessee. Twitter: @JM_Butcher.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Parkland Shooter Was Assigned To Obama-Era Program, Superintendent Lied, Report

Reports Show Obama-Era Policies May Have Eroded School Safety in Broward County

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Broward County Sheriff Steve Israel speaking before the start of a CNN town hall meeting on Feb. 21, 2018. (Photo: Michael Laughlin/TNS/Newscom)

VIDEO: Billions Have Suffered ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ in Reverse Thanks to Overpopulation Myths

May 7, 2018/in Culture War, Healthcare, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Population panic has motivated far more forced sterilizations than even the Nazi ideology did.

by Chelsea Follett

This week, viewers will get another chance to submerge themselves in the dystopian future created by Margaret Atwood. The Handmaid’s Tale, based on the novel about the government forcing women to bear children to counter a declining population, resonated with audiences across the world.

However, the reverse Handmaid’s Tale—the idea of coercing people to have fewer children—ought to generate just as much outrage. Particularly when that coercion is justified by baseless fears.

“Too Many” People

Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich plays on those fears. His apocalyptic warnings, which started almost 50 years ago, persist despite decades of evidence proving them wrong. Just recently, Ehrlich said the collapse of civilization is a “near certainty” within decades.

“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” he warned in 1969.

Ehrlich’s jeremiad led to human rights abuses around the world, including millions of forced sterilizations as well as China’s draconian “one child” policy.

Then he said, “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come. And by ‘the end’ I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

Unfortunately, many people still believe him.

His 1968 best-seller The Population Bomb incited global panic with claims that out-of-control population growth would deplete resources, bringing about widespread starvation. Ehrlich’s jeremiad led to human rights abuses around the world, including millions of forced sterilizations in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and India—as well as China’s draconian “one child” policy. In 1975, officials sterilized 8 million men and women in India alone. The sheer scale of this authoritarian nightmare is difficult to imagine.

To put that in perspective, Hitler’s Germany forcibly sterilized 300,000 to 400,000 people. In other words, Ehrlich’s unfounded fears have motivated far more forced sterilizations than even the Nazi ideology did.

Such abuses aren’t confined to past decades: In 2012, India’s Supreme Court found that “unrealistic targets have been set for sterilization procedures with the result that non-consensual and forced sterilizations are taking place.” And even today, China limits couples to having no more than two children.

Bowdoin College’s Sarah Conly published a book claiming it is “morally permissible” for the government to limit family sizes through force.

Back at home, many prominent American environmentalists—from Johns Hopkins University bioethicist Travis Rieder to entertainer Bill Nye “The Science Guy”—support tax penalties or other state-imposed punishments for having “too many” children.

Bowdoin College’s Sarah Conly published a book in 2016 through the Oxford University Press advocating a “one-child” policy, claiming it is “morally permissible” for the government to limit family sizes through force.

Their views are chilling.

We Don’t Need Laws Regulating Birth Rates

Coercing people to have fewer children amounts to pointless suffering. While China’s fertility rate fell under the “one-child” policy, fertility rates fell just as swiftly in neighboring countries without despotic anti-child laws. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families—a phenomenon called the fertility transition.

It is almost unheard of for a country to maintain a high fertility rate after it passes about $5,000 in per-person annual income.

Many people, like tycoon Elon Musk, now worry that the world will produce too few, rather than too many, children—echoing the situation in the dystopian Gilead. Demographers, indeed, estimate the population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070.

As production increased, prices fell, and calorie consumption rose. Hunger is in retreat. Human ingenuity proved to be the “ultimate resource.”

The evidence isn’t on the overpopulation alarmists’ side. The doomsayers don’t take into account the fertility transition. More importantly, they fail to understand that more people can mean more prosperity.

As economist Julian Simon noted, “Whatever the rate of population growth is, historically it has been that the food supply increases at least as fast, if not faster.”

Since Ehrlich began preaching about overpopulation-induced Armageddon, the number of people on the planet has more than doubled. Yet yearly, famine deaths have declined by millions.

Recent famines are caused by war, not exhaustion of natural resources. As production increased, prices fell, and calorie consumption rose. Hunger is in retreat. Human ingenuity proved to be the “ultimate resource,” as Simon put it.

Tyrannical population-control measures are not only repugnant but also senseless. So while you’re watching Season 2, keep in mind that the reverse of The Handmaid’s Tale is just as horrifying—and it has supporters trying to make it a reality.

Reprinted from Human Progress; this first appeared in USA Today.

Chelsea Follett

Chelsea Follet works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

Leading Economist Now Says Trump Policies Are Restoring America’s Economy

May 5, 2018/in Culture War, Economy, Policy, Regulation/by Rod Thomson

Sean Snaith is not a household name but he is one of the nation’s top economists and highly regarded in economic circles for the depth and accuracy of his projections.

So much so that he is on multiple national economic forecasting panels, including The Wall Street Journal’s Economic Forecasting Survey, the Associated Press’ Economy Survey, CNNMoney.com’s Survey of Leading Economists, USA Today’s Survey of Top Economists, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Survey of Professional Forecasters, Bloomberg and Reuters.

All this is stated upfront because what he says rightly carries weight in a lot of influential circles, and probably should outside those circles. And he is now supremely optimistic about the American economy going forward.

He made projections last year he said were based on the assumption of a Hillary Clinton victory and her policies being instituted — because that is what all of the political pundits told him. When Trump won, he says, he had to re-think things. He went back to the drawing board and began a new set of calculations which he is constantly updating. The differences are dramatically better for the American economy and the American worker.

In fact, to hear Snaith speak recently to a large Florida economic development group, its almost jarring how much of a MAGA Trumper he sounds like — well, on economic policies anyway. And the projections he announced were almost goose-bumpy good.

Snaith said the tax cuts and deregulatory efforts will generate a 3.5 percent national GDP this year — much higher than at any point since before the Great Recession — and will remain very strong at least through 2020. He said this is more where the American economy should be and will be (barring any major, unforeseen disruptions.)

That has positive implications for American workers. The jobless rate is hovering at about 4 percent right now, but he predicted that as policies really start generating economic activity, the unemployment rate will fall to 3.4 percent by late 2020 — and that is even as the labor participation rate increases. So even as more Americans re-enter the job market after giving up for the past six years or more, they will all be absorbed into new jobs, plus some.

This tight labor market means there will be competitive market pressures driving wages and salaries specifically at the lower ends to begin with. In fact, that is already beginning to happen.

“Markets are magical and will solve the labor problem” by increasing wages to attract workers, he said. “The lowest end jobs are seeing the fasted income growth rate right now.”

Snaith, director of the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Economic Competitiveness, said there are two driving policies at work here. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act and the ongoing regulatory relief.

The key elements of the tax reform package boosting the economy include: lower income tax rates; higher standard deductions; expansion of the child tax credit; reducing the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world from 35 percent to 21 percent; tax breaks for small businesses; and a one-time tax break to 15.5 percent to repatriate American companies’ offshore profits — which Apple already announced they will take advantage of to the tune of $252 billion.

The tax package will increase take-home pay for American workers — something that has not happened since President Bush was in office — and will generate more consumer spending, stimulating the economy and GDP growth. American companies will be more apt to keep their profits at home and reinvest a portion of them — several have already announced their intentions with plant expansions and sharp increases in employee pay.

But Snaith sees deregulation as every bit as important because of the tremendous drag that excess regulation places on companies and the economy. “Deregulation is the special sauce that will juice the economy,” Snaith said.

The Code of Federal Regulations exploded from 140,000 pages in 2005 to 185,000 today, he said. Those endless rules strangled the economy by trillions of dollars as companies spend so many resources on compliance rather than innovation, expansion and employee pay. Last year, the Trump administration took 22 deregulatory actions for every one new regulation, saving about $8 billion in regulatory compliance costs alone.

Interestingly, Snaith is not worried about a trade war undercutting his economic projections because he does not think there will be one.

“Are we going to have a trade war? My answer is no. Everybody knows that no one wins in a trade war,” he said. However, he thinks that some of the nation’s trade deals do need renegotiating because they were unbalanced, and China was cheating on them.

“If you are a manufacturer, you are not on an even playing field with China,” he said.

Snaith is about as mainstream as you can get in the economics field. And his projections record is stellar. His optimism is worth paying attention to.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please visit The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Channel.

Small Business Confidence Way Up in the Trump Era

May 4, 2018/in Economy, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Taxes/by The Daily Signal

This week, America is celebrating the annual National Small Business Week.

Highlighting the vital contribution of small businesses to the U.S. economy, President Donald Trump proclaimed that “small business owners embody the American pioneering spirit and remind us that determination can turn aspiration into achievement.”

Indeed, small businesses are critical assets to the economy. Defined as firms employing fewer than 500 employees, they play a huge role in America’s $20 trillion economy.

There are nearly 30 million small businesses in the United States, employing about half of the private workforce, according to the Small Business Administration.

Small businesses are also a proven source for job creation. Historically, they have generated two out of every three net new jobs created in America

In his recent proclamation honoring small business, Trump elaborated:

My administration worked with the Congress to enact a tax-relief plan that provides small businesses with hundreds of billions in additional tax cuts.

Moreover, we remain focused on eliminating unnecessary and unduly burdensome regulations, which hurt hardworking Americans. …

As we usher in a new era of American prosperity, my administration will continue to implement a pro-growth agenda based on policies that champion small business creation and growth, giving more Americans the opportunity to start, scale, and succeed in businesses of their own.

As documented in The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Economic Freedom, economic freedom is the vital link between opportunity and prosperity. The overarching objective of economic policies should be to create an environment that provides the best chance of translating opportunity into prosperity, enhancing economic dynamism.

The index’s findings over the past two decades have shown that such economic dynamism can be sustained when governments adopt economic policies that empower individuals and firms with more choices, thereby encouraging greater business creation and growth.

According to a recent survey, confidence among America’s small business owners remains near an all-time high, perhaps reflecting the Trump administration’s significant pro-growth economic reforms to date.

Yet, the administration’s trade policies have generated a considerable degree of uncertainty. Maintaining the freedom to trade—both exporting and importing—is particularly important for small businesses, which generate more than 97 percent of all trade activity.

At a recent Heritage Foundation event that unveiled the 2018 Index of Economic Freedom, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross acknowledged the importance of enhancing America’s economic freedom.

By better aligning trade policy with its tax and regulatory reform agendas that brush off government intervention, the Trump administration can advance the economic freedom that is critical to further nurturing America’s small businesses.

COMMENTARY BY

Anthony B. Kim

Anthony B. Kim researches international economic issues at The Heritage Foundation, with a strong focus on economic freedom. Kim is the research manager of the Index of Economic Freedom, the flagship product of the Heritage Foundation in partnership with The Wall Street Journal. Read his research. Twitter: @AKFREEDOM.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by shapecharge/Getty Images.

Sanctuary Cities Protect Crooked Employers & Human Traffickers: Exploitation of the vulnerable is anything but ‘compassionate’

May 1, 2018/in Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Michael Cutler

We have all heard the bogus claim that “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” protect the “immigrants” from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents and that the mayors of sanctuary cities are being compassionate.

There is no compassion to be found in exploitation

In reality, politicians who create and support sanctuary policies are every bit as disgusting and exploitative of illegal aliens as are human traffickers and unscrupulous employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens and benefit by sanctuary policies and, indeed those human traffickers and employers of illegal aliens are being provided with “sanctuary” and are being shielded from detection by ICE.

Mayors and governors of “sanctuary” jurisdictions are actually “partners in crime” with human traffickers and exploitive employers.

Before we go further, however, it is imperative to lay waste to that the false claim that mayors of sanctuary cities protect immigrants from immigration law enforcement agents.

Lies about sanctuary policies being motivated by “compassion” creates a hostile environment and antipathy for ICE agents and Border Patrol agents that impedes them from locating and arresting aliens who violate our immigration laws, but also makes it far more difficult for ICE and Border Patrol agents to engage with the public to develop actionable intelligence.

This hostility also endangers their safety (reportedly physical attacks on immigration law enforcement personnel have more than doubled in the past couple of years).

Let’s be clear, Immigrants need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities.

Lawful immigrants and nonimmigrant aliens who have been admitted for a temporary visit under the aegis of various forms of visas, need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities unless they violate the terms of their admission. They were lawfully admitted into the United States by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors in the first place.

Lawful immigrants who were have been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States and/or nonimmigrant (temporary visitors) who abide by their terms of lawful admission need no protection from immigration law enforcement officers.

Lawful immigrants only become subject to deportation (removal) is if they are convicted of committing serious crimes.

However, aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry enter the United States without inspection should be fearful of detection, arrest and deportation (removal).

In point of fact, the fundamental law that underlies the decisions made by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at ports of entry as to whether or not to admit a foreign visitors into the United States is Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens.

That section of law is contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act and enumerates the grounds for excluding aliens from the United States and includes aliens infected with dangerous communicable diseases, suffer from extreme mental illness and are prone to violence, aliens who are criminals, human rights violators, war criminals, spies or terrorists.

Finally that list also includes aliens who would likely become public charges or provide unfair competition for American workers and would either displace American workers or cause suppression of wages and have a deleterious impact on working conditions.

Nothing in that statute that makes any distinctions about the race, religion or ethnicity of aliens.

Aliens who evade the inspection process conducted at ports of entry do so because they know that they fall into one or more categories of aliens who, by law, would be inadmissable.

In the past I have written about how Sanctuary Cities Betray America and Americans and that by shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE agents prevents those agents from discovering the human traffickers and other criminals who enabled those aliens to gain entry into the United States and perhaps, in the parlance of the 9/11 Commission, embed themselves in communities around the United States.

Sanctuary jurisdictions attract large number of illegal aliens including transnational gang members, international terrorists or fugitives from other countries because they know that local police, in those jurisdictions, will not report them to immigration law enforcement authorities even if they are arrested for committing crimes in those jurisdictions.

Transnational gangs invariably set up shop among immigrants from their home countries who live within the ethnic immigrant communities, This is not only true for gangs from Latin America but from all over the world. Human nature is universal and criminals can be found within every ethnic immigrant community.

In point of fact, the most likely victims of the crimes of these pernicious gangs are the members of these ethnic immigrant communities who often immigrated to the United States to get away from these very same criminals, only to find that they are now, once again, forced to live with them.

Sanctuary Cities also attract huge numbers of foreign workers who, because of their desperation, are willing to take whatever risks that they must in order to evade detection from the United States to take jobs in the United States, confident that sanctuary policies will shield them from ICE.

This incentivizes illegal immigration and, consequently, overwhelms Border Patrol resources to secure our borders. This further undermines national security and public safety in violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 which, deems the following actions to constitute felonies:

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

When I was an INS agent, particularly when I was assigned to the Anti-Smuggling Unit in New York City many of the female illegal aliens we encountered told me that they took birth control pills for several months before they made their attempt to run our borders because they anticipated that they would be raped by the smugglers.

Today the level of violence perpetrated against these smuggled aliens by human traffickers has increased exponentially as the drug cartel and violent gangs became more involved in human trafficking, virtually cornering the market of this pernicious and violent “trade.”

Considering the extreme that these illegal aliens will go to in order to enter the United States, it is clear that they will also endure extreme exploitation by employers who intentionally hire them.

Sanctuary Cities provide a veritable “army” of readily exploitable illegal alien workers who are sought after by unscrupulous employers who eagerly hire alien workers they can exploit, paying them substandard wages under substandard, indeed, dangerous conditions that lawful immigrants and American workers would never tolerate.

The obvious question then, that must be asked, is why would a mayor or governor declare his/her city or state to be a “Sanctuary” given that this runs contrary to law, commonsense, morality and even the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that determined that multiple failures of the immigration system enabled foreign terrorists to enter the United States and then embed themselves in communities around the U.S.

A good place to start looking for the answer to that question can be found in the headline of a February 28, 2018 Breitbart news report, NY City Officials Hide Huge Workforce of Illegal Immigrants from ICE Enforcement.

Clearly sanctuary policies attract huge numbers of illegal aliens who entered the U.S. without inspection and often with the assistance of human traffickers- at great risk and expense, to seek illegal employment.

Employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens do so, not out of compassion, but out of greed.

Such unscrupulous employers hire illegal aliens because they know that these aliens will work for significantly substandard wages under substandard, indeed, often illegally hazardous working conditions. Exploitation is not a demonstration of compassion.

Alan Greenspan included in his prepared testimony at an April 30, 2009 Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform chaired by Sen. Schumer, the following:

Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.

Greenspan blithely neglected to note that “marginally suppressing wages” of those American workers all too often causes them to become homeless.

Furthermore, as was noted in the Breitbart article which focused on NYC,

The huge labor force of illegals has successfully kept food-industry wages extremely low, according to 2017 state data, despite the high cost of living in the city.

The report went on to state:

The taxpayers’ cost of this illegal immigration is high, partly because of the very low wages. In 2009, New York city’s support for illegal immigrants — including aid, education, housing — cost taxpayers roughly $9.5 billion, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

On December 6, 2007 the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) issued a report, The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments.

Cheap labor is anything but cheap and, as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a “free lunch.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

More than 56 per cent of crimes in German town are committed by asylum seekers

Syrian refugees sue landlord and feds over housing complaints

16 Blockchain Disruptions [Infographic]

April 28, 2018/in Economy, Policy, Regulation, Science/by Dr. Rich Swier

Blockchain technology is probably one of the most impactful discoveries in the recent history. After all, it has a massive potential to change how we handle online transactions. Despite some skeptics, the majority of experts agree that blockchain has the potential to disrupt the banking and financial industry, and many other ones!

But what is this technology exactly? We at BitFortune.net will try to explain that in Layman’s terms, as well as provide you with insights into how different industries can benefit from blockchain.

To put it simply, blockchain enables decentralized transactions across a P2P network. There is no need for a middleman, resulting in almost instantaneous operations and most importantly, low fees. Plus, transactions carried out through a blockchain are much more secure, transparent, and private.

As mentioned earlier, different industries will have different benefits from implementing blockchain technology, and that is what this infographic is all about. For example, the banking sector will get faster transactions, lower costs, improved security, and better record keeping. Also, the blockchain technology can improve electronic voting systems. With this technology integrated into a voting system, governments won’t be able to tamper with votes because blockchain creates publicly viewable and singed transaction that can’t be changed or rewritten.

This infographic will help you understand how the blockchain technology can and will improve 16 different industries, from music to government. So, read on and find out what their future will look like.

Act Now: Join Pro-gun Lawmakers Seeking Answers and Accountability from Anti-gun Banks

April 28, 2018/in Economy, Gun Rights, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by NRA Institute for Legislative Action

We recently reported on the disturbing trend of large U.S. banks – most notably Bank of America (BofA) and Citigroup – using their enormous market power to discriminate against customers based on lawful firearm-related business activities. These decisions were unabashedly prompted and lauded by anti-gun activists as political statements and social engineering, not as business decisions based on any alleged financial unsoundness or criminal activity of the affected customers. This feigned high-mindedness is particularly galling to gun-owning Americans whose billions of tax dollars helped bail out these financial behemoths after the banks’ reckless business practices brought their companies and the U.S. economy to the brink of disaster. Now, pro-gun members of Congress are demanding answers and accountability. You can do your part, too, by lodging your own complaints against the banks with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) led the way with a March 29, 2018 letter to Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat. Kennedy expressed “significant concerns” about the bank’s new policies and asked to be provided with “the specific number of entities in Louisiana which stand to lose banking services as a result of [Citigroup’s] increased scrutiny on law-abiding businesses.” He pointedly reminded the bank, “It feels like yesterday when Citi received nearly half a trillion dollars in taxpayer-backed guarantees and cash after putting the entire financial system at risk,” a move Kennedy called, “the largest government bailout in American history.” Kennedy encouraged Citigroup to be a good corporate citizen by refocusing on business decisions, including “addressing apparent shortcomings like overcharging credit card interest rates to account holders and compliance with U.S. anti-money laundering laws.”

Also joining the effort were 16 Congressmen led by Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN), who on April 11 wrote to Emily W. Murphy, head of the General Services Administration, asking her to reconsider a $700+ billion contract with Citigroup to help implement the federal charge card system, SmartPay 3. The letter noted that the bank’s new firearm policies “run counter to laws and regulations passed by Congress, and they infringe and discriminate against an individual’s Second Amendment rights.” Such policies, the signatories opined, “should not be endorsed by our federal government,” which instead should “do business with companies that respect all of our constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.” The letter urged the GSA to “take all necessary steps to review and terminate its contract with Citibank unless they rescind their guidelines … .”

The most recent action came from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. On April 25, Crapo sent letters to the CEOs of both BofA and Citigroup demanding answers about their recent anti-gun activity. “It is deeply concerning to me,” he wrote, “when large national banks … which receive significant forms of government support and benefits, use their market power to manage social policy by withholding access to credit to customers and companies they disfavor.”

Crapo also raised the issue of the banks’ collection of personally identifiable information (PII) and how it might be used “to monitor and deny financial services to individuals and companies who are engaging in completely legal and, in this case, Constitutionally-protected activity.” He additionally sought further information about the banks’ restrictive firearm policies and any other legal transactions, industries, and businesses they disfavor, prohibit, or boycott. “We should all be concerned if banks … seek to replace legislators and policymakers and attempt to manage social policy by limiting access to credit,” he concluded.

One way banking consumers concerned about BofA’s and Citigroup’s antigun discrimination can make their views known is to submit a complaint directly to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is an entity of the U.S. Government charged with “mak[ing] consumer financial markets work for consumers, responsible providers, and the economy as a whole.” Its mandates include “[r]ooting out unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices,” taking “consumer complaints,” and “[m]onitoring financial markets for new risks to consumers.”

Particularly useful would be complaints by any business or individual who was directly affected by the BofA’s or Citigroup’s new policies.

But every American adult likely uses or will need banking services to survive in the modern economy. Law-abiding gun owners have legitimate concerns about possible collusion and collective efforts between banks and/or banks and advocacy groups aimed at denying them services simply for exercising their rights under the U.S. Constitution and laws. These efforts also can create a hostile and chilling climate for the exercise of Second Amendment rights, particularly for those hoping to obtain financing for such things as home and auto purchases or running a small business. Once financial institutions take it upon themselves to set social policy that exceeds the requirements of the law, it’s impossible to know where they will stop or what other indicators of disfavored activity might become relevant to them. No American should be treated as a scapegoat for someone else’s crimes.

Complaints may be submitted directly through the CFPB’s website and will be forwarded to the banks themselves. Information on complaints may also be made publicly available so other consumers can evaluate for themselves whether the banks’ are behaving improperly and possibly share their own relevant experiences.

The NRA thanks Sens. Kennedy and Crapo and Rep. Rokita for their leadership in fighting discrimination against law-abiding gun owners.

EXPERT: Best hope for reforming U.S. Refugee Program is under President Trump

April 25, 2018/in Culture War, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Ann Corcoran

“I saw first-hand the flagrant abuses and scams that permeate the refugee program.” – Mary Doetsch, retired Foreign Service Officer

Will President Donald Trump and soon-to-be Secretary of State Pompeo, do what must be done and overhaul the USRAP?

Mary Doetsch is a retired U.S. State Department Foreign Service officer who spent eight years (of a 25-year career) as a Refugee Coordinator serving on four continents.

As someone who has worked on the inside, her op-ed at the Washington Examiner today carries more weight than anything I could ever write as an outsider looking in!

Entitled:

US refugee program needs a complete overhaul

Ms. Doetsch opines (emphasis is mine):

During my career in the State Department, I became a refugee coordinator in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or USRAP, because I wanted to help and support persecuted persons in legitimate need of international protection. But the pervasive fraud I saw during my eight years in the field was alarming.

It cries out for a fix, and President Trump might just be the person to do it.

Undoubtedly, many individuals who work within the refugee field have humanitarian aims. But refugee resettlement has morphed into a numbers-driven, financially motivated business, growing blindly at the expense of the American public and our national security.

There once was a time when private charities, civic groups and faith-based organizations provided the bulk of funds and volunteers to resettle and help assimilate refugees in the United States. Today’s deeply flawed system relies almost exclusively on nine federal contractors (paradoxically referred to as “Voluntary Agencies” or VOLAGS) to resettle refugees.

[….]

The contractors have a vested interest in processing ever-larger numbers of applicants, since they make money on every refugee settled. And as non-governmental organizations they can and do lobby for advantageous changes to law, something they could not do if they were government agencies. Their lobbying umbrella wields enormous influence over refugee admissions policy, pressuring Congress and the bureaucracy to increase admissions and provide ever greater funding. They stage political rallies, file lawsuits against unfavorable policies, and lobby for causes that coincidentally help their bottom lines, yet this linkage is rarely, if ever, mentioned.

This isn’t just important from the oft-discussed security perspective, but also because of the rampant fraud and abuse that has permeated this program for generations.

[….]

As a former Refugee Coordinator who served throughout the Middle East, Africa, Russia and Cuba, I saw first-hand the flagrant abuses and scams that permeate the refugee program. I witnessed widespread exploitation and misuse, from identity fraud to marriage and family relation scams, and from private individuals profiting from their involvement in USRAP to distortion of the actual refugee definition to ensure greater numbers of people who should really just be migrants are admitted as refugees.

[….]

While refugee admissions have been declining under the Trump administration, without structural reform in the USRAP these numbers could again skyrocket under a new administration more favorable to the refugee industry.

Midway into fiscal year 2018, fewer than a quarter of the 45,000 individuals proposed in the FY18 refugee ceiling have entered the country. This slow-down in admissions may reduce the problem of fraud, but it cannot be eliminated without a complete overhaul of the program.

I’ve only snipped a portion of Doetsch’s op-ed, click here to read it all.

What you can do….

Contact the White House and tell the President it is now or never to overhaul the US Refugee Admissions Program, or once out of office the program will go back in to high gear. Reducing numbers for a few years is not enough!

Add These Voter Fraud Cases to the Growing List

April 25, 2018/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Elections, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

Despite the lack of media coverage, evidence of election fraud continues to mount.

This week, The Heritage Foundation added 26 new entries to its election fraud database, bringing the searchable ledger to a total of 1,132 proven instances of election fraud. That includes 983 cases that ended in a criminal conviction, 48 that led to civil penalties, 79 where defendants were enrolled in a diversion program, and 22 cases of official or judicial findings of fraud.

Americans should be alarmed. These entries represent irrefutable evidence that fraud has impacted elections in 47 states, and across all levels of government.

Worse still, they are probably just the tip of America’s election fraud iceberg. The Heritage database is not comprehensive, so the actual volume of vote fraud is likely far higher. Exactly how much higher is anybody’s guess.

Many states lack the robust procedures needed to detect and prevent fraud, and many prosecutors opt not to pursue election fraud cases in favor of other priorities once an election is over.

So long as these circumstances remain unchanged, American elections will be vulnerable to those willing to put their own personal interests or political preferences ahead of the will of the voters.

Here are some examples of people doing just that, from the latest database entries.

Kevin Williams (aka, Kunlay Sodipo)

Kevin Williams, a Nigerian citizen and an illegal immigrant, voted illegally in both the 2012 and 2016 elections in St. Louis, Missouri. He also committed tax refund fraud to the tune of $12 million, employing a scheme using stolen IDs from public school employees, among other nefarious actions.

Williams had been deported in 1995 but illegally re-entered the United States in 1999. He pleaded guilty in 2017 and was sentenced to six and a half years (78 months) in prison for voting fraudulently, as well as other crimes including mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, and illegally re-entering the United States.

In addition to his prison sentence, he was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $889,712 to the Internal Revenue Service, and he faces deportation.

Miguel Valencia-Sandoval

Miguel Valencia-Sandoval, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, admitted that he paid $50,000 in March 2005 for the birth certificate of a Texas man, Ramiro Guerrero-Vasquez. Using that stolen identity, he resided in Champaign County, Illinois, for the past 11 years.

His false identity was discovered when he applied for a U.S. passport in 2012 and made a false statement claiming U.S. citizenship on the application. Further investigation revealed he also made a false claim of citizenship on a voter registration application and voted in elections in 2012, 2014, and 2016.

Valencia-Sandoval pleaded guilty in 2017 to five counts, four of which relate to voting while not a citizen. After spending a year in jail following his apprehension for trying to illegally re-enter the United States, he was sentenced to time served in January 2018. Afterward he will be deported back to Mexico.

Max Judson

Max Judson was convicted of election fraud and witness tampering related to the 2014 primary election in Indiana.

Judson admitted that while running as a candidate for the Sullivan County Council, he solicited someone he knew was not a resident of the district to cast an absentee ballot. He also admitted that when he realized he was being investigated, he attempted to intervene and deter the voter from communicating with law enforcement officials.

In 2017, Judson—who had been elected to the county council—pleaded guilty to two charges related to his election misconduct. He was sentenced to serve one year and one day in prison, one year of supervised release, and was ordered to pay a $500 fine. He was also forced to resign from his seat on the Sullivan County Council.

Harmful to Every American

As these cases should make clear, voter fraud is not, and ought not be treated as a partisan political issue. No one’s interests, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, are served by noncitizens casting fraudulent ballots, candidates for office cheating their way to victory, judges overturning elections because of falsified ballots, or any of the other schemes identified in the Heritage database.

Nor are anyone’s interests served by politicians and activists who deny that election fraud exists. Those who resist and obstruct even fact-finding efforts to discover the extent of the problem are doing America no favors. They may prefer to remain willfully blind to weaknesses and vulnerabilities in our system that strike at the very heart of our democracy, but the voters who are expected to trust the results of that system deserve better.

It is therefore incumbent on our elected leaders to take the issue of election fraud seriously, and guard against it. That includes adopting reasonable policies and procedures, like voter identification and proof of citizenship requirements, utilizing interstate cross-check programs to identify duplicate voters registered and casting ballots in multiple states, and routinely purging voter rolls of inaccurate and out-of-date entries to cut down on the potential for fraud.

It is long past time for states to take these steps. Sadly, until they do, Heritage’s election fraud database will continue to grow—and so will all the other fraud that remains hidden in the shadows.

COMMENTARY BY

Jason Snead

Jason Snead is a policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. Twitter: @jasonwsnead.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of a polling place is by JasonDoiy/Getty Images

The Defrauded Friar

April 24, 2018/in Culture War, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Tabitha Korol

Fr. Michael D. Calabria

Fr. Michael Calabria, a Franciscan Friar of Holy Name Province, is director of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at St. Bonaventure University. His extensive travels throughout the Islamic world and the subject matter of his broad list of speaking engagements and presentations appear to indicate that he has drifted from his original path.

The Founder of Calabria’s Order of Franciscans, St. Francis, similarly traveled into Islamic Egypt during the Fifth Crusade, in 1219, to meet with Sultan Malik al-Kamil in a courageous, but naïve, attempt to evangelize. He had undoubtedly been shown the censored version of Islam and returned impressed with the frequency of Islamic prayers, their 99 names in praise of God, and their reverence of bowing to the ground, and he adopted the Order’s devotionals accordingly. Unfortunately, he had not been told that devout Muslim spirituality was largely practiced under threat of the sword. In 1220, five friars were martyred in Morocco, and more were slaughtered in later centuries. In 1291, Franciscans left the Holy Land when Acre, the last Crusader stronghold, fell. Fr. Calabria is also bewitched by a mythical Islam.

He is scheduled to speak as an apologist for Islam this summer at the Chautauqua Institute, in New York State. Founded as a Christian institution in 1874, there is a current Jewish presence, and the Institute’s Department of Religion began inviting a series of lecturers about Islam in the mid-1990s, with the aim of reaching its nearly 150,000 annual visitors. Calabria will be yet another of many speakers invited to woo the unwary audience into esteeming the misrepresented Islam.

In past lectures and on his website, Calabria managed to compose a non-violent version of Mohammed’s hijra (journey) to Mecca and Medina, never divulging the Islamic leader’s beheading of as many as 900 Jews, sexual enslavement of the women and children, and demands of jizya (protection money) from the surviving Christians The methods used by Islam to conquer the non-Islamic world continue unchanged to this day, with intolerance and invasion, rape, seizure and slaughter throughout Africa, into Europe and the Americas. Yet, Calabria presents a sanitized picture of the prophet, and encourages Christians to offer hospitality and friendship to the alleged oppressed Muslims, and to guarantee their freedom and safety, united against injustices.

Furthermore, he will repeat verbatim Islam’s own false claims of astounding achievements. As I noted in my 2015 reply to aspiring presidential candidate Carly Fiorina’s erroneous treatise about Islam on the Hewlett-Packard site, the self-styled “Islamic arches” were already Roman, Byzantine, Persian, Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek. The vaulted and hemispherical ceilings were invented by non-Muslim Romans. The first numerical system was developed by Babylonians, 800 years before Islam. The misnamed “Arabic numerals” were adopted from the Hindus, in India. Arab scientists were largely Jews who were forcibly converted. Arabic philosophers and scientists were Jewish and Berber survivors of massacres. Arab astronomers were inspired by the great physician, Isaac Israel of Kairouan; and the greatest of “Arab” scientists, Avicenna (980-1037), was probably of Jewish origin from Bokhara. Their astronomers used instruments, such as the astrolabe, to facilitate world-girdling sea voyages, but created by a “remarkable Jewish genius,” Mashala of Mosul; their astronomical tables were created by the Jewish Joseph ben Wallar at Toledo, and by Judaic specialists, including Immanuel ben Jacob in Aragon.

The sincere, but deluded, Calabria asserts that Muslims played a positive part of American society for more than a century when, in fact, the part they played was that of Barbary corsairs These were Ottoman pirates known as the Scourge of the Mediterranean, whose raids and invasions had strangled world trade, caused economic disaster, and stopped shipments of papyrus to create a decline in writing, literacy and books written – the crucial cause of the European Dark Ages. For centuries they had been capturing European merchant ships and holding for ransom or enslaving their crews. When they began attacking American ships after the end of the American Revolution, and diplomatic talks failed, US President Thomas Jefferson, in 1798, formed the United States Department of the Navy in order to end the attacks, tributes and ransoms paid and to protect our commerce. Such has been the real Islamic contribution to Western civilization.

Regarding slavery, it had been the Muslims themselves who forcibly kidnapped their co-religionists, as many as 11 million Black (Muslim) slaves, the men being trafficked for harsh labor, the women primarily for sexual slavery. Taken from their African homelands and sold into Europe and South and Central America for great profit (only 5 percent came to the United States), the traders were prepared to deal with the journeys’ high mortality rate (between 80 and 90 percent), and still be confident of sufficient financial gain.

Native-born American Muslims are mainly African Americans, many converted to Islam during the last 70 years Although an estimated 10 to 30 percent of the slaves did arrive as Muslims, their adherence was suppressed on plantations, but the non-enslaved Muslims in North America were merchants, travelers and sailors, from the 16th and 17th c. Ottoman and Mughal Empires. Their increased number today is a result of the recent influx of migrants, following the Koranic commands of conquest by invasion (al-hijra) and breeding (al-wilada). Nearly 96,000 became legal residents in 2005, with another 115,000 in 2009. While world population may increase by 32 percent, Muslims are predicted to increase by 70 percent. Their supposedly rich history remains undefined, their beneficial contributions to mankind undetermined, but Calabria remains convinced of an Islam that exists in the imagination only.

Contrary to his ardent claim of Islam’s wellspring of contributions, the “Muslim genius” appears to be their unique ability to invade and feign victimhood, to insinuate their laws into the host country and protest discrimination, to force civilizations to relinquish their treasured mandates of truth and freedom, to convince a world of a non-existent history, to receive unending entitlements and support, and to contribute nothing beneficial and to destroy their host culture while declaring provenance over every field of endeavor. Fr. Calabria has strayed from the original path and walks in Mohammed’s shoes.

Gorsuch Defends the Rule of Law in Immigration Case

April 19, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, Immigration, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by The Daily Signal

If you take anything away from Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s so-called “liberal” bloc in an immigration case this week, it should be his continued faithfulness to the rule of law and the separation of powers.

In Sessions v. Dimaya, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court’s opinion—joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and in part by Gorsuch—holding that part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which defines a “crime of violence” for purposes of removal proceedings, is unconstitutionally vague.

Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion expressing concerns about how vague laws can lead to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power.

Some media outlets and noted conservatives have suggested that Gorsuch’s opinion is surprising or misguided, ruling with the liberal justices and against the Trump administration. For example, a New York Post headline reads, “Gorsuch Sides With Liberal Justices in Supreme Court Immigration Vote.” And Mark Levin tweeted, “Gorsuch blows it, big time.”

Whatever you think of any immigration policies or other issues surrounding this case, one thing is clear: Gorsuch faithfully applied fundamental constitutional principles and upheld the rule of law.

In many ways, Gorsuch also carried on Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy.

Consider what the law in this case required, and what Gorsuch wrote.

The Immigration and Nationality Act

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, any alien who is convicted of an “aggravated felony” in the United States is subject to deportation, regardless of their ties to the country. Congress defined “aggravated felony” by a long list of specific offenses and offense types (at 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)), one of which is “a crime of violence” punishable by imprisonment for at least one year.

Congress defined “crime of violence” elsewhere, in 18 U. S. C. §16, in part by stating that it includes any felony “that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

Only that provision, known as the residual clause, was at issue in this case.

But in order to figure out which convictions trigger that residual clause, the court assesses the presence of “substantial risk” by looking not at the facts of the case, or the elements of the crime, but to “the ‘nature of the offense’ generally speaking,” and asks this: Does “‘the ordinary case’ of [this] offense pose[] the requisite risk”?

Immigration judges held that James Dimaya, a Philippine native and lawful permanent resident, is deportable because he was convicted—twice—of first-degree burglary under California law. The government sought to remove Dimaya after his second conviction, and immigration judges found that first-degree burglary counts as a “crime of violence” under federal law.

Dimaya appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the “residual clause” is unconstitutionally vague.

The 9th Circuit relied in part on Johnson v. United States, a 2015 opinion that the Supreme Court published while Dimaya’s appeal was pending.

In Johnson, the court struck down part of the definition of “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act on vagueness grounds.

That law increased the sentence of a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm if he had three or more previous “violent felony” convictions, which includes any felony that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”

Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court in that case, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Scalia concluded that the residual clause left “grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime,” and further “uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify as a violent felony.” Rather than make up those aspects of the law himself, Scalia chose instead to send Congress back to the drawing board.

For that, Scalia’s opinion advanced the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Gorsuch’s Concurring Opinion

In his concurring opinion this week in Dimaya, Gorsuch provided thorough reasoning for a narrow conclusion: that “to the extent it requires an ‘ordinary case’ analysis, the portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act before us fails the fair notice test for the reasons Justice Scalia identified in Johnson.”

Gorsuch’s concern in Dimaya was, like Scalia’s in Johnson, a fundamentally conservative one: hostility to vague laws and arbitrary power.

Gorsuch wrote that “vague laws … can invite the exercise of arbitrary power … by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.” Gorsuch explained:

[T]he Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows.

Gorsuch gave the following examples of the confusion that results from the “ordinary case analysis”:

Does a conviction for witness tampering ordinarily involve a threat to the kneecaps or just the promise of a bribe? Does a conviction for kidnapping ordinarily involve throwing someone into a car trunk or a noncustodial parent picking up a child from daycare? These questions do not suggest obvious answers.

Because the statute “leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate,” Gorsuch wrote, “the Constitution demands more.”

And Gorsuch explained exactly why that is.

Looking to history, Gorsuch cited early American court cases and turned to the Federalist Papers for the principle that “[w]ithout an assurance that the laws supply fair notice, so much else of the Constitution risks becoming only a ‘parchment barrie[r]’ against arbitrary power.”

And Gorsuch discussed exactly how vague laws might jeopardize other constitutional rights.

“Take the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause,” Gorsuch wrote, “and consider what would be left of that requirement if the alleged crime had no meaningful boundaries.”

Finally, Gorsuch observed precisely how vague criminal laws undermine the separation of powers.

Only Congress may enact law, but if Congress writes vague statutes, Gorsuch wrote, then it leaves judges, prosecutors, and police “free to ‘condem[n] all that [they] personally disapprove and for no better reason than [they] disapprove it.’”

Thus, to “keep the separate branches within their proper spheres,” Gorsuch wrote, is “the more important aspect” of the vagueness doctrine.

And that is the most important aspect of Gorsuch’s opinion in Dimaya.

To judge how individual justices vote in particular cases in relation to one another, without regard to the substance of their opinions, unjustifiably politicizes the judiciary.

Dimaya is interesting not because of how the justices voted in relation to one another, but because of how the justices—especially Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas—debated legal history and precedent, and did so respectfully.

Yes, the other conservative justices all dissented. Roberts dissented, joined by Thomas and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito, arguing that, unlike the law in Johnson, the statute at issue in this case was not vague.

Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, joined by Kennedy and Alito, challenging Gorsuch on the merits of the vagueness doctrine.

And yes, Gorsuch’s opinion is not what the government hoped for in this case.

The government had pointed to the executive’s “considerable constitutional authority” in immigration and foreign affairs but, as Gorsuch wrote, “to acknowledge that the president has broad authority to act in this general area supplies no justification for allowing judges to give content to an impermissibly vague law.”

Now, Congress can go back to the drawing board and draft a more precise law.

Gorsuch’s opinion has explained why that is a job for Congress, echoing his prior statements on the role of the judge: “to put aside their personal politics and preferences to decide cases and to follow the law and not try and make it.”

And by echoing Scalia’s opinion in Johnson, this case also illustrates how Gorsuch carries Scalia’s legacy.

COMMENTARY BY

John-Michael Seibler

John-Michael Seibler is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @JSeibler.

EDITORS NOTE: The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now. The featured image of Justice Neil Gorsuch is by Oliver Contreras/Sipa USA/Newscom.

Parkland Student Plans Conservative Livestream on Columbine Anniversary [April 20, 2018]

April 19, 2018/in Culture War, Gun Rights, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by The Daily Signal

Conservative Parkland student Kyle Kashuv is organizing a pro-Second Amendment Facebook Live show on the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting.

Kashuv, 16, tweeted that the goal is to “discuss ways to save lives without infringing on [the Second Amendment] and the importance of mental health and not bullying.”

Confirmed speakers for the livestream so far include Sebastian Gorka, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump; Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA; Anthony Scaramucci, former White House communications director; and Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union.

Originally, Kashuv planned to bring Kirk to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Friday for a discussion of the Second Amendment.

However, the school blocked Kirk from coming on the grounds that “non-school sponsored, student-initiated guest speaker assemblies/meetings are not permitted to take place on campus,” according to a spokeswoman with Broward school district, reported the Sun Sentinel.

Kirk spoke to “Fox & Friends” Sunday about his intended message, had he been allowed to speak in Florida.

“My mission would not have been to offend. I did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but instead … here’s what really troubles me. Ever since that horrific shooting, the national conversation predominantly from students from that school has been about gun confiscation, about taking people’s guns away,” he said.

Kirk went on to say that conversations about the law enforcement failures at state and local levels are important to address, even though the left wants to stay focused on gun control.

Another Parkland student, David Hogg, is promoting a walkout Friday.

COMMENTARY BY

Ginny Montalbano

Ginny Montalbano is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Ginny. Twitter: @GinnyMontalbano.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Kyle Kashuv and Patrick Petty, both Parkland survivors, hugging outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on March 13. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch /UPI/Newscom). The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Out With the Old Tax Code, in With the New

April 17, 2018/in Economy, Policy, Regulation, Taxes/by The Daily Signal

Say your fond farewells, because this April marks the last year you will have to pay your taxes under the old tax code.

Next year, when you sit down to file your taxes for 2018, you and your family will send less of your paychecks to Washington.

In 2018, the average American will work the first 109 days of the year to earn enough money to pay their full tax bill. This year, thanks to tax reform, we will work three fewer days to pay our taxes than last year. That’s three more days of income you and your family get to keep for yourself.

Each year, the Tax Foundation calculates Tax Freedom Day—the day we are able to begin working for ourselves and our families, rather than Washington. Mark your calendars, Tax Freedom Day 2018 is April 19.

The Treasury Department estimates that next year, about nine out of 10 Americans will have larger paychecks thanks to lower tax rates, a larger standard deduction, and an increased child tax credit. But everyone wants to know exactly how the new tax code will help them, personally.

Luckily, Heritage Foundation research fellow Rachel Greszler crunched the numbers. Here are some examples.

Tom Wong, a single teacher making $50,000, just finished filing his 2017 taxes and paid $5,474 in federal income taxes for 2017. Next year, he can expect to pay $1,104 less to the federal government. His marginal tax rate dropped from 25 percent to 12 percent.

Under the old tax code, John and Sarah Jones, a married couple with combined earnings of $75,000, three children, and a home mortgage, just finished calculating that they will pay $1,753 this year. Next year when they file their taxes, their federal income tax bill will decline by $2,014. In fact, because of the larger $2,000 child tax credit, they will get a refundable credit of $261.

Now that the political rhetoric has subsided, it is clear that families across America can expect a sizable tax cut when they file their taxes next year.

Tax reform did more than cut personal income taxes. It was designed to boost the economy by making it easier for businesses to hire Americans and invest in the United States. The early evidence shows that tax reform is indeed contributing to more new jobs and higher wages for working Americans.

More than 450 companies to date have announced bonuses, pay raises, and better benefits—including American Airlines, AT&T, Bank of America, and Comcast. Americans for Tax Reform is keeping a running list here.

Fiat Chrysler announced it will move some of its manufacturing plants in Mexico back to the United States, invest more than $1 billion in Detroit, and add 2,500 new jobs.

A small Wichita business gave each of the company’s five employees bonuses,ranging from $4,000 to $6,000. Meanwhile, tech giant Apple announced it will invest $350 billion and add 20,000 employees in the U.S. over the next five years.

New lower tax rates for businesses and individuals have made the U.S. competitive again and given Americans much-needed tax relief. For tax reform to succeed, however, Washington must constrain federal spending to reduce pressures to raise taxes in the future.

The true measure of taxes is not what we pay, but what the government spends. If you include 2018’s federal borrowing, Tax Freedom Day—or more aptly, Spending Freedom Day—is 17 days later, on May 6.

Every American who just received a tax cut should be a newly minted deficit hawk. Congress made many of the tax cuts temporary, so without serious spending reforms, there will be continued pressure to let taxes rise again.

To solidify the gains of tax reform, Congress must make the existing tax cuts permanent and bring spending under control. Phase 2 of tax reform is nonnegotiable.

For now, we can bid adieu to the old tax system and welcome 2018 with lower taxes and a healthier economy.

COMMENTARY BY

Adam Michel

Adam Michel focuses on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @adamnmichel.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by DNY59/Getty Images.